Which Social Economic System is superior, in comparison to the others? Why? The three basic economic systems,as known, being capitalism, communism, and socialism. I'm aware the majority of the bulk of responses are strong personal opinion. Facts and past examples to support your opinion, is suggested. What characteristics of this system make it superior? :m:

Capitalism: only the rich and healty have a good life but no time to enjoy it. Most people struggle.

Socalism: equality and a government that cares.

Communism: Have never seen a proper communist economic system

Capitalism: only the rich and healty have a good life but no time to enjoy it. Most people struggle.

Didn't you forget the middle-class? Those people seem to have enough time and money to do everything and buy everything ...in fact, the middle-class basically supports all of the other classes and still has time and money to go to the movies and buy all of the damned goods in town!


Socalism: equality and a government that cares.

Equality? A government that cares? When did those two ever happen?? In fact, to my way of thinking, government and caring should never be used in the same sentence!! And has there ever been a successful socialist system?

Baron Max

It is a waste of time to argue this issue. With very few exceptions, those who back the various systems have faith based beliefs in their favorite political scheme. They almost all suspend their critical judgment capabilities (assuming they have any) and ignore any evidence from history.

Which works best depends on which outcome you want.

Which works best depends on which outcome you want.

Well, even that's not so simple. "Works best" by whose determination? And "works best" for whom?

Just the very term "works best" can be debated here until the cows come home ...perhaps longer!

Baron Max

Communism is the best, but I can also stick with socialism.

Reformed socialism is the best. Well, remember it’s a combination of the two other systems. Sapiens are a group oriented organism so you need communism, and man is greedy so you need capitalism. The way to do this is to establish quotas on how much people and corporations can have in assets at any given time, all excess profits reinvested into the society's welfare by law. I have observed that the problem with many economic scenarios is how to evenly distribute wealth; it’s also the reason for severe poverty. In the U.S and many other countries the wealthiest 9% are capable of paying the taxes of every body else two years in a row. If quotas are implemented people will also find happiness in what they do. So the question now is who is to implement and administrate this quotas right? My far out idea is to build a single military state like those of Sparta of Greece, where all major weapons of the world will be kept. A place where it’s residents will be military men, women, and children only. This will also solve the problem of major wars and conflicts, a good thing because wealth today is usually synonymous with muscle power in many parts of the world. In fact if you look at the history of civilization wealthy nations have at one point in time invaded and influenced other provinces unilaterally. I also favor specialization. I believe your nationality should be based on your idea and aspirations. We should have geographic continents and nationality based on their specializing, such as manufacturing, nations specializing in services, philosophers and theologists, earth and astrological studies, animal and game reservatory, mathematics and science, and building and engineering, the earlier mentioned military, and even athletes and entertainers. Each group with it’s own reformed socialist economy, government and constitution. By the time these groups of people are grouped together civilization will get further in time and due to their great dependence on each other wars and conflicts will be subdued, in fact the only conflict you will have is breeding right, which can be settled in courts. So if I had a son and he wants to be a pilot he would apply for a service nation’s citizenship. These are my ideas. Otherwise we can continue to live in the meaningless sloth world of superficial, meaningless, and unconstructive differences, catapulting and propagating uncertain hopes and false promises.

Capitalism: only the rich and healty have a good life but no time to enjoy it. Most people struggle.
The rich have no time to enjoy it? What are you talking about? They do have quite a bit of time to enjoy it! Like... damn! Put $1,000,000 in a perpetuity today with an interest of around 10% compunded monthly and you never need to work again! You can enjoy life as much as you want!


Socalism: equality and a government that cares.
True.


Communism: Have never seen a proper communist economic system
Hehehe....... :D

Yaba Daba! :m:

Didn't you forget the middle-class?
Eh? What is that? :D


Those people seem to have enough time and money to do everything and buy everything ...in fact, the middle-class basically supports all of the other classes and still has time and money to go to the movies and buy all of the damned goods in town!
In which world do you live in?
Oh wait! Is the fabrication in your mind that your country is actually developed....!!:rolleyes:


Equality? A government that cares? When did those two ever happen?? In fact, to my way of thinking, government and caring should never be used in the same sentence!! And has there ever been a successful socialist system?
Have you ever heard of the Human Development Index...? :rolleyes:
If you look at the list, socialist countries are all at the top...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


Dumbass capitalist........

Which works best depends on which outcome you want.


Well, even that's not so simple. "Works best" by whose determination? And "works best" for whom?

Just the very term "works best" can be debated here until the cows come home ...perhaps longer!

He was saying exactly what you're quibbling.

Say you want economic outcome X, burdening people Y & Z while elevating K. In which case you choose economic system P with elements J & L.

By the way, absolute capitalism leads to monopolistic enterprise and imperfect competition. This in turn causes a terribly inefficient market and everyone loses.

A little bit of socialism supports the middle class.

all nations have mixed economies differing only on the degree of mix

yup, indeed. there is no such thing as a truly free market. etc etc.
A little bit of socialism helps cushion people against the frigid winds of global capitalism, where randomness and constant change happen.

The following is a myth supported by no historical data.
By the way, absolute capitalism leads to monopolistic enterprise and imperfect competition. This in turn causes a terribly inefficient market and everyone loses.

