Socialism or Capitalism?

[justinevans]

Which will prevail and why?

Do you agree with globalization?

[Kid Kilowatt]

I believe in socialism.

As for globalisation, it seems to exacerbate the problems of third world countries.

[justinevans]

I believe in socialism.

As for globalisation, it seems to exacerbate the problems of third world countries.

It is not a matter of what you believe in, but which will be better in the end.

Globalization has helped the economy of Mexico? It really only hurts the people who live in the USA and so forth.

[Kid Kilowatt]

It is not a matter of what you believe in, but which will be better in the end.

I believe that socialism will be better in the end.


Globalization has helped the economy of Mexico? It really only hurts the people who live in the USA and so forth.
Have you taken a look at the rest of the third world countries?

[justinevans]

I believe that socialism will be better in the end.

Have you taken a look at the rest of the third world countries?

Were these countries doing anything before? Not really.

[TheOtherAndrew]

They can exist in harmony.

[dangets]

i used to be a capitalist, then Plato confused me.

the way i think of it, the problem with socialism is that it wants to make everyone exactly equal, even though they aren't, and this can rub people the wrong way. the problem with capitalism is that the people who are better than the others end up way way better off, people get greedy, and the less-skilled, less adept people lead shitty lives. neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is the way to go.

oh, and forcing compassion isn't the way to infuse good socialist elements into society. people have to be raised to accept that it's not their job in life to bankrupt everyone one else to get ahead, and that it's ok to sacrafice for the collective good. in the present state of things, if people are like that, they get trampled by the capitalists.

[FScott]

i used to be a capitalist, then Plato confused me.

the way i think of it, the problem with socialism is that it wants to make everyone exactly equal, even though they aren't, and this can rub people the wrong way. the problem with capitalism is that the people who are better than the others end up way way better off, people get greedy, and the less-skilled, less adept people lead shitty lives. neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is the way to go.

oh, and forcing compassion isn't the way to infuse good socialist elements into society. people have to be raised to accept that it's not their job in life to bankrupt everyone one else to get ahead, and that it's ok to sacrafice for the collective good. in the present state of things, if people are like that, they get trampled by the capitalists.
I agree

[splitsecond]

Good god, this debate is going to be stupid. Honestly, people shouldnt debate the two without at least a couple years of college education on the subject, and a healthy understanding of economics. Very few people here actually possess that.

[ArTkY_]

Since their such opposite extremes people should try to combine elements of both of them to reach a good middle ground, they both have their stong points. I lean towards socialism though. But you can never get people to think that maybe someone else might be right about something, especially govt. so my idea will never go into effect.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Perhaps the world will end up in a state of socialistic capatilism (Sweden, Norway etc) but neither one will win out right.

In a capatalist economy of today there is absolutely no way full socialism can be achieved. It will take a huge change of perception to start that.

[justinevans]

Perhaps the world will end up in a state of socialistic capatilism (Sweden, Norway etc) but neither one will win out right.

In a capatalist economy of today there is absolutely no way full socialism can be achieved. It will take a huge change of perception to start that.

Funny that you say that. I'm doing a paper as we speak on Sweden. Here are a few key notes...

There are signs that high tax burdens and limited wage dispersion discourages people from working more or investing in education. The large size of the Swedish public sectors has hampered competition and innovation.

Over a 10-year period, more than 20% of the 50-largest Swedish multinational corporations had moved their headquarters out of the country.

Also, internationalism has increaded the mobility of the tax base. Since formal controls on capital, goods, and labor were removed within the EU, individuals, companies, and the financial markets were likely to be sensitive to differential tax levels. Sweden, with exceptionally high income taxes, dual taxation on dividens, a high value-added tax (sales tax), and high taxes on capital, is exposed to "tax arbitrage"

[selftitled85]

Good god, this debate is going to be stupid. Honestly, people shouldnt debate the two without at least a couple years of college education on the subject, and a healthy understanding of economics. Very few people here actually possess that.


ooooh i sorta do? i just took a test on socialism and capitalist econ systems. haha

socialism will always fail. as marx put it full blown communism was only possible after full blown capitalism. that said there are no full blown capitalist societies. also the downfall of socialism/communism is in the incentives. the only ones are moral. your doing it for the good of the country. you need material incentives to make the country work.

from my class i learned from von mises and hayek that basically socialism is infeasible because of money/markets. socialism tries to get rid of markets and money. both of which are needed. without the markets you cannot set a price for a good nor will you know how much you need to make. without money the country will basically flounder.

ok thats my little tidbit.

Perhaps the world will end up in a state of socialistic capatilism (Sweden, Norway etc) but neither one will win out right.

In a capatalist economy of today there is absolutely no way full socialism can be achieved. It will take a huge change of perception to start that.


au contraire...marx believes socialism can only be reached after full blown capitalism is in effect. and for god sakes learn to spell.

[justinevans]

ooooh i sorta do? i just took a test on socialism and capitalist econ systems. haha

socialism will always fail. as marx put it full blown communism was only possible after full blown capitalism. that said there are no full blown capitalist societies. also the downfall of socialism/communism is in the incentives. the only ones are moral. your doing it for the good of the country. you need material incentives to make the country work.

from my class i learned from von mises and hayek that basically socialism is infeasible because of money/markets. socialism tries to get rid of markets and money. both of which are needed. without the markets you cannot set a price for a good nor will you know how much you need to make. without money the country will basically flounder.

ok thats my little tidbit.

that is not entirely true. supply and demand are the main component when it comes to prices. Socialism will fail with the integration of the European Union. There will be need for incentives and innovation because of increased competition. Socialism just creates more jobs in the public sector. When there is a large public sector, there is little room for productivity.

