Capitalism versus Socialism

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

UoIf you read my posts, you will see that I am far from averse to state involvement in a capitalist economy. But government is not always a panacea, it does not always lead the nation in the right direction. Many European states that arose in the chaotic inter war period were not the kinds of states I would like to live under.quote>

You dont wan to live in a democracy? Most inter war period states werent that bad. You had 3 fascist states, 1 communist state, and a bunch of democracies. 

Besides that, it was not that they where much different then the states before the war. I suppose you simply wouldnt want to live anywhere in Europe until after the second world war. 

I meant perfect equality. As in, no single member of society is considered above anyone else, no member of society receives special privileges of any sort or recognition of exemplary contribution. So you interpreted it wrong, I meant perfect equality, not necessarily income equality. Yes, some people will work at things, but as a whole far less efficiently. Besides, someone has to do the dirty work in society, how do you force people to do these jobs?quote>

I already said that perfect equality doesnt exist and shouldnt be strived for. You can still be socialist and keep some differences between people on all kinds of levels. As long as the differences dont become to big, like they are in a capitalist society, difference itself isnt a bad thing.

In a world of finite resources there is only so much prosperity that everyone can have. The planet probably cannot sustain a human population 9-12 billion people at the levels of affluence of the western world. Yes, new technologies will probably increase carrying capacity further (as they already have), but it seems unlikely that there will be any breakthrough in the next couple of decades that would enable that level of widespread affluence. Essentially, you are being selfish. That's fairly ironic for a socialist. (Aside from being selfish, your rather vague alternate proposal is fairly delusional).quote>

Ok, fine, Im being selfish. Can you blame me for not wanting to do slave labor in a sweatshop so some other douche can get rich by sitting on his fat ass watching me work? But at the same time, I dont want Asians doing that slave labor work as well. Because I think that it is just as unfair for them as it would be for us. I dont want others to do things I wouldnt want to do as well. Nobody should do that sort of work. 

It isn't lame. I did not suggest that you should burn for anything. I was suggesting that you are being extremely hypocritical to complain that Asians are taking European jobs and then expecting them to somehow create their own prosperity in an isolated economy. I find it funny that you are taking it as a personal insult, it was a statement of fact. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. It also shows a lack of understanding of global political economy.

Here's what I was saying in plain language:

(1) Europe began industrialization in part because it took manufacturing jobs away from Asian economies (we can call this reverse outsourcing)

(2) Isolated economies do not prosper as a general rule, at least without significant domestic costs

(3) The expectation that China should achieve prosperity on its own without effecting Europeans is delusional

(4) If you believe that Chinese prosperity now should be dependent on not negatively effecting any Europeans, then just keep in mind the negative effects European prosperity has (and continues to have) on the rest of the world.

No, I am not trying to make you feel guilty. This is just a statement of fact, European economic prosperity cost many people around the world a lot, and I find it supremely arrogant of you to complain about some lost jobs and blaming it on the economic prosperity of others. Secondly, I was criticizing your unrealistic alternative for Chinese development.quote>

No, Europe began the industralization by the invention of the steam engine, which allowed for mass production of all kinds of things that used to be done by hand. As an effect, yes, certain jobs in India got outsourced by the British. Ok, great, but that happened 200 years ago. But now youre calling me a hypocrite because some British dudes outsourced a bunch of jobs to Europe 200 freaking years ago and I dont like outsourcing? I dont know, but I dont see the hypocrisy in that. Im against outsourcing, period. How does that make me a hypocrite? And gee, no wonder I think youre trying to insult me. Last time I checked, being called a hypocrite wasnt a compliment. 

Ugh, well never mind, its pointless discussing this any further. You either dont read my posts well enough or you just dont grasp the idea Im trying to explain. 

Is the USSR your only example? Okay, here's why I don't think it's a viable development model in the current international system.

(1) It required massive political repression and the use of millions of slave labourers. China gets into a lot of trouble today for the condition of its sweatshops, can you imagine the outcry if China enslaved millions of people and worked them to death in the cause of economic development?

(2) The USSR was able to dramatically increase prosperity from a very low base. However, the economy of the USSR was fundamentally flawed, suffered from massive inefficiencies, and was reliant on expansive economic growth. Compared to capitalist development, economic development in the USSR was a disaster for the environment. By the 1980s the USSR economy had reached its expansive limits and was unable to intensify productivity, eventually resulting in a political-economic crisis and the collapse of the system. The modern Russian economy is still suffering from the deleterious effects of the flawed Soviet model combined with an extreme capitalist oligarchy.

(3) I love your callous disregard for human life. I thought I was supposed to be that big bad capitalist?quote>

When the USSR started out there wasnt to much political repression. But okay, that picked up under Stalin. Slave labors? So far Ive never heard anyone saying the sovjets where a bunch of slaves.

Flawed economic model? Maybe. The main reason they went broke was this arms race between them and the US. They spend untold trillions on maintaining one of the biggest armies in the world, getting the modern weapons and having a huge arsenal of ICBM's. That and youre trying to horde wealth as much as possible while using a much less flexible system that isnt designed for that. Capitalism is the best system if you effectively want as much wealth possible in the shortest time possible. The USSR tried to achieve the same goals as the capitalist west using the wrong system. Combined with political repression etc, yeah your bound to fail. Still, that doesnt mean the system itself is wrong, it was simply misused. If your goal is not to get as much money as soon as possible communism might be better suited. I think that once you have gained a certain level of wealth, you can start focusing on economic stabilty instead of growth. No growth in all sectors. Then start smearing it out over everyone. Drop the focus on material wealth and the idea that success in life is dependent on how much stuff you have.  You could almost say that you can focus your shift from making money to a more spiritual enlightenment. As well as an increase in culture and happiness of people in general.

Of course, I doubt youd agree with me. Or even get the idea. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What we are doing in Canada is not perfect, but it is the best we have tried so far.  Our banking model is the envy of the G8 mostly due to the Great Depression which spawned the Bank Act of 1936.  This act, now much amended, put a great many restrictions on the banks and on their shareholders.  Once upon a time there was a double liability clause for bank shareholders which said that if a bank went broke the shareholder had to pay for all their shares a second time.  This has been recinded, but there are other regulations. 

Big bank mergers must be approved by the government's banking committee and these are some of the most conservative (small c) people you will ever see.  Our big five tried a few years ago to become the big two or three and they got nowhere with this.  We don't allow big outfits like the old Chemical Corn Exchange Bank in the US to sell out to another outfit.  Dislocations like that have certainly contributed to the banking crisis in the US by reducing competition and limited the choice of the consumer.  These banking cartels in the US will never learn from the current crisis as long as they can count on the US federal government to be their backstop.  This is not any way a true capitalism, or these banks would have gone to the wall no matter what happened to the little guys.  They should never have been allowed to exist in the first place, and the US has no means to stop it.

[raja_indy14 8]

The Tariff Act of 1857 reduced the average tariff rate to about 20%. quote>

Tariffs are not a tax, per se. What that means is that they scaled back protectionism which encourages imports of foreign goods. I suppose in some ways it works as a tax cut, it might allow cheaper consumer costs within the US, or it may increase state revenues by encouraging trade (when it comes to tax collection, higher is not necessarily better in terms of total revenues).

Either way, it still wasn't state-planned economics that corrected it.quote>

Obviously not, since it was a dislocation caused by the transition from a state-managed war economy to a largely private economy.

You dont wan to live in a democracy? Most inter war period states werent that bad. You had 3 fascist states, 1 communist state, and a bunch of democracies.