The following is a myth supported by no historical data.
That's true. With monopoly not everyone loses. The big monopolist pigs win- they get almost everything.... :rolleyes:

That's true. With monopoly not everyone loses. The big monopolist pigs win- they get almost everything...

Name a few where that's occured in history ...and show that the monopolists "got almost everything" (and others/workers got little or nothing). I'm just curious about your source of evidence for that claim.

Baron Max

You should not post such statements without any supporting evidence. Truthseeker: With monopoly not everyone loses. The big monopolist pigs win- they get almost everything....


Roman: By the way, absolute capitalism leads to monopolistic enterprise and imperfect competition. This in turn causes a terribly inefficient market and everyone loses.While I have heard such claims many times, I have yet to see any historical evidence supporting them.

Can you folks support your claims or admit that you are wrong? If you are like most who post here, there is no chance for the latter. I have occasionally admitted being wrong at this site, but I have yet to see anybody else do so. I suppose there have been somebody else admitting to error, but I never noticed such an admission.

I always thought that the steel barons etc in the USA in the late 19th century were good examples of monopolistic enterprises. It is true that they got their monoplies partly by use of criminal tactics, but hey, thats just business, right?

Then theres medieval and such guilds. They were useful as quality control measures, but could also keep goods expensive by restricting entry into the particular trade. Or licences were granted by the King to certain people to trade in certain products, so that these people had the monopoly and therefore could charge more than if anyone could trade in the product.

Anyway, one has to ask what has happened to the software market? Does MS have a monopoly in it? If so, how do you explain it?

The so called robber barons actually were not the devils everyone makes them out to be. They tended to take some segment of the market previously only touched by the rich and expanded it across the country, dropping prices along the way so as to let even the middle class or the poor make use of it.

Tell me: Has microsoft kept raising prices so that only the elite can have computers? Is Walmart making shopping harder on you?

While I have heard such claims many times, I have yet to see any historical evidence supporting them.
What!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What the hell!?!? Have you ever studied economics? Have you EVER analized a graph of monopoly or monopolistic competition!?! Like... what do you want me to do? Post the damn graph!?!?

Like.... examples?

In one word: oil.

Another word: Money Mart.

Or what about TELUS?
(bunch of bastards......:mad: )

Ted Kaczynski had it right: both Capitalism and Communism are industrial society and based on mass revolt, and are inherently destructively.

Only traditional societies are true!!!

Yeah. Lets go pick the lice off each other, have some of that leftover carabou bob killed monday, and go raid the neighboring tribe for its women.

Most monopolies have positive aspects due to efficiency, job creation, production of worthwhile goods & services, et cetera. It should be recognized that there are monopolies which are called coercive because they use predatory tactics. The latter type should be avoided, although in the absence of criminal tactics, control of a monopoly can be a cure that is worse than the disease.

The historical record shows several types of monopolies.In United States, there have been various monopolies established by government action. Examples are the Western railroads in the 19th century and various utilities established in the 20th century. The Western railroads were considered coercive by many sociologist/economists, which I think is a valid assessment of at least some of them (if not all).


Various companies ran factory towns and were viewed as monopolistic because they had control over their employees. Some took advantage of the workers, but did not cause problems for customers and competitors due to not being true monopolies. Continental Motors in Muskegon, Michigan was an example of such a company which treated its employees badly. The Hershey Company in Hershey, PA is an example of a very generous company who treated employees much better than most companies. Automobiles, various forms of public transportation, and better communications did away with this type of what might be called a local monopoly.


Local situations which occurred in small towns where political power used zoning or other laws to protect some small companies. I have only second information about such situations. For example: A small town with one drug store was once described to me. The store was owned by a family which included the mayor and chief of police. No other drug store was permitted to operate, and drugs were sold at outrageous prices. I do not know if the story was true, but it seems plausible. Once again this is not a true monopoly. Such situations (if they existed) were similarly ended by better transportation and communication.


Companies which have superior marketing skills, which produce excellent products, and perhaps were a bit lucky have established very good approximations to true monopolies. IBM had over 90% of the punched card business by about 1945 or 1950. They parlayed this into control of a huge segment of the mainframe computer market. Microsoft also seems to be a good approximation to a true monopoly with respect to operating systems, and are doing pretty good with other types of software, especially software development tools. Neither of thes two companies seem to me to be doing anything evil or damaging. Their employees have generally been well paid and their customers have been provided with excellent products at fair prices.


I have heard Standard Oil and various other companies erroneously described as monopolies. In the case of Standard Oil, it had over 90% of the petroleum business at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However in that era, petroleum products were primarily used as heating fuels. Wood and coal had about 60% of the market. Note that there few automobiles and little industrial use of petroleum products, which today are used extensively in the plastics and other industries.Except for local monopolies & the Western railroads as noted above, I know of no truly coercive monopolies, and most of the monopolies that have existed have been due to government policies & laws relating to the transportation and utility industries. Monopolies like IBM & Microsoft have not caused hardships for anybody but their competitors. Furthermore, there have been few examples of such monopolies.

Most of the hue and cry about the evil robber barons, sweat shops, terrible labor practices, et cetera are due to comparing early capitalism with modern times rather than with the feudal system it replaced.

