Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Arilando]

From the products the people buy obviously

Does the government force them to buy the products?

You dont seem to understand what a planned economy is, you are confusing it with a mixed economy.

[New Hampshyre]

In a laissez-faire economy the economy is not developed according to one single plan, so it is not a planned economy because there is no single plan.

Planning kills innovation, competition, and the constance evolution of the economy. IT sucks, regardless of how "good" the planners are. More importantly, it is inherently tyrannical unless 100% of the people support it.

[Mercator Terra]

Does the government force them to buy the products?

You dont seem to understand what a planned economy is, you are confusing it with a mixed economy.

No im not just answer the question...

[New Hampshyre]

Orly then how to you logically redistribute goods? Without a market system it is merely guesses.

You ask the consumers.

Mere consumer opinions don't tell you anything. Consumer demand is measured in the money they're willing to spend on goods. If you don't have a free-market you're completely unable to get feedback from consumers.

[Mercator Terra]

You ask the consumers.

Mere consumer opinions don't tell you anything. Consumer demand is measured in the money they're willing to spend on goods. If you don't have a free-market you're completely unable to get feedback from consumers.

Exactly...

[New Hampshyre]

What the fuck are you talking about there are no taxes in a planned economy

Wow. Just leave, you're an embarrassment to humanity.

[Maxaxle]

Mixed, leaning towards socialist. If you want a good idea of how crappy things are without any socialism, look at a US history book or interview a grandparent.

[Arilando]

In a laissez-faire economy the economy is not developed according to one single plan, so it is not a planned economy because there is no single plan.

Planning kills innovation, competition, and the constance evolution of the economy. IT sucks, regardless of how "good" the planners are. More importantly, it is inherently tyrannical unless 100% of the people support it.

Planning does not kill competition, the planning entity could still set up to people to make the best product, and the winning product is than sold to the producers. Planning does not kill inovation either, you could still reward the most hard working, intelligent, and innovative people with a higher wage. And it does the kill the evolution of the economy, there is still gonna be economic progress, investment etc. And i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

[New Hampshyre]

But you cant force people to invest, or save money, so that could lead to a shortage of investment or a shortage of savings which is=less economic growth.

You can't force people to build computers and yet they do and they build better and cheaper ones every year. Please learn at least the very most basic fundamentals of economics before you try to say something about it. You're not making any sense.

[Neu Leonstein]

Does the government force them to buy the products?

I suggest you guys define what a planned economy is first...

If we're talking Soviet Union, then yes, taxes are a part of the economy. People were taxed on their income in the USSR (eg http://www.jstor.org/pss/1825713). Though the reason was not simply to fund the government, it was also used as an instrument to help plan and control consumer behaviour.

If we're talking hypothetical really, really planned economy, then there is no reason the planning authority cannot simply allocate labour and resources to itself just like it does to all other sectors of the economy, so no explicit taxes needed.

[Arilando]

You dont seem to understand what a planned economy is, you are confusing it with a mixed economy.

No im not just answer the question...

No they are not forced to buy the products but there are no other products, so unless they want to save all they money than they have to buy from the planning entity.

[Arilando]

But you cant force people to invest, or save money, so that could lead to a shortage of investment or a shortage of savings which is=less economic growth.

You can't force people to build computers and yet they do and they build better and cheaper ones every year. Please learn at least the very most basic fundamentals of economics before you try to say something about it. You're not making any sense.

Do you understand that saving and investment is important to the economy?

[Neu Leonstein]

Please learn at least the very most basic fundamentals of economics before you try to say something about it. You're not making any sense.

I don't think he's making any less sense than the other side at the moment...

Maybe the problem is that everyone here knows nothing more than the "very most basic fundamentals of economics", but acts like they know the lot. Which you can't blame anybody for, because that's what you get to see in the media every day: people pretending to know economics, when all they've got is political views.

[Arilando]

Please learn at least the very most basic fundamentals of economics before you try to say something about it. You're not making any sense.

I don't think he's making any less sense than the other side at the moment...