Besides that, it was not that they where much different then the states before the war. I suppose you simply wouldnt want to live anywhere in Europe until after the second world war. quote>

If they were democracies they were mostly ineffective. Europe in the inter war period lurched from crisis to crisis with little real growth and considerable political instability. No, I would much prefer to have lived in Canada 1919-1939 than almost anywhere on continental Europe. By the time the war started many Europeans were not all that averse to the failure of liberal democracy against fascism (as it looked in 1942), liberal democracy had failed.

And no, probably not. I'd rather live somewhere that doesn't engage in periodic massive bloodlettings. Of course, this probably doesn't matter much to you since you don't seem to think human life is all that valuable.

Ok, fine, Im being selfish. Can you blame me for not wanting to do slave labor in a sweatshop so some other douche can get rich by sitting on his fat ass watching me work? But at the same time, I dont want Asians doing that slave labor work as well. Because I think that it is just as unfair for them as it would be for us. I dont want others to do things I wouldnt want to do as well. Nobody should do that sort of work. quote>

I like to debate with people that are at least somewhat realistic. If we're going to get into the realm of perfect world scenarios there's really no point having a discussion. Yes, it would be nice if there were never any sweatshops, but sweatshop-style labour seems to be the starting point of all industrialization. Do you think European or North American manufacturing jobs in the nineteenth century had the wages and benefits that they have now? Obviously not, and while current developmental states can probably accelerate through that stage of industrialization, I don't know of anyone who has actually come up with a developmental model that successfully skips that stage altogether.

No, Europe began the industralization by the invention of the steam engine, which allowed for mass production of all kinds of things that used to be done by hand. As an effect, yes, certain jobs in India got outsourced by the British. Ok, great, but that happened 200 years ago. But now youre calling me a hypocrite because some British dudes outsourced a bunch of jobs to Europe 200 freaking years ago and I dont like outsourcing? I dont know, but I dont see the hypocrisy in that. Im against outsourcing, period. How does that make me a hypocrite? And gee, no wonder I think youre trying to insult me. Last time I checked, being called a hypocrite wasnt a compliment. quote>

If you think modern European economic development began with the steam engine you need to go take a course in the political-economic history of Europe from the Late Middle Ages to the Modern Era. In the meantime, there's no point discussing this further.

The reason I am calling you a hypocrite, okay, maybe just delusional, is because you think that there can be massive economic development in one part of the world without some sort of negative consequences somewhere else. The world doesn't work like that, rapid economic development in a country as large as China will have an impact on the developed world and not all of it will be positive. I'm trying to get you to keep it in perspective and I'm criticizing your (unfounded) notion that China should just industrialize on it's own isolated from the global labour market.

Ugh, well never mind, its pointless discussing this any further. You either dont read my posts well enough or you just dont grasp the idea Im trying to explain.quote>

Yes, well maybe we can continue in future after you've studied international political economy more.

When the USSR started out there wasnt to much political repression. But okay, that picked up under Stalin. Slave labors? So far Ive never heard anyone saying the sovjets where a bunch of slaves. quote>

Yes, and the USSR didn't experience much economic growth when it started out. Slave labour is basically what you'd call the gulag system. Ever read about Magadan or Dalstroy? The Soviets under Stalin used forced-labour to carry out many of their most important development schemes, many of them were political prisoners arrested on trumped up charges. Often there would be no crime at all, but Stalin would say "we need engineers for this project", and several engineers would be arrested and sent to labour camps. Take a course in Soviet history or just read a good book about Stalinist economics.

Flawed economic model? Maybe. The main reason they went broke was this arms race between them and the US. They spend untold trillions on maintaining one of the biggest armies in the world, getting the modern weapons and having a huge arsenal of ICBM's. That and youre trying to horde wealth as much as possible while using a much less flexible system that isnt designed for that. Capitalism is the best system if you effectively want as much wealth possible in the shortest time possible. The USSR tried to achieve the same goals as the capitalist west using the wrong system. Combined with political repression etc, yeah your bound to fail. Still, that doesnt mean the system itself is wrong, it was simply misused. If your goal is not to get as much money as soon as possible communism might be better suited. I think that once you have gained a certain level of wealth, you can start focusing on economic stabilty instead of growth. No growth in all sectors. Then start smearing it out over everyone. Drop the focus on material wealth and the idea that success in life is dependent on how much stuff you have. You could almost say that you can focus your shift from making money to a more spiritual enlightenment. As well as an increase in culture and happiness of people in general.

Of course, I doubt youd agree with me. Or even get the idea. quote>

I obviously get it, you are the one who has been making minimal and less than coherent responses.

Well that's nice, come back to me when that's been tried successfully on a national scale. Such a system can't exist in an international system dominated by competing capitalist nation-states. Yes, it would be nice if we could all live culturally fulfilled and happy lives with a modicum of comfort and a reduced sense of materialism, where everyone is more concerned about the collective than about themselves, where liberalism is subsumed beneath the state. But I don't know, would the Soviet Union have developed to its 1970s state of relative prosperity without Stalin? Can an illiberal system be maintained simply by moral and cultural rectitude and be relied upon not to suppress individuals?

But this is silly, here I am being a realist and you're coming back at me with all these vague alternate scenarios that are difficult to critique or even discuss meaningfully. I prefer to use real life examples rather than theoretical utopias. There are utopian visions of laissez-faire capitalism too, you know.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

If they were democracies they were mostly ineffective. Europe in the inter war period lurched from crisis to crisis with little real growth and considerable political instability. No, I would much prefer to have lived in Canada 1919-1939 than almost anywhere on continental Europe. By the time the war started many Europeans were not all that averse to the failure of liberal democracy against fascism (as it looked in 1942), liberal democracy had failed.

And no, probably not. I'd rather live somewhere that doesn't engage in periodic massive bloodlettings. Of course, this probably doesn't matter much to you since you don't seem to think human life is all that valuable.quote>

No *****, liberal democracy didnt exist so long back then. And half of Europe was going from being a empire to liberal democracies. Of course that is bound to fail when your economy lies in shambles and youve got to deal with the biggest economic crisis in the history of humanity. Besides that, it turned out that the free market and capitalism didnt do what it was supposed to do. It only made people poorer. But that was what everyone was trusting in. 

And periodic bloodletting? Oh, right... 

I like to debate with people that are at least somewhat realistic. If we're going to get into the realm of perfect world scenarios there's really no point having a discussion. Yes, it would be nice if there were never any sweatshops, but sweatshop-style labour seems to be the starting point of all industrialization. Do you think European or North American manufacturing jobs in the nineteenth century had the wages and benefits that they have now? Obviously not, and while current developmental states can probably accelerate through that stage of industrialization, I don't know of anyone who has actually come up with a developmental model that successfully skips that stage altogether.quote>

Its rather easy to skip in most cases. Its just that its unprofitable for the countries involved because it would earn them less money. Especially in China, but thats more because they simply have to much people. But half of the stuff you make in sweatshops can be produced by robots as well. It could easily help you skip the sweat shop stage and start right away with more advanced industries. 

But yeah, people regard it as expensive because it requires a little more money to invest in. Youd actually need to school your workers before they can get to work. And yeah, since we are all cheap greedy bastards, we cant spare that as well now can we? 

If you think modern European economic development began with the steam engine you need to go take a course in the political-economic history of Europe from the Late Middle Ages to the Modern Era. In the meantime, there's no point discussing this further.