Yes, people worked hard for long hours and little pay during the industrial revolution. However, compare the productivity of a blacksmith of the 17th to 19th centuries with the productivity of a modern factory worker operating an upset forging machine which can produce 100 or more high grade bolts or other forged products per hour.

If the early so called robber baron ran his company as a non profit organization, maybe he could pay his workers 55 cents per day instead of 50 cents per day. It sounds terrible when you describe this worker as laboring for 10-12 hours per day heating iron/steel in an open furnace beating metal into an open die with a hammer. When you hear that he was paid less than a dollar a day, it sounds even more outrageous. Note that he was a willing worker, not a medieval serf or slave. He was paid about what his labor was worth. Comparing him with a 20th century factory worker instead of with a feudal serf or slave results in an unfair appraisal of both the robber baron and the capitalistic system of the era.

Find a reprint of a Sears Roebuck catalogue from about 1900. That catalogue was used by the average worker of the era. They could afford the items offered for sale. Consider the life of the factory worker at the beginning of the 20th century and compare it to the life of the serf of the middle ages. Compare it to the life of some of those more well off than the serfs.

Remember that labor unions, regulatory laws, and various social programs were almost non-existent prior to the 20th century. Yet the industrialists and financiers of the industrial revolution made low cost products available to the average man. By the 20th century, the average man was living in luxury compared to his counterpart under the feudal system.

I am grateful to the so called robber barons for the cars, computers, TV’s, appliances, vacations, and generally good life I have enjoyed for most of my life. If everything were left up to the best efforts of the common man, I would had lived in a cave or a primitive village for most of my short life of 30-40 years, instead of being a happy, healthy 80 year old Dinosaur lookinf forward to another 10 or more years.

The large companies who employed me always treated me well. The products and services produced by large companies have usually been well worth what I paid for them. I do not care that entrepreneurs, CEO’s, movie stars, professional athletes, et cetera have astronomical incomes. More power to them for their good fortune and/or their abilities. I do not see them as taking from me.

Now, I do have some derogatory things to say about politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, merger specialists, and a few other types. These people have cost me money and aggravation, not the businessmen and real financiers. This might be a fit topic for another thread.

TruthSeeker: Yes I have studied a bit of economics, although I am primarily a mathematicians and computer programmer with an interest in history, physics, and various other intellectual fields as well as enjoying golf and skiing (I am a bit old for some of the other sports I enjoyed a long time ago).
What the hell!?!? Have you ever studied economics? Have you EVER analized a graph of monopoly or monopolistic competition!?! Like... what do you want me to do? Post the damn graph!?!?I wonder how much you really know about economics and the history of our technological civilization.

I was never impressed with the various theories taught in economics courses. I still have a vague memory of the derivation of a demand/supply curve. There were so many simplifying assumptions made, that I could not believe it was considered a valid analysis. “If we assume that all buyers and all sellers have complete knowledge of prices elsewhere; If we assume that brand name loyalty does not have any effect; If we assume that transportation costs from remote suppliers can be ignored; Et cetera.”

Spare me the graphs and tell me about some historical examples of monopolies.

None of those systems are the least bit successful.

How to measure the success of a social system:
True effectiveness of a social system can be measured by the system's ability to nurture the well being of the individual and the environment. The better the system is able to nurture the individual/environment, the more effective the system.
Capitalism and communism are definitely the most worthless.
Socialism is not that far off.

Yeah. Lets go pick the lice off each other, have some of that leftover carabou bob killed monday, and go raid the neighboring tribe for its women.

Strawman.

Traditional societies can embrace technology, but they have different motivations and organization than modern societies.

Your response was not very intelligent.

Yeah. Lets go pick the lice off each other, have some of that leftover carabou bob killed monday, and go raid the neighboring tribe for its women.

Don't knock it until you've tried it, softie.

Dinosaur,
I think IBM make a pretty good case for where monopolies fail. IBM failed to make any real innovations, despite their wealth, power and crushing market dominance, because they had no need to make innovations.

Modern computers, their OSs, their softerware, are the mostly the products of small, enterperneurial enterprises, not monopolistic ones.

Cool Skill: History indicates that a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism lasted about 150-300 years (ending some time between about 1890 & 1940), and did an excellent job of improving the life of the average man without doing much damage to the environment.

I think the system starting getting worse due to the growth of the federal govenment and the introduction of socialist concepts. It had enough momentum to disguise the onset of problems, so it is not clear when it started to evolve into a worse system.

A wise man once said "An empire starts to fall when it has reached its greatest height. The seeds of its fall are likely to be sown before it reached that maximum height." I think it was Asimov in his Foundation Trilogy, but he might have gotten the idea from some historian (He was a history guru as well as a scientist and author).

No social system is perfect. On the other hand, if we genetically engineered ourselves into enjoying doing work for the sake of humanity :D

..., if we genetically engineered ourselves into enjoying doing work for the sake of humanity...

Fuck humanity! That's the damned cause of most, if not all, of the problems in the world ....why would anyone want to save the very thing that's caused all the fuckin' problems?!

Baron Max

Now that I am the capitalist US I can give some analysis of how good capitalism works:

The main problem: nothing works because nobody cares. They smile, are friendly, but nobody really cares.

You ask someone something in store or in some bureacratic facility and they will not know the answer. Because they don't really care. They will also always blame someone else if something goes wrong instead of finding a solution.

