Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

Nice article about how a socialist island sunk in an ocean of capitalists .
The first prerequisite of socialism is the absence of a government , why do we have to go back in that again ?

About capitalism "creating wealth" : i think in Romania there is the word "Vibuti" and it describes a gray dust that appears out of nothing during the use of magic .

from : Bloomberg

from: Daily Finance

At least Vibuti is a substance the "capitalist wealth" is just numbers in the computers that they exist just because the ruling class agree that they exist .

 

No Daniel, YOU are missing the point, by insisting "being moral enough to bear true witness to our own (social) laws regarding employment at will, in a truer welfare-State.' actually would occur any more in a socialist/welfare state. It simply does not hold that human behavior is any more moral in one economic system than in any other. IE YOU HAVE NO POINT.

Baloney!

Full employment could be said to exist when the natural rate of unemployment reaches less than one percent.[/quote] Most economists, including those who follow the socialist paradigm claim it is closer to 4% or 5%.

As long as you understand "your ideal" could never happen with socialism as socialist economies do not increase prosperity for anyone but the leaders; everyone else will take a back seat and lose wealth; to the point that the economy will collapse.

 

No economy can survive the vacuum created by lack of a government. Communism/socialism is a no win situation for everyone, mostly for labor. Elevating the worker in socialism/communism is a pipe dream perpetrated by people who are jousting for power. As one of the worlds most renowned economists said, "Every socialist is a disguised dictator. Mises"

Capitalism is the most wealth increasing economic system ever theorized and then put into practice. Socialism/communism have been dismal failures everywhere it is tried.

They exist because more people achieve prosperity with capitalism and better standards of living under capitalism than socialism/communism and it is the only system which creates enough prosperity such that social programs can be funded. That sir is a fact. You are touting a dismally failing system.

BTW, neither of the links you provided suggest anything other than that "the derivatives" market should be better regulated and there is nothing at either source which suggests socialism/communism would increase the prosperity of any country.....except for the leadership of either of those dismally failed economic systems.

 

You mention not being good at providing better living conditions for the poor. You are correct in a way, but I think that LIBERALISM, which keeps getting elected back into govt and counteracting the natural flow of Capitalism (aka freedom-centered economic system), is what stands in the way of that.
Don't make me explain, it's too much typing. If you don't agree with me, I'll just have to live with that.

 

Of course not. Anyone believing in an absence of government is either drug-influenced, has a chemical imbalance in the brain, or has severe psychological issues.

Depending on what they mean by govt. of course.

However, we can live with a very SMALL govt. (and I wish we would)

 

I believe that most government should be at the state and local level with the federal government sizing down to be what our founding fathers believed it should be; as specified in the 9th and 10th amendments of the US constitution.

 

It may be about being able to muster up enough social morals for free, to become better Angels on Earth who have not the need, for the Expense of Government.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you believe in moral failures in public policy decisions?

I subscribe to the theory of demand and supply and the assumption of full employment of resources in any given market.

 

Daniel, man is man, and man tends to want freedom, not oppression. Angels on Earth are a subject for the next life, not here on earth.

Actually I don't, but mind you moral failures will take place where ever man is in what ever type of economic system there is, to include socialism. One slight caveat to that, after any length of time in an oppressive government like socialism requires to keep the people in line will bring out the revolution in man.

Which has nothing to do with socialism any more than capitalism, except in capitalism there is more prosperity for everyone.

 

You forget that it is only irrelevant for more specialized Capitalism that it is for more generalized Socialism; socialism includes Government not just market based economies.

Socialism is like Capitalism plus more.

 

Nope, I didn't forget anything. Capitalism also includes government in addition to market based economies. Governments are essential to any economic system to insure protection of personal property, personal liberty, freedom of religion, national security, diplomacy with other states etc.

Wrong! Socialism is no more like capitalism that fascism is like democracy. Socialism has none of the good features of capitalism (wealth creation) and huge down side which capitalism does not have. (oppressive government) Socialism cannot exist without oppressive government.

 

The historical track record of socialism, when set against capitalism, is poor. Theory is not worth much if observation and practice don't bear it out.

 

Exactly! Socialism/communism has been a dismal failure where ever it has been tried. Socialism is ALWAYS a short time endeavor because the high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers and malingerers; and the oppressive government socialism/communism requires to keep the people in line.

 

Skeptic-f, Just recently in another thread, when I said, " high achievers get tired of supporting the low achievers and malingerers," I got a response which said "in socialism/communism there are no malingerers or low achievers, there were just humans." I almost spit my coffee onto my keyboard. Only a quick reflexive move to turn my head did I manage to miss the keyboard. I wonder their these guys get so much horse manure in spite of historical evidence to the contrary of their theories.

