Poll: Capitalism VS Communism VS Socialism

[Pseudonym2]

This is a bad poll
Anarchy and Communism are political systems Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems.

There are Anarcho-syndicalism as advocated by Noam Chomsky. There is Anarcho-capitalism as advocated by Raun Paul (sort of).

There is communist-socialist like Soviet Russia and there is communist-capitalist which is sort of what China is right now.

I vote democratic socialist because I believe that gives the most amount of freedom without abuses of those freedoms.

 

[Nutcase]

I'm not sure if you agree with this, But I believe that capitalism is the best choice, but only when coupled with a hefty dose of socialism.

Free Health care, Free Public education is socialism.

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

I disagree with you that the depression capitalism goes through is a natural cycle. A lot of the cycles are because greedy assholes use their money as a fist and try to bully people around. (well they don't try as much as they succeed). Short selling and ridiculous CEO termination of contract payouts show us that.

I agree that the massive cycles are not natural, but what I mean by that is that they are caused by governments through central banks. CEO termination of contracts and the like are of absolutely no significance. Those come out of the stockholders' pockets, it's up to them how much they want to pay.

The problem with the capitalism picture you paint is that there is no safety net. If someone fails at a risk they took, they are out on the street, no hope to get money, no hope to get a job. The society you paint is total crap. You NEED socialism in a functioning Capitalist society.

The job thing is flat out wrong. You are virtually guaranteed to find work under capitalism as there is always a price at which your labor is worth buying.

Might I also point out that without free-market capitalism, it's already easy to take arbitrarily large risks? Just drink yourself silly while sitting on a 10th floor balcony railing, smoke while filling up at a gas station, etc.

The reason people generally don't do these things is that they know there's a danger. If you had less of a government safety net to fall back on, the act of signing a contract would gain healthy respect and a tiny tingle of fear, and again people would know to be careful with it.

Without massive government-created moral hazards, people would also be a lot more careful with their investments, so people who can't pay their debts wouldn't be able to go deep in debt in the first place, since the lender would really stand to lose it all if the borrower defaults.

 

[Arcticflame]

-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

-snip-

The job thing is flat out wrong. You are virtually guaranteed to find work under capitalism as there is always a price at which your labor is worth buying.

I don't think the job thing is flat out wrong. Look at Wallmart and their hiring of low cost labor. Without minimum wages (Socialism)the wages wouldn't be enough to live on. Hence no safety net with no socialism inserted into capitalism.

Might I also point out that without free-market capitalism, it's already easy to take arbitrarily large risks? Just drink yourself silly while sitting on a 10th floor balcony railing, smoke while filling up at a gas station, etc.

I don't follow how this applies to my post.

The reason people generally don't do these things is that they know there's a danger. If you had less of a government safety net to fall back on, the act of signing a contract would gain healthy respect and a tiny tingle of fear, and again people would know to be careful with it.

Not true, people go gamble away their lives taking risks all the time. They don't take these risks knowing there is a safety net to fall back on. The dole in Australia sucks really badly, and I'm sure it's better than America. It's barely livable and nobody wants to stay there unless you are addicted to Ice.

Without massive government-created moral hazards, people would also be a lot more careful with their investments, so people who can't pay their debts wouldn't be able to go deep in debt in the first place, since the lender would really stand to lose it all if the borrower defaults.

Yes, they would. How do you think mafia's have been run for years? These people put themselves into debts then spend the rest of their lives getting out of the debt. Capitalism already rules when it comes to lending.

I don't really understand what moral hazard you are talking about in the first place.

 

[Horticulture]

I don't really understand what moral hazard you are talking about in the first place.

'Moral Hazard' is a term for externalized risk: when you come to be protected from some or all consequences of your actions. It's commonly referred to in the context of insurance, where the fact that an asset is insured compels the owner to be less protective of it than he would otherwise.