The streets and buildings look like they going to crumble any second. It's not a miracle that hurricanes blow away entire cities. Build quality is something exotic.

Supermarkets are stocked with overpriced items. People happily pay too much apparently.

Typical consumer items such as electronics, cars etc are cheap.

People are afraid to enjoy life. They rather buy stuff.

Poverty is abundant even in a city once marked as being in the top 20 of cities to live in and raise a family. People just look away at that fact. Think it is normal (it isn't), or blame the poor people.

Public transport is non-existant or poor.

Crime is abundant. After all everybody is taught to consume no matter what cost.


I could go on for a while. The main conclusion is that maybe a capitalist society works on some level, but it is an ugly selfish society. It's ugly to the core. From my viewpoint it is difficult to see how people can be so adament in it's defense of it. Usually there is only one conclusion. The brainwashing that is abundant in such a society seems to function quite nicely.

end rant.

Cool Skill: History indicates that a good approximation to laissez faire capitalism lasted about 150-300 years (ending some time between about 1890 & 1940), and did an excellent job of improving the life of the average man without doing much damage to the environment.

I think the system starting getting worse due to the growth of the federal govenment and the introduction of socialist concepts. It had enough momentum to disguise the onset of problems, so it is not clear when it started to evolve into a worse system.

A wise man once said "An empire starts to fall when it has reached its greatest height. The seeds of its fall are likely to be sown before it reached that maximum height." I think it was Asimov in his Foundation Trilogy, but he might have gotten the idea from some historian (He was a history guru as well as a scientist and author).
Big government is one thing. The lack of understanding of technology is another.
Capitalism creates false demand and supply.
It's a waste of time, resources, and effort.
Technology does not steal people's jobs. It does the jobs for them.
Therefore, we can move on to better things.
Capitalism does not allow this. It is a limitation.
Big governtment is not the only problem.
Big business is also a problem. Too few people with too much power.

Now that I am the capitalist US I can give some analysis of how good capitalism works:...

Sorry if you've written this somewhere else on the forums, but where did you live before the US and what economic system did they use there?


Technology does not steal people's jobs. It does the jobs for them.

I've always wondered about that! I suppose the view that automation is bad is logical from a capitalist perspective, but it seems so stupid.

What are you talking about when you say 'capitalism does not allow this'? Capitalism, by its very definion, can not ban anything. A company if free to try anything and almost cetatainly will try anything that has a hope in hell of earning it a penny more in profit.

The competition brought about by the capitalistic system, if anything, greatly encourages innovation and improvement. Lets say I make computer chips and so does another company over in New Jersey selling for the same price. They find some way to streamline their assembly line in a way that saves them 18% in costs and they choose to undercut my product by 10%. I now have to improve my assembly line so I can compete with them and drop my prices to meet theirs.

Now we have two companies again producing their microchips for the same price, now lowered 10%, with greatly improved factories and still making a greater profit than they were previously. They will of course invest a fraction of their profits in research and development so they can pull their company ahead of the other with the next great innovation.

Now, with a communist government for example, the government allows no competition. You produce you quota of microchips, get paid you salary, and go home. There is no point in your doing your job any harder or better than you were because you well know that things will be the same tomorrow. In a communistic society, you can't really be fired and your 'company' can only go out of business if the entire damn government collapses first.

Technology is not seen as bad in a capitalist setting. The theory is that when you improve the technology to the point it can do the job a person once did, other jobs will crop up because of it. All that money has to be spent somewhere and when it is you can be damn sure a human is going to be doing the job. Communists and socialists are actually the ones who have more of a problem with technology. Their system demands that every person be employed; prefferably at what they are best at. Their solution to the industrial revolution would have been to bankroll cottage industry looms even if they had to drag the cloth away to be burned.

Sorry if you've written this somewhere else on the forums, but where did you live before the US and what economic system did they use there?


Finland and the Netherlands. The Netherlands have some similarities with the USA. Very trade orientated of course, lots of bureacracy. But that is about it. Cheap supermarkets. Good infrastructure. Well organized country in many ways. Shame about the bureacracy sometimes.

Finland is quite different. Still very much a true social wellfare state. Ironically, no bureacracy worth mentioning. No poverty worth mentioning. Ironically supermarket prices are about the same as in the USA (and finland is one of the most expensive countries in the world. People actually know what they are talking about. Try to solve problems. Care about what happens to other people, although they might not greet you with a cheery standard smile on their face, or not even greet you at all. Free healthcare (virtually free), free schooling, free daycare, equality - for example, speeding tickets that are dependent on your income (so rich people get hurt in the wallet too by speeding). That kind of stuff. It's quite a big contrast.

For the average person a system present in for instance finland is much better. Maybe I shouldn't even say average person. For MOST people the Finnish system is better. Obviously rich people are demigods in the US. In finland they are just mostly just people who pay more tax.

Spuriousmonkey: thanks.


Now, with a communist government for example, the government allows no competition. You produce you quota of microchips, get paid you salary, and go home. There is no point in your doing your job any harder or better than you were because you well know that things will be the same tomorrow.