The reason I am calling you a hypocrite, okay, maybe just delusional, is because you think that there can be massive economic development in one part of the world without some sort of negative consequences somewhere else. The world doesn't work like that, rapid economic development in a country as large as China will have an impact on the developed world and not all of it will be positive. I'm trying to get you to keep it in perspective and I'm criticizing your (unfounded) notion that China should just industrialize on it's own isolated from the global labour market.quote>

You talked about the industrialization and the industrial revolution. It started with the invention of the steam engine. Every history book Ive read so far has told me the same. Of course, Europe was an economic world super power already, because it was the most advanced technology compared to everyone else. Mainly because there was nobody to rival them. But simply, before the invention of the steam engine, people still mainly worked on the lands, after the invention, the first real fabrics where opened and urbanization happened. 

There is a big difference between a person who is a hypocrite and a person who is delusional. And I dont mind delusional. I know I am. 

Yes, and the USSR didn't experience much economic growth when it started out. Slave labour is basically what you'd call the gulag system. Ever read about Magadan or Dalstroy? The Soviets under Stalin used forced-labour to carry out many of their most important development schemes, many of them were political prisoners arrested on trumped up charges. Often there would be no crime at all, but Stalin would say "we need engineers for this project", and several engineers would be arrested and sent to labour camps. Take a course in Soviet history or just read a good book about Stalinist economics.quote>

Ok, youre right about that one. 

I obviously get it, you are the one who has been making minimal and less than coherent responses.

Well that's nice, come back to me when that's been tried successfully on a national scale. Such a system can't exist in an international system dominated by competing capitalist nation-states. Yes, it would be nice if we could all live culturally fulfilled and happy lives with a modicum of comfort and a reduced sense of materialism, where everyone is more concerned about the collective than about themselves, where liberalism is subsumed beneath the state. But I don't know, would the Soviet Union have developed to its 1970s state of relative prosperity without Stalin? Can an illiberal system be maintained simply by moral and cultural rectitude and be relied upon not to suppress individuals?

But this is silly, here I am being a realist and you're coming back at me with all these vague alternate scenarios that are difficult to critique or even discuss meaningfully. I prefer to use real life examples rather than theoretical utopias. There are utopian visions of laissez-faire capitalism too, you know.quote>

Capitalism wouldnt work if the rest of the world was communist. Or if every country worked with economic isolationism. Such a system wouldnt work now, because of the lack of support world wide. But say that this movement would gain ground in Europe, and it would get massive support. It sure as hell would work. Europe is big enough to sustain itself with only the minimal amounts of resources it actually needs to import. Sure, its a very positive scenario and unlikely to happen. But its not impossible.  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

Tariffs are not a tax, per se.quote>

Let's define "tax":

Tax n. any means by which a government entity collects money from people.

Does a tariff fit that description? Absolutely. Thus, it's a tax. A tax on imported goods.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Let's not argue about semantics here.  A tax by any other name is still a tax.  The only monies governments receive except free donations from the populace are taxes.  Tax is the price of government, and as the government grows, so must the tax.  The best policy is less government and fewer laws.  There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse.  Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating.  In our democracies, this will take several centuries.

[raja_indy14 8]

Its rather easy to skip in most cases. Its just that its unprofitable for the countries involved because it would earn them less money. Especially in China, but thats more because they simply have to much people. But half of the stuff you make in sweatshops can be produced by robots as well. It could easily help you skip the sweat shop stage and start right away with more advanced industries. quote>

Oh really. You mean that poor, technically unskilled economies are going leave their one major asset (a large pool of cheap labour) unemployed (and thus disgruntled) and attempt to start an economy where production is done by robots. Okay, that's not unrealistic. At all...

If it is so easy to skip, name the countries that have skipped it. Also, what does unprofitability for the country (state?) have to do with it if this is an ill of a capitalist free market?

But yeah, people regard it as expensive because it requires a little more money to invest in. Youd actually need to school your workers before they can get to work. And yeah, since we are all cheap greedy bastards, we cant spare that as well now can we? quote>

It's clear you don't understand the technical and capital disadvantages of underdeveloped countries. Where does this money come from to educate an entire workforce for a service based economy started from scratch? Also, most times you need a base of efficient agriculture and industry before you can move on to service industries as a major part of your economy. This isn't a case of being cheap, it's a case of not having the capital in the first place and precious little to borrow against.

You talked about the industrialization and the industrial revolution. It started with the invention of the steam engine. Every history book Ive read so far has told me the same. Of course, Europe was an economic world super power already, because it was the most advanced technology compared to everyone else. Mainly because there was nobody to rival them. But simply, before the invention of the steam engine, people still mainly worked on the lands, after the invention, the first real fabrics where opened and urbanization happened. quote>

Good god, what sorts of history books do you read? A Netherlander especially should appreciate the effects of colonization and the financial revolution (in which the Dutch played a vital role) which occurred about a century before the true industrial revolution. Yes, many things will date the start of the industrial revolution to the invention of the steam engine, but the economic development of Europe towards that point had been occurring for centuries previously.

As for wealth, European technology wasn't the most advanced compared to everyone else until c.1750, in the meantime they benefited from a massive influx of silver and gold from the Americas, a sugar plantation economy in the Caribbean and the massive trade in African slaves to run it, and the control of India which was largely achieved by the end of the eighteenth century. You've obviously been taught a very minimalist version of European economic development.

Capitalism wouldnt work if the rest of the world was communist.quote>

Proof?

Or if every country worked with economic isolationism. Such a system wouldnt work now, because of the lack of support world wide. But say that this movement would gain ground in Europe, and it would get massive support. It sure as hell would work. Europe is big enough to sustain itself with only the minimal amounts of resources it actually needs to import. Sure, its a very positive scenario and unlikely to happen. But its not impossible. quote>

Yes, economic autarky has been shown to be a failure, it largely precipitated WWII. This is why countries should restrict the urge to increase protectionism and trade controls in the face of cheap Asian labour. History has shown that autarkic trading practices are more likely to induce conflicts, up to an including war, between major states/economies.

Yes, I'd like to see how Europe would get along in economic isolation from the rest of the world. Is Russia excluded from 'Europe'? Because there just went Germany's natural gas. Tropical fruits and products and Middle East oil and Asian consumer goods, all gone. Meanwhile, the European standard of living would drastically decline because you would be paying through your noses just to purchase basic goods thanks to your far higher mandatory wages. Maybe for a while you could prey on the cheap labour of the newly introduced Eastern European states, but that probably wouldn't last long in an environment of high labour demand.

Yes, Europe could likely sustain itself in isolation, but if you think living standards would stay the same or even suffer only slightly then you would be very much mistaken.

Let's define "tax":

Tax n. any means by which a government entity collects money from people.

Does a tariff fit that description? Absolutely. Thus, it's a tax. A tax on imported goods.quote>

*Sigh*

Okay, you win. Tariffs are a tax. It's just that since they have rather different effects than a tax on income or goods and services (sales tax), they are normally referred to specifically as a tariff reduction not a tax cut. They are an indicator of less protectionism and freer trade and can be perceived as a spur or a threat to local firms (given America's history of protectionism, probably the latter in this case). So yes, in general terms it can be called a tax cut, but most people would refer to it specifically as a tariff reduction (and would consider the term 'tax cut' misleading).

The best policy is less government and fewer laws. There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse. Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating. In our democracies, this will take several centuries.quote>

Well, in some people's opinion. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that less government is necessarily "better", especially when there are so many anecdotal cases of a considerable level of government involvement being hugely beneficial (at least over a period of time, possibly not perpetually). Restriction of personal liberties are very tedious and should be taken away, but then again the state can be a primary motivator for the protection of certain liberties that you certainly cannot entrust society as a whole to necessarily uphold.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

Oh really. You mean that poor, technically unskilled economies are going leave their one major asset (a large pool of cheap labour) unemployed (and thus disgruntled) and attempt to start an economy where production is done by robots. Okay, that's not unrealistic. At all...

