What's the Best Economic/Political System?

[Minor Axis]

Best Economic/Political System?
This post just lays out some ground rules. Please correct me where you see errors as I'm not an economics major. Post 2 is where I make my argument.

These points should be considered:
1. Distribution of Wealth
2. Wellfare of the Overall Populace
3. Economic Output

Economic/Political Systems
Capitalism- Private ownership of industry and property.
Pro- System that has the potential to create great wealth, inspire entrepreneurship, generate great economic output, and usually associated with free societies.
Con- Without ruling oversight can become unbalanced, with uneven distribution of wealth, where economic power accumulates in the hands of a few at the detriment to general society.
Danger- Turning into Fascism?

Socialism- Socialists believe that the inequalities that exist in our society are unjust and that the minority of the population should not own the vast majority of the wealth. But socialism can have private ownership of property and business with higher taxes to make sure the needs of the majority of society are taken care of and they can live comfortable lives. However socialism tends to be directly linked with communism.
Pro- System takes care of a larger percentage of society.
Con- Disincentive to entrepreneurship. Only one apparently successful socialistic country and that is Sweden (although I do not know enough to verify that is true or not.) From List of Socialistic Countries link: Sweden- Mostly private industry, but many well-funded govt. social programs are offered. Universal healthcare and government-provided education at all levels is made available.

Other notable names on the socialist list are China, Vietnam, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. I'm sure there are readers here who will dispute any claim regarding Sweden.

Communism- Similar to socialism but does not believe in private ownership. Everything is owned by society in general. is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general. It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, although socialist historians say they are older.
Pro- Everyone is supposed to be equal.
Con- Not! Due to the corruptibility of the human race, everyone is not equal. Lower economic output; disincentives to work hard and get ahead. Mostly the corrupt get ahead.

How does Fascism fit in? There are those that say when corporations and the state become one, you've got fascism. Honestly I don't know but here is some interesting reading. But my meager understanding of Fascism is a thumbs down.

Fascism- from websters:*a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Is the U.S. headed in this direction? I see a negative trend, but I'm hoping it can be reversed through voters who are paying attention.

Excerpt from Capitalism, Fascism, and WWII:
There is a close and often ignored relationship between fascism and capitalism. German corporations financed Hitler's rise to power and were rewarded by slave labor. Krupp, I.G. Farben and other corporations used Jewish and Slavic slave labor.
Many American capitalists were openly sympathetic to the Nazis.
The Nazis broke unions, lowered wages, abolished overtime pay, decreased business taxes and increased business subsidies. Their program bears a strong resemblance to the Republican agenda in this country.

Excerpt from Fascism, State Capitalism, and Outsourcing:
So the question is where does outsourcing, also known as globalization, fit in the current political and economic scheme? While many capitalist libertarians proclaim outsourcing as a triumph for freedom and the free market, many others are quick to denounce outsourcing as corporate exploitation and statism. Is outsourcing/globalization the product of voluntary association, cooperation and trade (the free market), or is it the result of state intervention into the market (state capitalism)?

References:
Communism/Socialsim vs Capitalism by Julien Newcombe.
Socialism at Wikipedia.
Communism at Wikipedia.
Capitalism, Fascism, and WWII.
Fascism, State Capitalism, and Outsourcing.
List of Socialist Countries.

 

[Minor Axis]

Based on the foundation in the first post, which form of political economic system would you choose?

From my experience in the U.S.Navy competing against Communist U.S.S.R, I'd say that communism is definitely not the way to go. Low incentives and high levels of corruption. In fact Communism and corruption go hand in hand. When the Virginia Colony was first established in the New World it was based on a system of communism, but there were those slackers who did not do their share, but benefited from the communal feed storage. It was reported that John Smith was the one who said "If ye won't work, ye won't eat." The Communist System in theory might might, I'm not aware of any successful implementation.