That applies to all bureaucracies. The moment someone is being paid for the time they work instead of the results they produce, they can play solitaire half the day so long as they produce sufficiently mediocre results to keep themselves from being fired. If there's nepotism involved, even mediocre becomes too good.

But with capitalism, a slacking employee will find himself out on his ass the next time the company needs to trim some fat. When you can only keep one, are you going to keep the one who does a merely adequate job or the genius who is doing his job brilliantly? On top of that, hard working employees have the opportunity to get a promotion while a slacker may be stuck shuffling papers until the day he dies.

Assuming your brilliant, hard working genius exists, yes. But I think there's a story that when chased by a lion, you don't have to run faster than the lion, only faster than your companion. Wouldn't the hard worker only work slightly harder than the person below him? If everyone's mediocre, they can't fire all of them...

Zephyr, your posts indicate that you have little or no experience in world of real competition and business. All of your posts seem on the idealisms of the issues, not the realities.

Can't fire 'em all? Sure you can, what the hell's stopping you? But more to the point, you can begin weeding out the mediocre until the others begin to see that mediocre is NOT the way to keep bringing home a paycheck!

Baron Max

TruthSeeker: Yes I have studied a bit of economics, although I am primarily a mathematicians and computer programmer with an interest in history, physics, and various other intellectual fields as well as enjoying golf and skiing (I am a bit old for some of the other sports I enjoyed a long time ago). I wonder how much you really know about economics and the history of our technological civilization.
Sounds like me.


I was never impressed with the various theories taught in economics courses. I still have a vague memory of the derivation of a demand/supply curve. There were so many simplifying assumptions made, that I could not believe it was considered a valid analysis. “If we assume that all buyers and all sellers have complete knowledge of prices elsewhere; If we assume that brand name loyalty does not have any effect; If we assume that transportation costs from remote suppliers can be ignored; Et cetera.”
That's in the introductory courses, I assume.
...
:D


Spare me the graphs and tell me about some historical examples of monopolies.
Coke, oil companies, Nike, MacDonalds, Walmart, Money Mart, Microsoft, Telus... Like... there are so many...
(notice that most of those are "monopolistic competition"...)

Monopolistic competition: the best kind of competition.
You can't ask for a better market setting if you are the consumer.

Which Social Economic System is superior...socialism? I wasn't aware that socialism is an economic system? Surely it is simply a social system?

Monopolistic competition: the best kind of competition.
You can't ask for a better market setting if you are the consumer.
Not really. How about some evidence of your claim?

I wasn't aware that socialism is an economic system? Surely it is simply a social system?
You cannot have a social system without an economic system...

Surely you can: people can exist without economic systems.

Not really. How about some evidence of your claim?
Sure, why not. Monopolistic competition refers to a market where there are both large numbers of producers and large numbers of consumers. Producers are constantly attempting to differentiate themselves from their competitors by finding a way to lower their prices, finding some new gimmick, or just make the product more appealing to a segment of the population. You, being the consumer, will have more choices and better overall quality because of it.

The same is less true under other market forms.

Spectrum: It might be possible, but I would not want to live that way.
people can exist without economic systems.No trade, no barter. Each family or small tribe plants crops & grows their own food. Everybody makes their own clothes. Everybody makes their own houses, their own tools. You do without almost every modern convenience: Cars, computers, movies, restaurants, indoor plumbing, et cetera.

Sure, why not. Monopolistic competition refers to a market where there are both large numbers of producers and large numbers of consumers. Producers are constantly attempting to differentiate themselves from their competitors by finding a way to lower their prices, finding some new gimmick, or just make the product more appealing to a segment of the population. You, being the consumer, will have more choices and better overall quality because of it.
That is competition.

Surely you can: people can exist without economic systems.
True. But I was talking about a social SYSTEM.

That is competition.
Yes, a type of competition. You can also have competition between two producers or even a bare handfull for the attention of the masses. You can also have a bunch of producers competing for the attention of a handfull of buyers, like with those who sell to large businesses or the government. Or any of a dozen other variations.

RThe way to do this is to establish quotas on how much people and corporations can have in assets at any given time, all excess profits reinvested into the society's welfare by law.

Don't be such a retard. Your proposal simply eliminates any incentive to produce above the quota. Ergo, according to cost benefit maximizeing workers will simply stop working at the quota (we will not expend effort without reasonable gain), and your government reaps zero returns. Desperate, it has two choices: force, or fraud. Choosing the latter, it will lower the quotas, temporarily seeing returns until producers adjust their production accordingly. This is a dead-end street for obvious reasons. Choosing the former, it will put a gun to the producers head and demand the quotas be met and exceeded as needed to finance the state. This, too, is a dead-end street (see the fate of global communism).

We can observe the same result in excessive graduated income tax systems, the United Kingdom before the Thatcher reforms being a superb example. If you begin to claim too large a chunk of a persons income (60%-70%) above a certain threshold, you eliminate incentive to earn at or beyond that threshold. So the logical thing for us to do is lower our incomes to just below that point, and the state sees decreased returns than if the top bracket were, counter-intuitively, a lower and more reasonable 30%-40%.

Originally posted by Dinosaur
It might be possible, but I would not want to live that way. You wouldn't? You mean rather than spending months, perhaps a year, building a house and then being free to follow your passions you would rather spend a whole lifetime working for that house?