 If it is so easy to skip, name the countries that have skipped it. Also, what does unprofitability for the country (state?) have to do with it if this is an ill of a capitalist free market?quote>

I said it was possible. And it does require the help of countries that are advanced. If making profit wasnt the primary goal of everyone in this world, countries might actually help developing nations that have reached a certain stage of stability. Or it just requires a strong political elite who has firm control over the nation and is given enough time to educate people. You just need the knowledge. Of course, this would require them to turn the large pool of unemployed and largely uneducated people to become educated enough to understand how to work in more modern factories that use robotics. 

Its not easy, I never said that. You said it was impossible, I showed you a workable if difficult alternative for sweatshop labor being a required stage in economic development. It works so because this is a capitalistic world. If it wasnt a capitalistic world, the priority of people wouldnt be money, and like I said above, countries would actually be able to help each other out, instead of consuming their cheap resources before discarding them. 

 

It's clear you don't understand the technical and capital disadvantages of underdeveloped countries. Where does this money come from to educate an entire workforce for a service based economy started from scratch? Also, most times you need a base of efficient agriculture and industry before you can move on to service industries as a major part of your economy. This isn't a case of being cheap, it's a case of not having the capital in the first place and precious little to borrow against.quote>

I do know what Im talking about. You just dont get it. I never said to skip everything and go right to the service based economy. I said you can skip the sweatshop stage and go right to the high tech. Even in a capitalist world like ours that should be possible. Its just that its more expensive for companies to do. Robots simply cost more then humans. 

 

 

Good god, what sorts of history books do you read? A Netherlander especially should appreciate the effects of colonization and the financial revolution (in which the Dutch played a vital role) which occurred about a century before the true industrial revolution. Yes, many things will date the start of the industrial revolution to the invention of the steam engine, but the economic development of Europe towards that point had been occurring for centuries previously.

 As for wealth, European technology wasn't the most advanced compared to everyone else until c.1750, in the meantime they benefited from a massive influx of silver and gold from the Americas, a sugar plantation economy in the Caribbean and the massive trade in African slaves to run it, and the control of India which was largely achieved by the end of the eighteenth century. You've obviously been taught a very minimalist version of European economic development.quote>

No, if youre going to talk like that, Im going to say it where the invention of banks and gildes that caused the economic development. Or before that, the forming of the first actual cities. Every advancement we made in Europe after the Romans retreated are then the cause of Europes developing economy. Though its simply the Industrial revolution that caused all of our current wealth. And the Industrial revolution is a technological advancement. It was bound to made at some point, but otherwise, it has nothing to do with everything before that. They are unrelated. Sugar plantations didnt pay for the first steam engine, and the steam engine wasnt the next logical step in our economic development. It was pretty much a freak event. 

  

proof?quote>

Capitalists would have nobody to conduct free trade with. It would have a hard time selling anything or getting the proper resources. It would be unable to compete with communist products as all prices are artificially created. They simply wouldnt make any profit and they would go out of business. 

 

 

Yes, economic autarky has been shown to be a failure, it largely precipitated WWII. This is why countries should restrict the urge to increase protectionism and trade controls in the face of cheap Asian labour. History has shown that autarkic trading practices are more likely to induce conflicts, up to an including war, between major states/economies.quote>

What books have you been reading? Protectionism did not cause the second World War. It was a minor influence in getting America involved. Japan would have attacked America anyways, because thats whats likely to happen if the country was ruled by a god emperor and a bunch of extremely nationalistic Japanese supremacists. Besides that, the war in Europe had nothing to do with protectionism or any economic reason really. You know, fascism was still the major cause of the war in Europe. Japan merely used the trade conflict as an excuse to begin the war. 

 

Yes, I'd like to see how Europe would get along in economic isolation from the rest of the world. Is Russia excluded from 'Europe'? Because there just went Germany's natural gas. Tropical fruits and products and Middle East oil and Asian consumer goods, all gone. Meanwhile, the European standard of living would drastically decline because you would be paying through your noses just to purchase basic goods thanks to your far higher mandatory wages. Maybe for a while you could prey on the cheap labour of the newly introduced Eastern European states, but that probably wouldn't last long in an environment of high labour demand.

 Yes, Europe could likely sustain itself in isolation, but if you think living standards would stay the same or even suffer only slightly then you would be very much mistaken.quote>

See, youre not getting it. Any of it. You are incapable of getting it. You are reasoning from a capitalistic point of view. Obviously this wouldnt work with capitalism, I figured that out as well. So obviously when Im suggesting such a thing, Ive already included the fact that such an isolated Europe is in fact not a liberal democracy and does not have a capitalistic system. As well Im assuming we have found different sources of power so we do not require natural gas.

And before you reply with, thats all future talk assuming some positive scenario with things that arent like that in reality. Well duh, thats why Europe isnt an isolated part of the world. However, none of these things are impossible. There are lots of alternatives for natural gas as fuel. Far higher mandatory wages dont increase the prices as much as obviously, you can keep them lower through artificial means. Yes, not in a capitalistic society with a liberal democracy. Once again, both would not be present there.  

Look, all I am saying is that Capitalism isnt perfect and its going to be replaced sooner or later. It might be in 10 years or it might be 100 years, but it will be replaced. I am speculating on what will replace capitalism. My bet is on socialistic/communistic sort of economy world wide because its a counter movement on capitalism. Of course it wont be like in the USSR, but it will have most of it in common with them then anything else. 

 

The best policy is less government and fewer laws. There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse. Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating. In our democracies, this will take several centuries.quote>

Less government brought us the economic crisis and the bailouts. Sounds like an awesome plan to repeat our mistakes again and make the consequences even worse next time.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

 

The best policy is less government and fewer laws. There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse. Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating. In our democracies, this will take several centuries.quote>

Less government brought us the economic crisis and the bailouts. Sounds like an awesome plan to repeat our mistakes again and make the consequences even worse next time.  

quote>

quote>

That's my unatributed quote.  I am glad to see you've taken it up.  Fewer laws do not make a weaker government.  What is necessary is high-quality legislation.  This does not produce less government, but a more streamlined one.  By fixing all the loopholes, and making the tax system more equitable, you could develop a system that discouraged corporate greed and rewarded success and inventiveness.  Right now, the measure of success is money.  Well, the root of all evil need not be the goal for companies that adopt the creed of "Doing well while doing good."

It is important to reward those more who improve the lot of their fellow man while at the same time producing a suitable reward for the owners.  The two things are opposite sides of the coin.  One of the most important items is employee happieness and the resulting employee loyalty.  This can't happen in the current poisoned climate where there is no employer loyalty.

Fewer laws, by the way, makes for fewer lawyers.  If the code is uncomplicated, it doesn't need to be specially interpreted in each case.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

 

The best policy is less government and fewer laws. There needs to be a rule that you can't put a new law on the books without rescinding two old ones that have fallen into disuse. Eventually you will have skinned back to the essentials and can stop legislating. In our democracies, this will take several centuries.quote>

Less government brought us the economic crisis and the bailouts. Sounds like an awesome plan to repeat our mistakes again and make the consequences even worse next time.  quote>

First of all, while Bush and the neoconservatives preached small government in the preceding 10 years, they actually launched the biggest expansion of government power and size in modern times.