Socialism- There are many forms of socialism from no private ownership to private ownership but the system is earmarked with high taxes and high levels of social programs. If you want to call Sweden successful, then you can hold up a it up as an example of successful socialism. For lack of info, I can't judge. Maybe one of our educated readers can full us in on Sweden and socialism.

If I was to choose a system it would be Regulated Capitalism. Some might call this a form of Socialism, in fact I've heard that accusation so many times in this forum regarding Obama it makes my head spin.

However, what you do not want is raw, unregulated Capitalism. Capitalism offers powerful incentives to strive because if your successful you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams. But the question becomes how rich do you need to be before it aversely effects society as a whole?

The mantra, work hard and you'll get ahead can work except where economic decisions are made that adversely effect large portions of the populace, then you'll be able to work your ass over every day, for your entire life, and may not get ahead. The reason is that unregulated Capitalism allows power and wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few.

Remember when CEO's made only 400 times the average workers pay? Now it's up to some ridiculous amounts of pay thousands of time the average workers pay. Go back to the 1800's where the titans of industry stood on the shoulders of every day workers. Figuratively they did! And the work environment was crap for the average worker. Why do you think the Trusts were busted up in the early 1900's by Republican's (no less)?? The Republican Party was much different at one time. Why did we have the Great Depression? Why were labor laws established in the 1930's? Because the U.S. economic system was anti-competitive, anti-labor, and benefited only a few well place individuals. I've said it before and I'll say it again- the only laws and regulations passed for workers have come from liberals, even Republican liberals and since the 1940's there are forces in the country that are trying to take us back to the 1800s.

The next question is how many benefits should the government give out? Well after every job that can be outsourced is outsourced and what you have left over is shit jobs, the average person in the U.S. is going to be wishing there were some government programs out there. What happens when you have health issues but can't afford to see a doctor?

Obviously the best situation is a healthy Capitalistic system where private enterprise excels, workers are generously rewarded, and reasonable social programs exist. In other words most of us have an opportunity for a fair piece of the pie. And there are going to be taxes and a Federal Government to guide the country. Sure we could get rid of both of them, but I'm willing to bet the majority don't want anarchy. They want a functioning infrastructure, health care, clean environment, along with a healthy economy where we can all live the good life.

There are several conservative posters in this forum that will claim that a fair piece of the pie is extortion, communistic, and selfish. But I'll counter that by saying when it comes to large multi-national corporations, they can be selfish bastards who if not willing, must be forced to share the pie. I've witnessed it first hand.

 

[Carthage]

Economic/Political Systems
Capitalism- Private ownership of industry and property.
Pro- System that has the potential to create great wealth, inspire entrepreneurship, generate great economic output, and usually associated with free societies.
Con- Without ruling oversight can become unbalanced, with uneven distribution of wealth, where economic power accumulates in the hands of a few at the detriment to general society.
Danger- Turning into Fascism?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/56207/list_of_socialist_countries_with_individual.html.

This is wrong.


Capitalism - system where the government exists only as a force to cancel out the initiation of physical force. Yes, private industry and property exists, but that is not the distinguishing feature.
Your cons are wrong too. First of all, the whole point of the market is that it can't become unbalanced. It regulates itself - read Adam Smith, ever heard of the "invisible hand"? Second, why is uneven distribution of wealth bad? The people who earned more money should have more money, those that didn't shouldn't. Why should I be as rich as Bill Gates? I haven't done anything like him. Wealth goes to those who earn it in the amounts they earn it in a Capitalistic system. That's not wrong. And finally, economic power CANNOT become centralized - that's the whole point of Capitalism, DEcentralization! Whenever a monopoly or monopolies emerge that are determents to society, unless the government gives them a monopoly, a competitor or competitors will emerge to bring them down. Read Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman for this.
And HOW ON EARTH CAN A SYSTEM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTION PREVENTS IT FROM INITIATING FORCE TURN INTO FASCISM!!!?!?!?!???

Before you criticize and try to define Capitalism, read works by actual capitalists!