[selftitled85]

that is not entirely true. supply and demand are the main component when it comes to prices. Socialism will fail with the integration of the European Union. There will be need for incentives and innovation because of increased competition. Socialism just creates more jobs in the public sector. When there is a large public sector, there is little room for productivity.


damn right

[Justin_stacy]

Both are imperfect...........but socialism is particularly fallible because of its dependence on a large, often abusive, centralized bureaucracy. Something that has been shown to be completely unreliable, and unable to do the duty's it has bestowed upon its self.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Were these countries doing anything before? Not really.
They're doing worse now.

[justinevans]

They're doing worse now.

mexico isn't.

[youcomebeforeyo]

au contraire...marx believes socialism can only be reached after full blown capitalism is in effect. and for god sakes learn to spell.Marx wasn't the only person to forward a theory on socialism.

'And for god sakes learn to use punctuation'.

There are signs that high tax burdens and limited wage dispersion discourages people from working more or investing in education. The large size of the Swedish public sectors has hampered competition and innovation.

Over a 10-year period, more than 20% of the 50-largest Swedish multinational corporations had moved their headquarters out of the country.

Also, internationalism has increaded the mobility of the tax base. Since formal controls on capital, goods, and labor were removed within the EU, individuals, companies, and the financial markets were likely to be sensitive to differential tax levels. Sweden, with exceptionally high income taxes, dual taxation on dividens, a high value-added tax (sales tax), and high taxes on capital, is exposed to "tax arbitrage"I don't disagree with you, Sweden's economy has downturned over the last few years. That said when compared to Norway the countries have very similar social/economic systems and Norway has grown in the last few years. Partly due to oil reserves.



Slightly on topic and towards what Justin stated there is a problem in soceities of equality. My grandparents grew up and lived in Communist Hungary. The major problem is that someone who wants to get ahead is treated no differentely to someone that is lazy and does the bare minimum for their job. It creates a social disastisfaction.

[justinevans]

Marx wasn't the only person to forward a theory on socialism.

'And for god sakes learn to use punctuation'.

I don't disagree with you, Sweden's economy has downturned over the last few years. That said when compared to Norway the countries have very similar social/economic systems and Norway has grown in the last few years. Partly due to oil reserves.



Slightly on topic and towards what Justin stated there is a problem in soceities of equality. My grandparents grew up and lived in Communist Hungary. The major problem is that someone who wants to get ahead is treated no differentely to someone that is lazy and does the bare minimum for their job. It creates a social disastisfaction.

Yeah, meaning, the poor has no incentive to better themselves through experience and education.

And Sweden, Well Sweden was in a crisis from 1991-1993. They were helped out with the tellecommunication boom, but they are slowly recovering. But they joined the EU. So we'll see. In 1998, 56.7% of their GFP was government spending.

[Kid Kilowatt]

mexico isn't.Perhaps the economy of Mexico is doing better, however, upon closer inspection, you find that Mexican corporations are not doing very well, rather the multinational companies are doing well in Mexico, and the poor are suffering.

[Cal Smith]

The best and biggest example is China. It's hard to argue with their capitalistic turnout around since the early 90's

[richter915]

uh, capitalism is clearly dominating...though socialism seems nice sometimes.

[selftitled85]

Yeah, meaning, the poor has no incentive to better themselves through experience and education.

And Sweden, Well Sweden was in a crisis from 1991-1993. They were helped out with the tellecommunication boom, but they are slowly recovering. But they joined the EU. So we'll see. In 1998, 56.7% of their GFP was government spending.


im psyched to get to study the swedish economic system.

[VinnyVegas]

The only problem with Capitalism is that people seem to think it is predicated upon a poor workforce (i.e. inequality). It should be made clear that Capitalism has very little to do with the inequality that exists in America today. Our distorted culture and history are to blame for the inequality that exists, not Capitalism.

Our culture looks down on the poor and treats them like shit. These people in turn, stay poor and continue the cycle of inequality. Even if we did implement a Socialist system, the poor would still be labeled as stupid, untrustworthy, and inferior. Their job prospects would be the same jobs, and equal pay would not change our cultural view of things. If anything the hatred towards the poor would grow because they would be blamed for a stagnant economy.

Capitalism works; free trade always benefits the countries involved; and "benevolent social planners" always fail miserably. Contrary to popular belief equal money does not equate to an equal society, our culture needs to change before that happens.

[Trainsaw]

Good god, this debate is going to be stupid. Honestly, people shouldnt debate the two without at least a couple years of college education on the subject, and a healthy understanding of economics. Very few people here actually possess that.
Hence trainsaw being an economics major

[splitsecond]

Hence trainsaw being an economics major
Thats good. This debate wasnt as horribly stupid as I thought it would be. Go figure.

[justinevans]

Thats good. This debate wasnt as horribly stupid as I thought it would be. Go figure.

Well that is what happens when you have people with actual intelligence debating things instead of what someone else tells them.

[Trainsaw]

Mixed economy seems to be the best way to go (i.e. United States). I don't know too many socialist countries kicking ass right now.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Mixed economy seems to be the best way to go (i.e. United States). I don't know too many socialist countries kicking ass right now.Norway VS United States

Capatalism is a more sucsesful (sp) system than socialism globally but I wouldn't think the United States would be a shining example of this. There is a high proportion of poverty within the USA.

[selftitled85]

Norway VS United States

Capatalism is a more sucsesful (sp) system than socialism globally but I wouldn't think the United States would be a shining example of this. There is a high proportion of poverty within the USA.


yes there is but while in some countries poverty is basically destroying the economy, the us has kept its level under pretty good control.

[justinevans]

yes there is but while in some countries poverty is basically destroying the economy, the us has kept its level under pretty good control.

Eh, that is a little skewed. They are still using the model they made in the 60's to figure out what the poverty line is. It should be higher.