Secondly, the crisis was caused by a collapse of a credit boom, which caused misallocation of investment into housing and encouraged too much debt and leverage. The cause of this credit boom was the Federal Reserve, who were printing money and keeping interest rates below where they should have been. In 2007 and 2008, that credit boom busted and a depression followed, which has by this point in time stabilized.

If there had been no Federal Reserve, a big-government creation of Woodrow Wilson, there would have been nothing keeping interest rates lower nor printing money, and the credit boom, housing misallocation, and taking on of debt would have never happened.

Would there be recessions and depressions without it? Certainly, but do we want an institution (central bank) that by its very nature exaggerates the swings of the economic cycle?

This shows that the economic system socialists and communists refer to as capitalism is not even real capitalism at all, it is economic fascism, because the big government colludes with big corporations to oppress the people and serve their own interests. For proof, just look at the American health care bill passed on March 21.

Thirdly, on the bailouts, they were instigated by Bush so that the big corporations (which colluded with the government before) could live even though they were failing. Of course, this creates more problems because these zombie and dinosaur companies are sucking up money and impeding the ascendance of newer, smaller, more efficient businesses into the market which would have taken their place had they failed.

The whole thing was also financed with money printing, which far more intense than the printing that had created the crisis, and with low interest rates, which were also far lower than the rate that created the crisis.

This is setting the stage for a new inflationary collapse of the American economy, which the socialists will no doubt blame on "small government policy", and use this as an excuse to try and impose their own flawed and failed economic ideas on the rest of us.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Agreed that printing money is simply inflationary, and that the U.S. Federal Reserve is not set up properly.  Mr. Wilson has his moments, and that wasn't one of them.  He also had to contend with Henry Clay who was a giganitic pain in the tokus.  All in all, Mr. Wilson was one of the better presidents the Americans have had, but in the isolationist climate of that time was unable to get much useful out of a recalcitrant congress.

Capitalism is a good system, but it needs a good set of brakes.  Wall Street has had the bit in its teeth for far too long.  I like the idea that the executive suite cannot collect bonuses if the company is in the red.  I also don't believe that these can be deferred for later undeserved reward.  This leads to fiscal oligarchy, not capitalism.

Let's look at what a responsible board room and executive suite should look like.

1. In the interest of the owners (shareholders), a long term outlook is required.
2. While quarterly figures are an indicator, the true bottom line occurs at the end of the tax year, not the current quarter.
3. Employees are part of the company, and must be treated as a precious asset, not as cannon fodder.
4. The company is more important than the individual in the executive suite.
5. Bonuses will only be paid on true, after tax profits in the previous year.
6. Anyone caught cooking the books must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No cover-ups are are allowed. Transparency is the policy of the company.
7. No executive bonus shall exceed two times the executive's publicly stated annual salary, and this only in years of great, profitable results.  No profit, no bonus and perhaps hierarchical exfoliation as a penalty.
8. If an executive is released for non-performance, no golden parachute even in the face of an (illegal) employment contract.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Let's look at what a responsible board room and executive suite should look like.

1. In the interest of the owners (shareholders), a long term outlook is required.
2. While quarterly figures are an indicator, the true bottom line occurs at the end of the tax year, not the current quarter.
3. Employees are part of the company, and must be treated as a precious asset, not as cannon fodder.
4. The company is more important than the individual in the executive suite.
5. Bonuses will only be paid on true, after tax profits in the previous year.
6. Anyone caught cooking the books must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No cover-ups are are allowed. Transparency is the policy of the company.
7. No executive bonus shall exceed two times the executive's publicly stated annual salary, and this only in years of great, profitable results.  No profit, no bonus and perhaps hierarchical exfoliation as a penalty.
8. If an executive is released for non-performance, no golden parachute even in the face of an (illegal) employment contract.

quote>

I am sure most people can agree with all or most of your points, and I agree with all of them except for a portion of point number 8. If an employment contract specifies the company will pay a "golden parachute", then it needs to be paid (provided they aren't bankrupt). That is the essence of capitalism, and really of freedom at large.

That said, I don't think the "golden parachutes" are a good idea for an efficient company or for an efficient CEO, nor are bonuses in the face of big losses. The difference is that I do not think corporations should be forced to do all that, because not only is it bad policy, it impacts real people in a negative sense, and the government shouldn't be doing that.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

First of all, while Bush and the neoconservatives preached small government in the preceding 10 years, they actually launched the biggest expansion of government power and size in modern times.

 Secondly, the crisis was caused by a collapse of a credit boom, which caused misallocation of investment into housing and encouraged too much debt and leverage. The cause of this credit boom was the Federal Reserve, who were printing money and keeping interest rates below where they should have been. In 2007 and 2008, that credit boom busted and a depression followed, which has by this point in time stabilized.

If there had been no Federal Reserve, a big-government creation of Woodrow Wilson, there would have been nothing keeping interest rates lower nor printing money, and the credit boom, housing misallocation, and taking on of debt would have never happened.

 Would there be recessions and depressions without it? Certainly, but do we want an institution (central bank) that by its very nature exaggerates the swings of the economic cycle?quote>

And what allowed all these things to happen? Would they have happened if there was some institution looking down on everybody's shoulder, making sure everyone played by the rules. There was no watchdog. There was nobody to raise the alarm when it all went wrong. This entire crisis would have never happened if bankers and big corporations didnt have almost free reign. If they could be held accountable. Even now, its not possible. Goldman Sachs did things that are simply wrong, they screwed their clients over, hell, they are screwing countries over, and even now, the government cant do a thing about it, because technically, what they did was legal. If its legal to screw everyone over just for your own personal sake, Id say there is something really wrong with the rules and the governments and institutions enforcing them. 

 

This shows that the economic system socialists and communists refer to as capitalism is not even real capitalism at all, it is economic fascism, because the big government colludes with big corporations to oppress the people and serve their own interests. For proof, just look at the American health care bill passed on March 21.quote>

I fail to see how the government helping people who are to poor to afford health care and rules to ensure people arent getting screwed over by their insurance company counts as big corporations oppressing people to serve their own interest. It seems to me these rules go directly against their own interests. Could you explain?

 

Thirdly, on the bailouts, they were instigated by Bush so that the big corporations (which colluded with the government before) could live even though they were failing. Of course, this creates more problems because these zombie and dinosaur companies are sucking up money and impeding the ascendance of newer, smaller, more efficient businesses into the market which would have taken their place had they failed.

The whole thing was also financed with money printing, which far more intense than the printing that had created the crisis, and with low interest rates, which were also far lower than the rate that created the crisis.

This is setting the stage for a new inflationary collapse of the American economy, which the socialists will no doubt blame on "small government policy", and use this as an excuse to try and impose their own flawed and failed economic ideas on the rest of us.

quote>

If they where allowed to fail, the whole economy would have collapsed. They where simply to big and to important for the economy to fail. The system works if there is a balance, but its inevitable that such a balance is at some point destroyed. Thats why capitalism, in whatever form, can only work for several decades. It takes that long for companies to destroy the balance. After that, the system does its thing, but is vulnerable for a crisis or recession like this. The economy by then has become to reliant on a bunch of major corporations, and if they fall, they drag their entire sector with them. In this case it was the banking sector which acts like the fuel for all other sectors. 

And yeah, socialist might use this crisis as an excuse to impose their own 'flawed ideas' on everybody else. But isnt that also what youre doing now? Capitalists imposing their, equally flawed ideas on the people. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: -Lexus- Goldman Sachs did things that are simply wrong, they screwed their clients over, hell, they are screwing countries over, and even now, the government cant do a thing about it, because technically, what they did was legal. If its legal to screw everyone over just for your own personal sake, Id say there is something really wrong with the rules and the governments and institutions enforcing them.quote>

Fact: there are several former employees of Goldman Sachs in high positions in the Obama administration.