 

[Carthage]

There are several conservative posters in this forum that will claim that a fair piece of the pie is extortion, communistic, and selfish. But I'll counter that by saying when it comes to large multi-national corporations, they can be selfish bastards who if not willing, must be forced to share the pie. I've witnessed it first hand.

Why should we force them to share the pie? What right do we have to it? They created it, they are the ones who earned it, why should we force them to give it up? It's not ours.

must be forced to share the pie

THIS is fascism. You're a fascist.

 

[Carthage]

However, what you do not want is raw, unregulated Capitalism. Capitalism offers powerful incentives to strive because if your successful you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams. But the question becomes how rich do you need to be before it aversely effects society as a whole?

How on earth does being wealthy make others suffer? There's no chain of logic connecting them.

The mantra, work hard and you'll get ahead can work except where economic decisions are made that adversely effect large portions of the populace, then you'll be able to work your ass over every day, for your entire life, and may not get ahead. The reason is that unregulated Capitalism allows power and wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few.

If bad economic decisions are made by buisnesses, then they'll fail. But in a system of unregulated, competitive capitalism, there will be enough competitors to compensate for the failed business.

Remember when CEO's made only 400 times the average workers pay? Now it's up to some ridiculous amounts of pay thousands of time the average workers pay. Go back to the 1800's where the titans of industry stood on the shoulders of every day workers. Figuratively they did! And the work environment was crap for the average worker. Why do you think the Trusts were busted up in the early 1900's by Republican's (no less)?? The Republican Party was much different at one time. Why did we have the Great Depression? Why were labor laws established in the 1930's? Because the U.S. economic system was anti-competitive, anti-labor, and benefited only a few well place individuals. I've said it before and I'll say it again- the only laws and regulations passed for workers have come from liberals, even Republican liberals and since the 1940's there are forces in the country that are trying to take us back to the 1800s.

Do some actual research by Capitalists on how we've analyzed all this and you'll understand it better. First, why should the corporations not make more then people? They do harder work. Second, building trusts VIA GOVERNMENT is not capitalism!!!!! Government interference cannot exist in a capitalist society!!!!! Second, we had the great depression because of a lot of reasons, most of them being the centralized banks and the federal reserve pumping out money faster then it should have. Note that these were GOVERNMENT institutions.

The next question is how many benefits should the government give out? Well after every job that can be outsourced is outsourced and what you have left over is shit jobs, the average person in the U.S. is going to be wishing there were some government programs out there. What happens when you have health issues but can't afford to see a doctor?

Well, that's too bad, but the doctor works hard and the inventors of the medicines and such worked hard. In order to get the benefit, you have to compensate their work with money. Health care is not a right, it is something to be earned. I would never be as popus as to demand that a doctor operate on me for free. If you can't afford it, I'm sorry, but nobody deserves health care for free. Not even my dad, who has a broken lower neck and a back, as well as vertigo and multiple cuncussion syndrome.

Obviously the best situation is a healthy Capitalistic system where private enterprise excels, workers are generously rewarded, and reasonable social programs exist. In other words most of us have an opportunity for a fair piece of the pie. And there are going to be taxes and a Federal Government to guide the country. Sure we could get rid of both of them, but I'm willing to bet the majority don't want anarchy. They want a functioning infrastructure, health care, clean environment, along with a healthy economy where we can all live the good life.

Just because the majority doesn't want it doesn't mean it isn't right.

There are several conservative posters in this forum that will claim that a fair piece of the pie is extortion, communistic, and selfish. But I'll counter that by saying when it comes to large multi-national corporations, they can be selfish bastards who if not willing, must be forced to share the pie. I've witnessed it first hand.

Being selfish is a good thing.
And see my comment about you being a fascist above.

 

[gLing]

Why should we force them to share the pie? What right do we have to it? They created it, they are the ones who earned it, why should we force them to give it up? It's not ours.

I'm all for capitalism but the problem with these huge multi-national mega corps is they are pretty much monopolies. They stifle competition on a lower level and can out lobby anybody.
Why do you think the quality of everything is going down while prices go up? Because these big corps get away with it. Who is the consumer going to take their business to?