The answer is quite simple. Capitalism. I choose capitalism mainly due to two reasons.

a)Lassiez-faire system.
b)Most efficient.
The reason for y it is the most efficient is explained by the first point. Thus capitalism is the best.

Monopolistic competition: the best kind of competition.
You can't ask for a better market setting if you are the consumer.
In fact it is also the best for the producer too, as he can in normal conditions only expect such a market system. He can have a monopoly but in most cases they last only for a short time. And in a case where oligopoly exists,consumers would prefer a monopolistic market to such a condition.
From the side of a consumer he cant expect a perfect competition as it is almost an imaginary condition.

Capitalism: only the rich and healty have a good life but no time to enjoy it. Most people struggle
But you have got chances to become rich by ur effort. And what did u mean by enjoying life? Living on earth itself is an enjoyment isnt it? People who struggle are those who cant work, I mean the incompetent mind.

Socalism: equality and a government that cares.


Why do u want to be cared for? Why cant u take care of yourself?

It is a waste of time to argue this issue. With very few exceptions, those who back the various systems have faith based beliefs in their favorite political scheme. They almost all suspend their critical judgment capabilities (assuming they have any) and ignore any evidence from history.
Oh man I think u have gone wrong. It is not faith that matters but reason.

Have you ever heard of the Human Development Index...? :rolleyes:
If you look at the list, socialist countries are all at the top..

Can u justify HDI. Does it actually measure human development.

I suppose there have been somebody else admitting to error, but I never noticed such an admission.

I totally agree. What Roman and the other folks said was wrong. The level of imperfection in a monopolistic or monopoly market shows the level of effort taken/ his ability to compete, by/of the best competitor.

Spectrum: A house in a year I might be able to do while growing my own food and perhaps making a few clothes to wear.
You wouldn't? You mean rather than spending months, perhaps a year, building a house and then being free to follow your passions you would rather spend a whole lifetime working for that house?I would have trouble building my computer from scratch without buying the motherboard, CPU, et cetera. If I did manage to build the computer, I would also have to build a wind or solar powered generator for the electricity. Maybe a hand cranked generator and a battery would provide enough power for a computer. Building a car from scratch is a big job. I do not htink I woudl even try.

BTW: I never worked a lifetime for a house. I paid mine off in about 20 years and managed to spend my salary on various other things.

The answer is quite simple. Capitalism. I choose capitalism mainly due to two reasons.

a)Lassiez-faire system.
b)Most efficient.
The reason for y it is the most efficient is explained by the first point. Thus capitalism is the best.

On the objective of efficiency:

Feudalism was highly efficient in ancient times. You cannot use that argument to defend capitalism forever.

Facial: Feudalism efficient? I never heard that one before.
Feudalism was highly efficient in ancient times. You cannot use that argument to defend capitalism forever.I think it is an excellent argument, good forever. Many of the put downs of capitalism involve comparing early capitalism with 20th century wages & working conditions, while a comparison with feudalism would be more appropriate, since that is the system replaced by capitalism.

Note that the US & some European countries operated under a good approximation to laissez Faire capitalism for about 150-300 years ending some time between 1890 and 1940 (there is controversy on the timing). By 1900, the average person had a standard of living and material wealth unheard of during the Feudal era.

The improvement in the life of the average man was very much due to the activities of the so called Robber Barons maligned by the academic community and many modern politicians.

I think our version of Capatialism, with some Government regulation to act as a check on corporate/private power, in the US works pretty good. At least at producing wealth. Unfortunately the richest 1% own something like 90% of it. I wish we could find a better way of distributing it more evenly without the state getting involved like Communism tries but fails to do.

I think our version of Capatialism, with some Government regulation to act as a check on corporate/private power, in the US works pretty good. At least at producing wealth. Unfortunately the richest 1% own something like 90% of it. I wish we could find a better way of distributing it more evenly without the state getting involved like Communism tries but fails to do.I basically agree with this, but note a bias in it and most posts here.

That is, the standard for "best" seems to be how many cars in the garage etc. I.e. the "wealth index" is measured in material goods. A good one, if you are not well feed or lack medical care, etc. Then this is the appropriate yard stick to measure your progress by, but once a reasonable level of material convenience is achieved, we move into a system of values and frame of mind that begins to buy $16,000 shower curtains, etc. to show how successful we are. This is nonsense.

At that point the index of success should change to one that values the world we leave to our grand children, and how well we offer them their education.

With this standard, the US is a third rate country, at best. US does not care to join in Koyoto agreement , or worry about its rape of the Earth to drive SUVs, grossly under funds public transit and makes education opportunities depend upon accident of birth, yet wants rest of world to do as it says, etc.

Not much to admire in current US attitudes or hold up to our grandchildren as a “success“, when they will not be able to pay the debt we are placing on them to enjoy these foolish “essentials.”

PS, by edit: Too bad the "pale faces" had the guns and the "red skins" had mainly bow and arrows. The "red skins," with some technological progress, imported if need be, would have instilled a better culture that respected the Earth etc.

How the hell can someone have too much material wealth? I can understand that you can make do in relative comfort after reaching some minimum of wealth but more never hurts. Ideally I would be living in a castle carved out of solid marble and encircled by a half mile of labrynth and enclosed gardens, easily accessable only by a single causeway. Its just not going to happen, but thats the ideal.