Funny coincidence: Goldman Sachs is now getting off oddly easy for their misbehavior.

Draw your own conclusions.

I fail to see how the government helping people who are to poor to afford health care and rules to ensure people arent getting screwed over by their insurance company counts as big corporations oppressing people to serve their own interest. It seems to me these rules go directly against their own interests. Could you explain?quote>

It's simple, really. You've probably heard the drama about there being 30 million uninsured Americans... Well, all Americans are now required to own health insurance. You know what this means, right? 30 million new customers for the insurance companies! As for the preexisting conditions thing, it doesn't matter, all the perfectly healthy people forced to come on board will make up for it.

Seriously, anyone who ever told you that Obamacare is actually about helping the poor either was lying to you or was made to believe the lie themselves (the easiest lie to tell people is the one they want to believe...). Will the poor people actually benefit? Maybe. It will be detrimental to a lot of non-poor people, certainly. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will be make a killing off of it all. Why do you think they donated so much money to the campaigns of democrats in 2008? It sure as hell wasn't because they thought healthcare reform that would hurt their business.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, now that your government is making the insurance companies register everyone, what do you suppse the next step is, hmmm?  Do you suppose that the next thing they'll do will be to form a new health care cabinet post with the power to require all the insurance companies to turn over their clients to a single-pay system?  Wouldn't that be a gas??

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Although, that's really one of the biggest problems here. Definitions. Let's try this as an exercise: without consulting a dictionary or other refrerence, define "capitalism", "socialism", and "communism". I'll start:

Capitalism (kaah-pih-tul-iz-um): n. A system, or belief therein, where the government has minimal control over the economy and provides few goods or services to its citizens. Instead, the people provide for themselves and accumulate wealth according to how much they earn.

Socialism (so-shul-iz-um): n.  A system, or belief therein, where the government controls certain key services or products and provides them to its citizens based upon its ability to do so and a set of standards as to who deserves or needs what. Accumulation of wealth is dampened as those who earn more are required to contribute more to others.

Communism (kah-myoo-niz-um): n. A system, or belief therein, where the government exerts extensive control over many aspects of the economy, and rations what it controls based upon its ability to provide and a set of standards as to who deserves or needs what. Accumulation of wealth is actively discouraged, many things are considered to inherently belong to everyone in equal share rather than be owned by any one person or entity.

quote>

Capitalism: A system that enforces artificial scarcity (patents, land, credit/money monopoly, credentialism/licensing(very expensive proceedures and schooling involved), etc) through the state.

Socialism: A system that addresses the issues of artificial scarcity, and works to solving artifical and actual issues of scarcity. Depending on the socialist system, it can be propertairian or non-propertarian. Can work through the state, although this would require revolution to kick out the privilege opulent minority, or though working around the state out side the cash nexus, forming counter economies.

Communism: A form of socialism, that has no issues of artificial scarcity or actual scarcity. The Star trek replicator is the most effective means to ridding real issues of scarcity.

Bill gates considers open source code communist. Being the capitalist he is, there was no property rights on it, so he took it, and "privatized" it, reaping the profits from the state held protection. The Grimm Brothers attempted to gather commonly held fairy tails and stories, Disney ultimately did what they could not, make huge profits from it, and by lobbying for copyright extensions up and over 100 years.

If it were made possible, capitalists would own the air, and charge you for every breath you take. Socialist consider this illegitimate property. If you have a 100 seat theater, and there are a hundred people, each get a seat, or own a seat. In capitalism, it is possible for 1 to own, say five seats. Now four people now don't have a seat, or pay tribute/rent/fees on these seats that are not being used.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Fact: there are several former employees of Goldman Sachs in high positions in the Obama administration.

Funny coincidence: Goldman Sachs is now getting off oddly easy for their misbehavior.

 Draw your own conclusions.quote>

 Wait what? Goldman Sachs is currently under investigation for fraude. How is that letting them go easy? If they get of easy, and thats likely the case, its because they did nothing illegal. You cant punish someone for exploiting loopholes or the lack of regulation in a certain area. 

I believe that to be wrong, but thats how the law works. In any case they should put more regulations and laws in place to make sure Goldman Sachs or similar corporations cant screw everybody over again. 

 

It's simple, really. You've probably heard the drama about there being 30 million uninsured Americans... Well, all Americans are now required to own health insurance. You know what this means, right? 30 million new customers for the insurance companies! As for the preexisting conditions thing, it doesn't matter, all the perfectly healthy people forced to come on board will make up for it.

Seriously, anyone who ever told you that Obamacare is actually about helping the poor either was lying to you or was made to believe the lie themselves (the easiest lie to tell people is the one they want to believe...). Will the poor people actually benefit? Maybe. It will be detrimental to a lot of non-poor people, certainly. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will be make a killing off of it all. Why do you think they donated so much money to the campaigns of democrats in 2008? It sure as hell wasn't because they thought healthcare reform that would hurt their business.

quote>

Wait, youre saying those 30 million people who arent ensured are perfectly healthy? Yeah right, where did you get that from? Fox news? 

Sure, some might be healthy, but most are simply to poor to afford proper healthcare. So they get cancer, break some bones, god knows what and they are denied health care because they cant afford it. 

And the other part of his healthcare plan was to make sure that insurance companies didnt screw you over. You got insurance, get sick and then they refuse to pay up making up some petty excuse. A perfect example where an unchecked free market is bad for the people. 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

 

It's simple, really. You've probably heard the drama about there being 30 million uninsured Americans... Well, all Americans are now required to own health insurance. You know what this means, right? 30 million new customers for the insurance companies! As for the preexisting conditions thing, it doesn't matter, all the perfectly healthy people forced to come on board will make up for it.

Seriously, anyone who ever told you that Obamacare is actually about helping the poor either was lying to you or was made to believe the lie themselves (the easiest lie to tell people is the one they want to believe...). Will the poor people actually benefit? Maybe. It will be detrimental to a lot of non-poor people, certainly. Meanwhile, the insurance companies will be make a killing off of it all. Why do you think they donated so much money to the campaigns of democrats in 2008? It sure as hell wasn't because they thought healthcare reform that would hurt their business.

quote>

Wait, youre saying those 30 million people who arent ensured are perfectly healthy? Yeah right, where did you get that from? Fox news? 

Sure, some might be healthy, but most are simply to poor to afford proper healthcare. So they get cancer, break some bones, god knows what and they are denied health care because they cant afford it. 

And the other part of his healthcare plan was to make sure that insurance companies didnt screw you over. You got insurance, get sick and then they refuse to pay up making up some petty excuse. A perfect example where an unchecked free market is bad for the people. 

quote>

Duke87 was highlighting how the new American health care law is a manifestation of the government colluding with corporations to oppress the people. No one here is saying that the 46 million who are uninsured are all perfectly healthy. That is not the issue.

Let us look at what the law does, in the most basic of terms:

- Forces everyone to buy government-approved health insurance off of a government-controlled exchange or pay a fine

- Forces insurance companies to cover certain government-mandated procedures and populations

- Gives subsidies to health insurance companies to cover cost of covering the new people forced into the insurance

So, yes, there is increased government control of the health insurance companies via the minimum coverage mandates, but in turn there is increased health insurance company control over the government via the subsidies. Meanwhile, the people are oppressed because they are forced to have health insurance approved by the government, and to pay hefty premiums for that insurance to the company.