Capitalism is a good thing and has proven to be the most successful system time and time again but in it's pure form it can be just as destructive as socialism or communism.
Take a look at China. It's government may be communist but it's economic system has gone almost pure capitalist. As long as the government gets a piece of the action there is almost no checks on this. People are horribly exploited and brutalized in the name of progress. Almost like how the US was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

 

[Minor Axis]

THIS is fascism. You're a fascist.

I was expecting you. Go study up on fascism a bit more before you accuse. Capitalism is my system of choice silly person. But if you don't think corporations are getting into bed with government, that forces are not handing specific groups of people advantages, then you need to take off the rose colored glasses. And, don't pop a blood vessel in the process.

There is a difference between talking about the "ideal" capitalism and what we actually have in this country. Why the heck do you think socialism and communism even got started? Read the first link in the first post:

exerpt:
It is impossible to state "that at such and such a time socialism began." However, it is apparent that socialist ideas have been developing for hundreds of years. Modern socialism emerged as the world went through the process of industrialization. From the 18th century the industrial revolution transformed Western Europe and North America from agricultural, trading nations to industrial nations. The metamorphosis of these country's economic structures led to great and complex changes in the lifestyle of their people. The average worker went form being a self-employed farmer to being an employee at a large factory. The working class was formed!

People began to move away from the country and the population became centralized. Cities grew rapidly and overcrowding became an enormous problem. This new industrial workforce, the proletariat, worked and lived in appalling conditions. Poverty was rampant. The cities were havens for crime and disease. The tumultuous transformation affected not only the lives of the workers (factory fodder) but also craftsmen, such as handloom weavers, who were being forced out of business by factories which could produce the same product at a lower price. Much of the working class was confounded by the radical changes that were going on.

 

[Carthage]

Socialism- Socialists believe that the inequalities that exist in our society are unjust and that the minority of the population should not own the vast majority of the wealth.

What you meant to say was that they do not believe those who work harder should be rewarded more.

Excerpt from Capitalism, Fascism, and WWII:
There is a close and often ignored relationship between fascism and capitalism. German corporations financed Hitler's rise to power and were rewarded by slave labor. Krupp, I.G. Farben and other corporations used Jewish and Slavic slave labor.
Many American capitalists were openly sympathetic to the Nazis.
The Nazis broke unions, lowered wages, abolished overtime pay, decreased business taxes and increased business subsidies. Their program bears a strong resemblance to the Republican agenda in this country.

The Nazi GOVERNMENT did all that. And just because corporations say things doesn't mean it's capitalist viewpoint.

 

[Carthage]

I'm all for capitalism but the problem with these huge multi-national mega corps is they are pretty much monopolies. They stifle competition on a lower level and can out lobby anybody.
Why do you think the quality of everything is going down while prices go up? Because these big corps get away with it. Who is the consumer going to take their business to?

In a pure capitalism system, the corporations would have no power over the competition. The quality of everything goes down while prices go up is because of taxes, countries like china, global economic decline, war, etc. etc. There are a lot more reasons then just corporations saying so. Read Adam Smith.

Capitalism is a good thing and has proven to be the most successful system time and time again but in it's pure form it can be just as destructive as socialism or communism.
Take a look at China. It's government may be communist but it's economic system has gone almost pure capitalist. As long as the government gets a piece of the action there is almost no checks on this. People are horribly exploited and brutalized in the name of progress. Almost like how the US was at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

China does not have a real capitalist system. It has a system where the corporations and the government are in cahoots to have total power over the country split between them. In a real capitalist system, the government would not have any part in the economic sphere WHAT SO EVER.

I was expecting you. Go study up on fascism a bit more before you accuse.

Fascism - an organization of society where the government, which uses force as a sanction, uses it's power to control all affairs of the nation so that they benefit the government, and in theory, who the government represents (the race, the class, the nation).