The reason we haven't agreed to the Kyoto accord is that our leaders are afraid that the restrictions will make everyone suffer. Higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, more expensive consumer goods, and overall increased economic friction. The gears of progress would keep turning but they would have less grease helping them along.

Too much of a good thing. Too much sugar rots your teeth. Too much fat and you become overweight. Too much money and you lose your soul.

...The reason we haven't agreed to the Kyoto accord is that our leaders are afraid that the restrictions will make everyone suffer. Higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, more expensive consumer goods, and overall increased economic friction. ...If you are not just spouting stupid nonsense, please explain how:

(1) Reducing the use of petroleum (lower demand for it) results in "higher gas prices."

(2) Improved end-use efficiency (especially in electric motors) which can reduce fossil energy consumption (and the associated CO2 emmission) by 10 times the energy saved in the motor when loses in transformers, distribution system, generators (both steam and electric), conversion of heat energy to electric energy, and the combustion of the fossil (stack heat losses, incomplete burning, ash removal trucks, etc.) are considered* can result in "higher electricity prices."

(3) Why the many large corporations, which have already save billions* of dollars by increased energy efficiency would lose money by doing more of the same and need to rase prices of "consumer goods."

(4) How the above results in "increased economic friction." (Except for lower profits of the oil industry and its ex-CEOs, like George Bush, who run the country on oil for their benefit, not the people's etc.)
____________________________________
*See September Scientific American Amory Lovings and several other articles for more detail on these savings (both dollars and energy) cited above. Also see my posts here that show you could run your car on alcohol more cheaply than on gas from oil with a reduction in atmosphereic CO2 as all in the alcohol came from the air but only a small fraction goes back when the alcohol is used as fuel (much of the sugar cane is used a cattle food.) Again following Koyto can save both dollars and the environment with a net increase in jobs.

YOUR POST IS PURE IGNORANCE with no factual support.

1) Reducing the use of petroleum will almost always involve tariffs and an increase of other sorts of taxation for the substance to make it less desireable for the consumer. Its the same thing they did for cigarettes over here in America and already did for gasoline in Europe.

2)I think you are being too optimistic in the results. Hybrid cars are more expensive to manufacture and any savings in gas money would take longer than the expected life of the car to accumulate. Pureblood electric cars are still notoriously short ranged and tempermental. Hell, we haven't even found an economical way to contain hydrogen yet. Running a car on booze might work fine, after all the first car did the same. But the cost in changing over the entire nation's infrastructure would be staggering. It will probably happen eventually all on its own given time... and probably a lot less painfully.

This is also going to effect power plants, factories, and half the other things in America.

3) The Kyoto accord is about literally forcing companies to take such measures, should they be feasable for them or not. You can be damned sure that every company that stands to make money by enacting such measures already has. Kyoto would therefore be mainly affecting those who would stand to make a loss. And this, of course, means that they will be passing the costs onto people like us.

4) More taxation and mandated construction projects means higher prices for consumers and less money goes out to the workforce. Products shipped to other manufacturers or even retailers will be of inflated price and they will be bleeding from that too. Everyone tightens their belts, less money switches hands, and overall economic growth falls through the roof.

And, as to your Bush comment, screw you.

I would be a lot less hesitant with the Kyoto accord if it didn't seem designed to put us at an unequal footing with developing powers. It seems designed to put a much bigger crimp in our economy than, lets say, China.

1) Reducing the use of petroleum will almost always involve tariffs and an increase of other sorts of taxation for the substance to make it less desireable for the consumer. Its the same thing they did for cigarettes over here in America and already did for gasoline in Europe. True it can be done by making gasoline more expensive, but I am not suggesting that, I suggest switching to a cheaper fuel, like alcohol imported (instead of oil) from tropical countries. US tariffs and quotas are currently preventing this so a few politically well-connected can profit by making you pay more to drive, taxes to support the subsides, etc.
Alcohol comes from sugar. US growers are inefficient (especially in frozen Iowa) mainly with corn and beets but these growers contribute "big time" to campaigns that keep the oil industry ex-CEOs elected so you get to pay higher taxes to support their "farm subsidies" and to pay more to drive your car on gas. Vote again to keep the oil company's men in office, keep your tariff walls, pay taxes for inefficient producers of sugar and alcohol only as a gas additive, drive at higher cost per mile, etc. - I.e. show how intelligent you are. :rolleyes:

Here in Brazil the cost of alcohol has gone up a little - it is now about 55% of that of gasoline and we have 30years of experience with alcohol power cars.


2)I think you are being too optimistic in the results. Hybrid cars are more expensive to manufacture and any savings in gas money would take longer than the expected life of the car to accumulate. Pureblood electric cars are still notoriously short ranged and tempermental. Hell, we haven't even found an economical way to contain hydrogen yet. I said nothing about this. I strongly oppose hydrogen as it is a negative net fuel source and really would cost a lot to convert to.
Running a car on booze might work fine, after all the first car did the same. But the cost in changing over the entire nation's infrastructure would be staggering. It will probably happen eventually all on its own given time... and probably a lot less painfully. No "might" about - it has for 30 years. New motors are made all the time (68% of the new cars in Brazil sold last month have the new "flex fuel" motor that can burn any ratio/ mix of alcohol and gas.) Last time I looked, these cars also had four wheels, brakes, doors, etc. -just like your car. The motors even look exactly the same as in gas only cars. I do not know what is different except there is a fuel-mix sensor and think the computer controlling the fuel injectors may have a modified program that uses this fuel sensor information - big deal! I.e. not much different to "cost a lot to convert to." All the major car companies know how to make alcohol cars, so no development costs. Only political costs for those oil CEOs now in power, so I guess you are right - It will take many years.