I fail to see how this can be a genuine effort to help the poor, rather than a genuine effort to help the health insurance companies and oppress the poor (and everyone else besides).

Also, half of the 46 million who are uninsured are able to pay for their own health care needs and simply do not want health insurance because it is not a good choice for them. This leaves 23 million who are uninsured and cannot pay for any of their health care.

If the American government genuinely wanted to help the uninsured poor who need health care have health insurance, they would have simply removed the age restriction on Medicare, or at least provided a government insurance program available for those who choose it.

This, unlike the fascist health law which was passed on the day after the equinox, would have been nonviolent, noncoercive, and would have made a difference for the uninsured poor.

Originally posted by: Motina

If it were made possible, capitalists would own the air, and charge you for every breath you take.quote>

If the air in question was created by the "capitalists", or their labour was mixed with the air, they would indeed be sole owner of it (via the natural law of self-ownership). Owners of any property are sovereign over it (just as they are sovereign over themselves), and indeed would have the right to charge for the use of that property, air included.

However, this is impractical, because once the air is released into the open, it is impossible to tell which molecule of air belongs to whom, and thus it is impossible for them to charge anyone for air that they cannot prove that they own.

Socialist consider this illegitimate property.quote>

Under what circumstances? Capitalists (as I define them) would consider someone charging for air by virtue of saying "I own all the air on this planet" without creating any air or mixing their labour with any air illegitimate.

If you have a 100 seat theater, and there are a hundred people, each get a seat, or own a seat. In capitalism, it is possible for 1 to own, say five seats. Now four people now don't have a seat, or pay tribute/rent/fees on these seats that are not being used. quote>

The owner of the chairs has sole right to determine who may use them, and also has sole right to give them to anyone they choose, regardless of whether it is 1, 5, 10, or 100 chairs. To infringe upon the owner's right would be simple theft.

Let's review your definition of capitalism:

Capitalism: A system that enforces artificial scarcity (patents, land, credit/money monopoly, credentialism/licensing(very expensive proceedures and schooling involved), etc) through the state.quote>

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, not owned by the state (socialism), owned privately nominally but influenced by the state (fascism), or owned by everyone collectively (communism).

It is only under fascism or socialism that licensing, for instance, is used. How is it consistent with the principles of liberty upon which capitalism is based for the government to force anyone they do not want in a profession out of that profession, i.e. licenses?

The answer is that it is not. Licensing is another instance of government colluding with corporations, and in many cases other powerful interests, to oppress the people. In a good example of a case, it are the participants in the medical system which are colluding with the government to restrict the number of doctors so that prices can be artificially high and benefit them. All the while the people are forced to by their government to get approval to practice medicine.

So as usual, what is described as the "excesses of the free market" is actually unwarranted and unethical government meddling in the free market.

Can people land on hard times in a free market? Yes, they can, but the government should not forcibly interfere in the market, because when they do, it almost invariably makes things worse for people.

[-Lexus- 2]

 The idea in Capitalism is that the state doesnt interfere at all. So, no laws, nothing. A true capitalist would even argue that there would be no state to begin with and that everything would be done by private companies. That would be anarcho capitalism. 

That idea is naive and rather dumb. It assumes that the free market will regulate everything. It fails because humans are greedy, especially in a environment where greed is actually rewarded. Monopolies are perfectly fine in a free market. Extortion rackets would be perfectly fine in a free market. There would be no law other then the strongest survive and the strongest is the person with the most money.

If youd take all the rules out in America right now, and let every company do whatever they want to do, youd have a filthy rich upper class in a decade, and a huge poor underclass. Of course, the next step would be civil war. 

Capitalism as system is more flawed then something as communism as in its natural state, Capitalism would be rather self destructive in its aims. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

 The idea in Capitalism is that the state doesnt interfere at all. So, no laws, nothing. A true capitalist would even argue that there would be no state to begin with and that everything would be done by private companies. That would be anarcho capitalism. 

That idea is naive and rather dumb. It assumes that the free market will regulate everything. It fails because humans are greedy, especially in a environment where greed is actually rewarded. Monopolies are perfectly fine in a free market. Extortion rackets would be perfectly fine in a free market. There would be no law other then the strongest survive and the strongest is the person with the most money.

If youd take all the rules out in America right now, and let every company do whatever they want to do, youd have a filthy rich upper class in a decade, and a huge poor underclass. Of course, the next step would be civil war. 

Capitalism as system is more flawed then something as communism as in its natural state, Capitalism would be rather self destructive in its aims. quote>

Well, yes, and a fully laissez faire capitalist state is not self-regulating.  In such a system the weak really go to the wall and die of starvation.  Rampant capitalism would indeed foment a revolution of the protletariat within a decade, especially now that there is world wide communication at the press of a button.  You-tube, facebook and twitter are the new underground newspapers.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Well, yes, and a fully laissez faire capitalist state is not self-regulating.  In such a system the weak really go to the wall and die of starvation.  Rampant capitalism would indeed foment a revolution of the protletariat within a decade, especially now that there is world wide communication at the press of a button.  You-tube, facebook and twitter are the new underground newspapers.

quote>

Exactly, so its safe to say that capitalism is just a system that wouldnt work for real as well. 

So you get some sort of variation of it, like we are seeing now. Which is mostly based on capitalism in its principles, and is clearly failing. So people are yelling for deregulation, going more to the laissez faire form of capitalism which we just established, is also impossible to maintain. 

So whats the alternative? More regulation? Well we havent tried it, so why not? Shifting more to the right obviously doesnt work, so why not try to shift more to the left?

[Mountain Dew 0]

I have a little question:

whats the difference between Socialism and Communism?

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

If the air in question was created by the "capitalists", or their labour was mixed with the airquote>

There is some validity to this scenario, however, this is not the point, as currently, land which is not created by man is owned.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

They would indeed be sole owner of it (via the natural law of self-ownership).quote>

There is no such law.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Owners of any property are sovereign over it (just as they are sovereign over themselves), and indeed would have the right to charge for the use of that property, air included.quote>

The air is not sovereign over itself? Humans can be used as property, they have lost their sovereignty to the master. I think this goes along the lines of "Property is Theft!" that Pierre Joseph Proudhon proposed. I suggest reading “What is Property”

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

However, this is impractical, because once the air is released into the open, it is impossible to tell which molecule of air belongs to whom, and thus it is impossible for them to charge anyone for air that they cannot prove that they own.quote>

This point is moot, because I said, 'if it were made possible'. So in the scenario, it is provable that such thing can be traceable to some such and such individual or corporation, or institution.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Under what circumstances? Capitalists (as I define them) would consider someone charging for air by virtue of saying "I own all the air on this planet" without creating any air or mixing their labour with any air illegitimate.quote>

The only way to have air as property according to this, is by having air pop out of no where. Nothing pops out of a vacuum of nothingness. It comes from the commons. EVERYTHING! That is why property is theft. If there is any legitimate property it would be god's, if god were to exist?

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

The owner of the chairs has sole right to determine who may use them, and also has sole right to give them to anyone they choose, regardless of whether it is 1, 5, 10, or 100 chairs. To infringe upon the owner's right would be simple theft.quote>

What right? A right handed down by some god?