 

Any "command" economy can create markets. A social Contract may dictate the limits of the delegated authority in a social Contract. A respect for rights in private property is one example.

Capitalism doesn't include Government; to the extent any market based economy requires the socialism of Government, it is a social government not a capital government.

In the US, our Founding Fathers had the Wisdom, to only Ordain and Establish, sufficient socialism to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

Yet in true socialism all property is either that of the government or the community; not private property.

All systems of economics include government Daniel, for many functions. In a government which exists in a capitalist economic system the government insures that private enterprise and business can exist and be protected. Your suggestion that Capitalism does not need government or that Socialism doesn't need government is absurd.

That was not socialism, it was standard government business. And the debts that our government pays is from revenue raised from the prosperity created by capitalism.

A friend said while chatting, in his opinion, "the poor would like to have our economic system change to socialist." When I asked why did he think that, since socialism does not increase wealth. He said, "oh, but the poor will soon get a lot of company with whom to get depressed.

 

It must be socialism if it relies on a social contract and the coercive use of force of a State; simply because capitalism requires voluntary transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.

In any case, we have a Mixed market economy that combines socialism and capitalism.

 

Nope! Social programs are not socialism. And all forms of economic systems require government for law and order and physical security/defense.

Nope! Regulated capitalism with social programs is not socialism.

Ludwig von Mises - Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.​

 

If, social programs do not, socialism make, then why do you believe capital programs make capitalism?

 

Am I wrong, or are many people in here mixing socialism, socialized programs through the government offered through redistribution of wealth, and Capitalism, something that is conducted between those in the free market? Thus, you cannot have a Socialist Market and a Capitalist Government. The government is supposed to be a Democratic Republic, which emphasizes "Individualism." Individualism and Capitalism fall hand in hand based on the opportunity that individuals or consenting groups have to make money off of their own capital. Socialism could not be a market factor unless the government forces itself into the market through redistribution (which is clearly does). But socialism does not enhance the idea of individualism, or personal property, like a Republic means to do.

Socialism promotes the idea of Collectivism, which is why it is so closely related to all the examples of how Communist and Fascist governments had operated. Its the European model as far as I'm concerned, and these ideas were most strongly held in Europe east and west. We deal with them now through over taxation, over reliance on productive people to support unproductive people, and under-reliance of the rule of law and allowing natural consequences to occur through the court systems etc.. All these aspects of US life point in the direction of Socialism. Many criticize problems in the US based on Capitalism, but if you look at the trend, we have left a classical American ideal in favor of a more European model which promotes Collectivism. This is a good video explaining the similarities:

And don't write it off because it was filmed by InfoWars, G. Edward Griffin really knows his stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU

 

Also I might add, the idea of "Corporatism" that has jumped up lately is just another way of explaining the impedance Collectivist governmental policies have on a Capitalism Market. Being able to pick the winners and losers is a consequence of allowing central planners to play with the economy. Too many people get caught up between over regulation or under regulation. The fact seems to point that the government is not very good at central planning in the first place. Maybe because it is designed to be bad at it? Many rightly assume that central planning would be much easier if there was no congress BS, no court silliness. Yes of course, a dictator is the end-all central planning model. So it is hard for me to think that anyone who agrees with more taxes, more central planning, and more governmental management of the economy does not all mind the idea of Dictatorship.

 

From my perspective and in that alternative, socialism is a requirement for States and Statism to exist; it is merely an evolution from Capitalism but incorporates capitalism for ease of Commerce and that form of voluntary social transaction.

Thus, why we have a mixed market economy that is part socialism and part capitalism for better division of labor.

- - - Updated - - -

From my perspective and in that alternative, socialism merely requires a social Contract to exist. What is the similar rationale and analogy for the Expense of Government, for Capitalism.

 

What is a capital program?

Capitalism is an economic system of free enterprise whereas production and distribution is privately owned. Socialism is a system of centrally planned economics whereas production, distribution and wealth is owed or controlled by the government. The mere fact that capitalism creates enough wealth to fund social programs while socialist economic systems tend to reduce over all wealth and eventually the system runs out of funds.

 

Until the government owns and controls production, distribution and wealth there is no socialism, period.

Ludwig von Mises Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism.​

 

I left out the "OR"

 

From a social Contract perspective, in the US (in comparison to other social Contracts); sufficient limitation on Socialism to better allow Capitalism to flourish.