 

[Dele]

1) Higher economic growth (capitalism) and higher social fairness (socialism) are mutually exclusive 99% of the time.
2) Higher economic growth benefits everyone, especially in the long run.

This is why capitalism wins. African countries have tried socialism for 40 years and it has not helped their situation one bit. Now theyre finally opening up to a good market economy and look what happens.. Sustainable 5% yearly growth of GDP.

 

[Nutcase]

-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#History

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved."

 

[Arcticflame]

-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#History

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved."

heh... white population?

And I highly doubt that. Wikipedia is no source.

'Moral Hazard' is a term for externalized risk: when you come to be protected from some or all consequences of your actions. It's commonly referred to in the context of insurance, where the fact that an asset is insured compels the owner to be less protective of it than he would otherwise.

I understand that, I don't understand what you are saying is insured.
Because my money I borrow on interest, sure as hell isn't, and the banks who charge me bleed me dry with no help from the government.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

" The communist looks at a rich man and says, "No man should have this much!". The capitalist looks at a rich man and says, "Everyone should have this much!"."

So true.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

2w

1) Higher economic growth (capitalism) and higher social fairness (socialism) are mutually exclusive 99% of the time.
2) Higher economic growth benefits everyone, especially in the long run.

This is why capitalism wins. African countries have tried socialism for 40 years and it has not helped their situation one bit. Now theyre finally opening up to a good market economy and look what happens.. Sustainable 5% yearly growth of GDP.

1. Yup, I mean, Europe and Canada are just quagmires of disease, misery and human suffering.

2. Higher economic growth does not benifit everyone if the social system is fundamentally broken. The obvious example is.....The United States, which has managed to achieve spectacular economic growth for most of it's history, and yet did not manage to benfit society as a whole until post-1945. Example: 1919-29, one has one of the highest economic growth rates, and yet only 40% of the total population even benfited, 20% actually saw their real wages decline, and the top 1% (richest) of the populace grew even richer. That sought of inequality is both immoral, and, much more importantly, invariably leads to the sought of catastrophic collapse seen in '29.

3. That being said, I'm in favour of the free market, but with a healthy portion of socialism mixed in on the side - free education being the most important, but the free market is still the most important part of any economy.

 

[Lord George]

I still hold the hope free market anarchism could work if only people weren't so stupid, perhaps an anarchic free market that was secretly run by a shadow dictator would work? everyone would be happy in ignorance and the world would tick over nicely under the control of a lineage of overseers

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I still hold the hope free market anarchism could work if only people weren't so stupid, perhaps an anarchic free market that was secretly run by a shadow dictator would work? everyone would be happy in ignorance and the world would tick over nicely under the control of a lineage of overseers

Free market anarchism? As in, private military companies, no public goods, no roads, etc? Gah! It's worse than Rand!

 

[Dele]

1) Higher economic growth (capitalism) and higher social fairness (socialism) are mutually exclusive 99% of the time.
2) Higher economic growth benefits everyone, especially in the long run.

This is why capitalism wins. African countries have tried socialism for 40 years and it has not helped their situation one bit. Now theyre finally opening up to a good market economy and look what happens.. Sustainable 5% yearly growth of GDP.

1. Yup, I mean, Europe and Canada are just quagmires of disease, misery and human suffering.

2. Higher economic growth does not benifit everyone if the social system is fundamentally broken. The obvious example is.....The United States, which has managed to achieve spectacular economic growth for most of it's history, and yet did not manage to benfit society as a whole until post-1945. Example: 1919-29, one has one of the highest economic growth rates, and yet only 40% of the total population even benfited, 20% actually saw their real wages decline, and the top 1% (richest) of the populace grew even richer. That sought of inequality is both immoral, and, much more importantly, invariably leads to the sought of catastrophic collapse seen in '29.

3. That being said, I'm in favour of the free market, but with a healthy portion of socialism mixed in on the side - free education being the most important, but the free market is still the most important part of any economy.