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, not owned by the state (socialism), owned privately nominally but influenced by the state (fascism), or owned by everyone collectively (communism).quote>

The means of production can be privately own under socialism, so this is a strawman. Capitalism cannot exist without the state... the state is the instrument of the opulent minority. What is the thing that is protecting this property right? The state! Under the most lazziez faire period of the United States, the state still acquired land, and essentially gave it to certain land speculators or railroad tycoons. There is a very good reason why the they are called Robber Barons.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus It is only under fascism or socialism that licensing, for instance, is used. How is it consistent with the principles of liberty upon which capitalism is based for the government to force anyone they do not want in a profession out of that profession, i.e. licenses?quote>

Liberty is a principle that is not found in capitalism. Capitalists require licencing and certification in order to protect there property right.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus The answer is that it is not. Licensing is another instance of government colluding with corporations, and in many cases other powerful interests, to oppress the people.quote>

All of these institutions are capitalist, or essentially propertairian in nature.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

In a good example of a case, it are the participants in the medical system which are colluding with the government to restrict the number of doctors so that prices can be artificially high and benefit them. All the while the people are forced to by their government to get approval to practice medicine.quote>

It would require a significant amount of capital in order for the medical cartels to have the government force the market into a monopoly, like the AMA.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

So as usual, what is described as the "excesses of the free market" is actually unwarranted and unethical government meddling in the free market.quote>

Of course it is interfering with the free market. the free market is socialist, and it is the job of the government to remove privilege, or discourage it, and provide support.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Can people land on hard times in a free market? Yes, they can, but the government should not forcibly interfere in the market, because when they do, it almost invariably makes things worse for people.quote>

it should be noted that a market and a capitalist system is not synonymous. It is capitalist who use the government to interfere in the market. The AMA is capitalist institution.

When it comes to private health insurance, the US is big government, and France is small government. People consider France far more socialist than the US, even though it is the US that is the most heavily regulated in the world, and that is way before "Obamacare".

[Motina 77]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

 The idea in Capitalism is that the state doesnt interfere at all.quote>

If this were the case, than capitalism has never existed.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So, no laws, nothing.quote>

So then what protects the property?

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Monopolies are perfectly fine in a free market.quote>

Monopolies require the protection of property, patents, and other things provided by the state. The free market is one that removes privilege, not protect it!

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Extortion rackets would be perfectly fine in a free market.quote>

No they are not.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

There would be no law other then the strongest survive and the strongest is the person with the most money.quote>

Wrong again. Sigh, any other strawman.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

If youd take all the rules out in America right now, and let every company do whatever they want to do, youd have a filthy rich upper class in a decade, and a huge poor underclass.quote>

Perhaps, but then the AMA would not exist, and you might recieve competent care tending to a broken bone.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Capitalism as system is more flawed then something as communism as in its natural state, Capitalism would be rather self destructive in its aims. quote>

A free-market is not capitalist.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Motina

If this were the case, than capitalism has never existed.quote>

The closest governments that came to 'true capitalism' where back in the 18th century when parliaments consisted mainly of rich factory owners and only the rich upper class got to vote. The government only took care of the army and the police and firefighters. Although even this should have been regulated by privately owned companies according to the hardcore capitalists. 

 

 

So then what protects the property?quote>

Its left to the free market. Private security companies protect property. Of course, this would quickly turn into mercenary extortion rackets. And no one could do a thing about it. 

 

Monopolies require the protection of property, patents, and other things provided by the state. The free market is one that removes privilege, not protect it!quote>

If you have a company that invents something extremely successful. It makes you rich real quick which in turn you can use to buy the nessecary protection. Simply have your mercenaries smash the competition into the ground. Buy out your competition. Eventually at some point, one company will get the upper hand in any competition and in a true free market and a true capitalist state there would be nothing to stop that company from buying out, merging or doing whatever to its competition, turning it into an all powerful giant like Microsoft. Only with no laws or authorities there to stop them from complete domination over the entire market. It would take several decades, maybe even longer, but at some point, everything is run by a bunch of large corporations and the entire population would be their wage slaves. Oh wait, what am I saying? I meant slaves.  

 

No they are not.quote>

do explain why not? Who would be capable of stopping them if there is no government? 

 

 

Wrong again. Sigh, any other strawman.quote>

Oh yes, companies would make up the laws in their areas. Laws designed by corporate suits that benefit them and their companies, not the lower class that does all the actual work. 

 

 

Perhaps, but then the AMA would not exist, and you might recieve competent care tending to a broken bone.quote>

Hahaha, no. You wouldnt receive care at all. Its much cheaper to fire someone who has cancer and get another one to replace him. Humans would be treated like fabric workers back in the 18th century. Got sick? To bad, go find another job. Wife pregnant? Not my propblem, get lost and find a new job. 

 

A free-market is not capitalist.quote>

No, they go hand in hand. A free market means that the state doesnt set the prices but leaves it Supply and Demand. Demand comes from the consumers, supply from the companies. It works only if those companies are allowed to operate under minimal government intervention. So thats why 'let the market deal with it generally means less rules and government and let the companies do it'. In other words, capitalism. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Mountain Dew

I have a little question:

whats the difference between Socialism and Communism?quote>

Doh!  It is quite simple. 

Socialism is a system in which the state owns or controls everything and provides for the citizens, usually through exhorbitant taxes.  Everyone is in a state of "every man for himself".

Communism is a system in which everybody owns everything and the citizens get to use the resources freely within reason.  This is often a bartering society without money, as in a monastery or a convent.  It doesn't work if anyone is dishonest.

[hamsterTK 93]

I would like to think that people who are working in sweatshops overseas are only a) doing it only because its the best option, b) seeking the highest wage and that c) consider it only a rung in the ladder, so to speak. Of course this is in a fair system, where all workers are actually getting paid, have the option of quitting, are not being exploited by foul labor contracts, company stores, or other such shenanigans.

As for outsourcing, their are two potential scenarios:

1. In a period of general economic expansion, hen one person loses their job to another overseas who earns less money, that is the economy telling him or her that he/she is more needed elsewhere, and that their loss of income isn't what it seems because more is being produced and they can buy things for cheaper. Consider the whole interplay of supply/demand and labor.

2. There isn't any real expansion in productivity or wealth,  like in a poorly managed plutocratic society such as Russia. Oligarchs who get rich off asset stripping, which is in a way a necessary part of the economy(freeing capital for more productive uses, allowing innovation) but when it is handled in a way which is all about power and personal gain it can become truly criminal.

1# could be a necessary evil and something that could be mitigated by public welfare measures. "Grease the skids" but don't get in the way of the "invisible hand" either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Generally people work in sweat shops because it is the only game they are qualified to play in.

Outsourcing in general breaks the rule of "Doing well while doing good".  The idea is to be a good corporate citizen in your own domicile.

[Mountain Dew 0]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Socialism is a system in which the state owns or controls everything and provides for the citizens, usually through exhorbitant taxes.  Everyone is in a state of "every man for himself".

Communism is a system in which everybody owns everything and the citizens get to use the resources freely within reason.  This is often a bartering society without money, as in a monastery or a convent.  It doesn't work if anyone is dishonest.

quote>

Thank you

[BoxCarRacer 1]

Which system is right depends on the country.

Socialism works for countries like switzerland. They have tons of money, and nothing to spend it on other than their people. Socialism doesn't work for america. We have tons of money, but we have to spend it on weapons and defense, because everybody in the world wants to kill us. We don't have the money for the government to give us healthcare and university educations and food and all that good stuff.

Communism doesn't work for anybody. Communism is just too idealistic. All concepts revolving around equality are doomed to fail, because humans aren't equal, like it or not. If humans were equal, than we would have no sports, because they would be deadlock ties for eternity. If humans were equal, how would colleges reject hundreds of applicants, if all the applicants are the same?.

Equality should mean we all get the same rights, not we all get the same life.