Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or other..which works best?

Sounds like me.

That's in the introductory courses, I assume.
...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Coke, oil companies, Nike, MacDonalds, Walmart, Money Mart, Microsoft, Telus... Like... there are so many...
(notice that most of those are "monopolistic competition"...)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't aware that socialism is an economic system? Surely it is simply a social system?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not really. How about some evidence of your claim?

 

You cannot have a social system without an economic system...

 

Surely you can: people can exist without economic systems.

 

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.

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.

 

That is competition.

 

True. But I was talking about a social SYSTEM.

 

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.

 

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%.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Oh man I think u have gone wrong. It is not faith that matters but reason.

 

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

 

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.