Note that Fascism's distinguishing feature is it's existence is sanctioned by FORCE. That is the distinguishing feature of Fascism - it's heavy reliance on Government Force. You support FORCING people to give their piece of the pie. That's using FORCE. That's FASCISM (note how close fascism and force are even in just pronunciation). You're a fascist.

My political system - capitalism - is based around the one great commandment - NEVER INITIATE THE USE OF FORCE. Whoever initiates the use of force is a destroyer who is acting on a premise of death wider then any sort of murder or killing. Anyone who initiates the use of force is a moral and intellectual coward. Force is the enemy of civilization. I would never dream of forcing anyone to do anything. Initiating force is, perhaps, the greatest evil man can possibly commit.

 

[dazner]

communism...


:jk

 

[Minor Axis]

What you meant to say was that they do not believe those who work harder should be rewarded more.

That's not my definition, that's from Wikipedia. At some points in time the working class have felt screwed by those holding the stings. Why do you think those revolutions took place? How exactly to do you expect society to work? If it's not benefiting most of society, changes will be made one way or another.

FORCE. That is the distinguishing feature of Fascism - it's heavy reliance on Government Force. You support FORCING people

I think you misunderstood me although I could make it clearer. I've never advocated physical force, only exertion of force through economic pressure, voting, and self help. BTW, just what do you call it when corporations move millions of jobs out of the country?

In a pure capitalism system, the corporations would have no power over the competition. The quality of everything goes down while prices go up is because of taxes, countries like china, global economic decline, war, etc. etc. There are a lot more reasons then just corporations saying so. Read Adam Smith.

We don't have a "pure" capitalistic system in the U.S. To be pure, everyone or at least most need to have ethics and morals.

 

[Carthage]

That's not my definition, that's from Wikipedia. At some points in time the working class have felt screwed by those holding the stings. Why do you think those revolutions took place? How exactly to do you expect society to work? If it's not benefiting most of society, changes will be made one way or another.

I'm concerned about what's fair and right. Yes, the working class has felt screwed, but most of the times they were right to be. No one's ever lived in a capitalist system, they were feeling confused and upset. The problem is that they went in the wrong direction.
I expect society to work this way - the harder you work, the more you get payed. You use your payment to buy products and to trade with others. When someone initiates the use of physical force, the government steps in and stops them. And so the great succeed, the not great don't, but obviously do better then in any other system, and society works out.
Just look at the world around you - moderated capitalism has benefited most of society enormously. Isn't it logical to say that unregulated capitalism will help them even more? My point was that they shouldn't benefit more then or the same as those who work harder.

 

[Carthage]

I think you misunderstood me although I could make it clearer. I've never advocated physical force, only exertion of force through economic pressure, voting, and self help. BTW, just what do you call it when corporations move millions of jobs out of the country?

Please be more specific on the first part - how do you force people to who don't want to to give things up without using physical force? How does voting or economic pressure do this? You had stated that they weren't willing, I doubt a majority vote saying they should will change their minds.

And I call it being intelligent and a good man when you are going to try and keep your business strong and healthy by moving it. We give them no respect, we take their money, we tell them how much to pay us, and we tell them who they can and can't hire. I don't think any business should stay in America. They should all leave, in my opinion, until we learn to respect them more.

 

[Minor Axis]

Just look at the world around you - moderated capitalism has benefited most of society enormously. Isn't it logical to say that unregulated capitalism will help them even more? My point was that they shouldn't benefit more then or the same as those who work harder.

I'm for moderated capitalism which I called "regulated" capitalism, not unregulated capitalism which I called "raw" capitalism. So we are closer than we thought?

 

[Carthage]

We don't have a "pure" capitalistic system in the U.S. To be pure, everyone or at least most need to have ethics and morals.

No, we don't have a pure system. Too bad. And yes, they need to have ethics and morals. But most of them do - you have to be selfish to start a business and build it up, right? So they are already moral when they become selfish enough to start the business.

PS: I should probably mention that I view selfishness as a moral code.

 

[Carthage]

I'm for moderated capitalism which I called "regulated" capitalism, not unregulated capitalism which I called "raw" capitalism. So we are closer than we thought?