3) The Kyoto accord is about literally forcing companies to take such measures, should they be feasable for them or not. You can be damned sure that every company that stands to make money by enacting such measures already has. ...Wrong again. It is up to each government to decide how to met the targets, perhaps even by buying carbon credits or planting trees etc. Not one company is "forced" by Koyoto agreement. Each society determines how best to reduce CO2 and several other pollution sources.


4) More taxation and mandated construction projects means higher prices for consumers and less money goes out to the workforce. Products shipped to other manufacturers or even retailers will be of inflated price and they will be bleeding from that too. Everyone tightens their belts, less money switches hands, and overall economic growth falls through the roof. What are you talking about? I said nothing like this. Read the Scientific American Sept05 issue and you will understand that everyone will benefit, but as you seem to like to pay higher taxes to have the privilege of paying more to drive your car, perhaps you will also fail to understand that those now in control are you problem, not Koyoto accord.

I object to unsupported statements like the following.
Too much money and you lose your soul.I have known of and encountered wealthy people who were far more admirable than some poor pius religious types who allegedly still have their souls.

Why do some people think it is evil to be rich?

I object to unsupported statements like the following.I have known of and encountered wealthy people who were far more admirable than some poor pius religious types who allegedly still have their souls.
Why do some people think it is evil to be rich?I certainly do not. I want to be "rich & good" and also "good & rich". Who are you quoting? Was it a post in this thread?

Billy T: It was Roman, about 6-8 posts back (Part bolded by me).
Too much of a good thing. Too much sugar rots your teeth. Too much fat and you become overweight. Too much money and you lose your soul.I suspect that jealousy motivates those who put down the rich just for being rich.

Many years ago I had a colleague who was a member of Mensa. He invited me to a meeting, suggesting that I take an IQ test and join. Perhaps other chapters of that organizaiton are different, but I wanted no part of that particular Mensa group. I never joined any group and have often wondered if I would have qualified.

All were intelligent as you would expect. 45% of the conversation was complaints or musings about why they were not rich. 45% was about why the rich were no good rotten bastards. 10% was interesting conversation.

Jealousy & envy are sorry character traits. About 15 years after graduation, one of my classmates made the cover of Time Magazine for winning two Tony awards. On Alumni day, I was enthused about his success. Most of my classmates made remarkds like:
He was not so great. His family was a friend of the Hammersteins and Oscar opened doors for him (Oscar was never able to make his own son successfull in show business).

He was just in the right place at the right time (Incredible talent had nothing to do with his success?)

I saw two of his broadway shows and did not like them (They only ran for a year or two).

I never liked him (Steve was one of the most talented and likable people I ever knew, and never a snob). I would rather have somebody I know make it big than a stranger, but I guess others think exactly the opposite way.

You would think that they would be smart enough to argue about how to get rich.

a)Lassiez-faire system.
Eh? Capitalism laissez-faire? Where?



b)Most efficient.
Eeeeeeeeehhhh?!!?!!??!?!?!?!??? :eek: :bugeye:


The reason for y it is the most efficient is explained by the first point. Thus capitalism is the best.
Oh! Wow! Let's beg the question, shall we? :p

Can u justify HDI. Does it actually measure human development.
Ahhh... yeeeeah. Take a look at the top countries. They have minimal poverty and maximum wellness. Sounds like a pretty good measure to me. :bugeye:

Yaba Daba! :m:

You would think that they would be smart enough to argue about how to get rich.
Getting rich is very easy!

First of all, you break all international laws and invade a country full of oil.
Second, you make excuses and pretend that you are doing it for "national security" reasons.

Pretty simple. :eek:
...
:bugeye:
.
.
.
:p

....First of all, you break all international laws and invade a country full of oil.
Second, you make excuses and pretend that you are doing it for "national security" reasons.Two out of three ain't bad, but you did forget rule three:
Three: Make sure your daddy is in a position to get you a deferment or position that assures you don't need to do any of the dangerous invading. :bugeye:

The reasons I advocate Socialism are because Socialism grants ownership of the means of production to workers. As a result, unlike capitalism, labor, not capital, needs to accumulate for the size of an economy to grow. I am also an advocate of socialism because, when every worker's an owner of the means of production, Socialism becomes genuine free enterprise.

THOU
SHALT
NOT
COMMITETH
THREAD
NECROMANCY!!!

Thus Sayeth the Prince!!!

You could ask which system results in the greatest proportion of people being better off (ie free from poverty, or have decent healthcare). Or which system results in the greatest innovation? In which system are people happiest? <---- although thats probably too subjective.

Getting rich is very easy!

First of all, you break all international laws and invade a country full of oil.
Second, you make excuses and pretend that you are doing it for "national security" reasons.
First you have to be in a position to invade.