1) No, just overall lower standard of living.

2) Which is why I put the emphasis in the long run. If income equality is cherished over economic growth, everyone (+ future generations) are a lot worse off in the long run. This is essentially why you and I will propably never get good public pensions if at all.

3) Why does education have to be free to everyone? Society should only support the weakest and the poorest and be done with it, otherwise were stuck with heavy bureaucracy and ineffiency.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

How about none of the above. All the systems listed suck.

And what doesn't suck?

Putinism the greatest system ever!

 

[Rolling Thunder]

1) No, just overall lower standard of living.

2) Which is why I put the emphasis in the long run. If income equality is cherished over economic growth, everyone (+ future generations) are a lot worse off in the long run. This is essentially why you and I will propably never get good public pensions if at all.

3) Why does education have to be free to everyone? Society should only support the weakest and the poorest and be done with it, otherwise were stuck with heavy bureaucracy and ineffiency.

Sorry Dele, but

1) Is an utter lie. Canada, the UK, Europe and Australia have standards of living far ahead of the United States, or for the matter any sizeable capitalist nation. Sorry, but you're so wrong that there should be a monument put up to mark this spot.

2) Not quite getting your point here....but I would guess you are saying that resultant inflation from governmental policies will result in a lowering of the currency until it becomes valueless? Hmmm....point, but I'm not a big fan of that kind of government intervention. I'm in favour of big, vicious taxes on stocks and shares (which are an inflationary preassure in a growing market), lowered taxes on saving gains. Which is neither here nor there. But there are very few government policies, beyond that, that can curb income inequaility. (I mainly object to wealth gathered from stock trading, as it creates nothing)

3. Well, because if it is not, one winds up with an inherently inefficent workforce, and a deepening of inequality. Also, because the education system is a fairly low-profit, high-cost field, the market would never be able to supply satisfactory education to ensure a plentiful supply of qualified labour for itself.

 

[J-Man]

Capitalism = The problem here is that we've had capitalism for thousands of years, and it's thousands of years out of date.

........in my opinion with communism, and if that doesn't work socialism is a viable alternative.

This has to be the most ignorant moronic statement I have ever seen in my life.
No wonder socialism failed completely, with people so uninformed trying to replace the free market with mindless rhetoric.

You provide no facts, solely opinions, and do not substantiate your opinion in any way.

 

[ghost02]

Authoritarian Fascism. Tada. Like 1984 would work for me.

 

[Nutcase]

-snip-

Dunno... my personal experience of public schooling is pretty bad, though this particular one has been touted as one of the best in the world. My experience of private schooling is excellent.

Literacy rates well over 90% were common in many places before any public schooling. That was ~150-200 years ago, with infinitely smaller resources and "old-school" pedagogics. I'm definitely not finding it an obvious conclusion that there must be a public school.

Um. What? Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#History

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved."

heh... white population?

What about it?

And I highly doubt that. Wikipedia is no source.

I give you the link, and you can't even be bothered to click twice (citation number -> actual citation) to get to the source? Now that's just lazy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xMj-8u5DsgsC&pg=PR5&dq=census+%22United+States%22+1800&as_brr=1#PPA144,M1/

Still "highly doubting"?

FYI, my own country also reached near-complete literacy before public schools.

'Moral Hazard' is a term for externalized risk: when you come to be protected from some or all consequences of your actions. It's commonly referred to in the context of insurance, where the fact that an asset is insured compels the owner to be less protective of it than he would otherwise.

I understand that, I don't understand what you are saying is insured.
Because my money I borrow on interest, sure as hell isn't, and the banks who charge me bleed me dry with no help from the government.

Here you go.
http://mises.org/story/2935

 

[Red Right Hand]

Authoritarian Fascism. Tada. Like 1984 would work for me.

Dammit! you stole my point. I would like to direct people to the book, 'what about all the good things Hitler did'.... just before people start to attack me, i would like to point out that i am joking!