No, my point was that regulated capitalism got us this far, imagine how far raw capitalism will get us. We're closer - but not close enough.

 

[Minor Axis]

Please be more specific on the first part - how do you force people to who don't want to to give things up without using physical force? How does voting or economic pressure do this? You had stated that they weren't willing, I doubt a majority vote saying they should will change their minds.

You vote into government individuals who put into place or keep in place laws and regulations that keep workers from being screwed. Now what that actually means is up to the individual. People like Mulder are all worried about the poor owner, but most of the employees just want a fair work environment. If we are a country, a society, a team, then shipping millions of jobs overseas is pure bullshit. It undermines society and it lowers the standard of living for the majority. The relatively few heads of corporations and their management food chain make out splendidly at the expense of everyone else.

And I call it being intelligent and a good man when you are going to try and keep your business strong and healthy by moving it. We give them no respect, we take their money, we tell them how much to pay us, and we tell them who they can and can't hire. I don't think any business should stay in America. They should all leave, in my opinion, until we learn to respect them more.

Then why don't you just advocate the dissolving of the country?

A corporation is a team of people from top to bottom. Unions first came about because some companies treated their employees like shit. Simple cause and effect. Thank goodness the U.S. government allows unions to exist. It's your company and you're making 10 million a year, but if you paid minimum wage, you could make 25 million a year, and if you had slaves with no benefits handed out, you could make 50 million a year. What's moral? That is the argument between conservatives and liberals.

No, my point was that regulated capitalism got us this far, imagine how far raw capitalism will get us. We're closer - but not close enough.

You want no part of raw capitalism unless you want a revolution. Just to be clear, that is not my threat, just a philosophical position.

 

[Carthage]

You vote into government individuals who put into place or keep in place laws and regulations that keep workers from being screwed. Now what that actually means is up to the individual. People like Mulder are all worried about the poor owner, but most of the employees just want a fair work environment. If we are a country, a society, a team, then shipping millions of jobs overseas is pure bullshit. It undermines society and it lowers the standard of living for the majority. The relatively few heads of corporations and their management food chain make out splendidly at the expense of everyone else.

And how do you plan on getting corporations who don't want to go along with this without using physical force?
And we are a country, yes, but we are individuals first. And if it is against your individual interest to stay in America, then why should they? Self first, country second. A country is just a collection of selves, after all. If it undermines society, then it's society's fault they didn't give enough respect to the buisnessman or enough freedoms. And how do the relatively few heads of corporations and their management food chain make out splendidly at the expense of everyone else? They aren't taking anything from someone else that belonged to them, and they aren't using other people to their advantage unfairly. They become sucessful by their own work! Not the work of others, their own work!

Then why don't you just advocate the dissolving of the country?

Because I think that we have the capacity to become free for the first time ever.

A corporation is a team of people from top to bottom. Unions first came about because some companies treated their employees like shit. Simple cause and effect. Thank goodness the U.S. government allows unions to exist. It's your company and you're making 10 million a year, but if you paid minimum wage, you could make 25 million a year, and if you had slaves with no benefits handed out, you could make 50 million a year. What's moral? That is the argument between conservatives and liberals.

First of all - yes, unions are good. They'll be an essential part of the Capitalist System of the future. Of course the government would allow them to exist, they aren't initiating the use of physical force, are they?
I don't understand the second part - can you clarify it?
And finally, what's moral is what benefits your rational self interest.

 

[Carthage]

You want no part of raw capitalism unless you want a revolution. Just to be clear, that is not my threat, just a philosophical position.

I want what's right. If it brings a bloody revolution, then so be it, but I still want what's right.

 

[Minor Axis]

I want what's right. If it brings a bloody revolution, then so be it, but I still want what's right.

It's not right if it benefits the few over the majority. What about the concept of "society" don't you get? It's not all about the privileged few. Heads have rolled in the past over this issue. And I'm not advocating everyone being equal, just being fair.