Maybe the problem is that everyone here knows nothing more than the "very most basic fundamentals of economics", but acts like they know the lot. Which you can't blame anybody for, because that's what you get to see in the media every day: people pretending to know economics, when all they've got is political views.

Are you talking about the american media? I dont watch the american media wery often since i dont live in the united states.

[Mercator Terra]

Planning kills innovation, competition, and the constance evolution of the economy. IT sucks, regardless of how "good" the planners are. More importantly, it is inherently tyrannical unless 100% of the people support it.

Planning does not kill competition, the planning entity could still set up to people to make the best product, and the winning product is than sold to the producers. Planning does not kill inovation either, you could still reward the most hard working, intelligent, and innovative people with a higher wage. And it does the kill the evolution of the economy, there is still gonna be economic progress, investment etc. And i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

I dont think its tyrannical I think your plain stupid. For fucks sake read a book learn what the hell your talking about and stop pulling shit out of your ass.

[Mercator Terra]

Please learn at least the very most basic fundamentals of economics before you try to say something about it. You're not making any sense.

I don't think he's making any less sense than the other side at the moment...

Maybe the problem is that everyone here knows nothing more than the "very most basic fundamentals of economics", but acts like they know the lot. Which you can't blame anybody for, because that's what you get to see in the media every day: people pretending to know economics, when all they've got is political views.

He doesn't even no basic economics. His logic is contradictory.

[Arilando]

Planning does not kill competition, the planning entity could still set up to people to make the best product, and the winning product is than sold to the producers. Planning does not kill inovation either, you could still reward the most hard working, intelligent, and innovative people with a higher wage. And it does the kill the evolution of the economy, there is still gonna be economic progress, investment etc. And i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

I dont think its tyrannical I think your plain stupid. For fucks sake read a book learn what the hell your talking about and stop pulling shit out of your ass.

Show where i'm wrong. Come up with a counter-argument.

[Arilando]

I don't think he's making any less sense than the other side at the moment...

Maybe the problem is that everyone here knows nothing more than the "very most basic fundamentals of economics", but acts like they know the lot. Which you can't blame anybody for, because that's what you get to see in the media every day: people pretending to know economics, when all they've got is political views.

He doesn't even no basic economics. His logic is contradictory.

How is my logic contradictory?

[Mercator Terra]

I dont think its tyrannical I think your plain stupid. For fucks sake read a book learn what the hell your talking about and stop pulling shit out of your ass.

Show where i'm wrong. Come up with a counter-argument.

I dont need a counter argument. You havnt stated anything to counter. You have just pulled shit out of your ass that makes no sense.

[Mercator Terra]

He doesn't even no basic economics. His logic is contradictory.

How is my logic contradictory?

Okay your saying government would compete with itself to create the best product?

[New Hampshyre]

Planning does not kill competition, the planning entity could still set up to people to make the best product, and the winning product is than sold to the producers.

Competition is a constant, it doesn't just end with a single winner like that. Also, "best' according to whose judgement? Some consumers like safer, more expensive cars, others like cheaper less safe ones. Some like flashy cars, others prioritize gas mileage. In a private market ALL of these concerns are automatically accounted for, not so in a planned economy.

The profit motive and the free market are excellent at accurately allocating resources, governments have a TERRIBLE track record at trying to plan economies. They do NOT have the incentive or the correct tools to correctly allocate resources. Politician's highest priorities is always to get re-elected and to maximize their own power, NOT to maximize efficient allocation of resources. They have the incentive, instead, to buy votes with their power in order to secure future re-elections.

The market participants have the incentive to correctly allocate resources because they are spending their OWN money and so it is in their best interest to make sure their investments made in the most promising businesses, that they buy from the most efficient producers, ect.

There are 4 ways of spending money:
1)Spending your own money on yourself. In this case you will spend it carefully because every penny spent is 1 less you have to spend and you will make sure to buy the best things possible for your money because you're the one who is going to be receiving it.

2) Spending someone elses money on yourself. In this case you'll not be careful to not spend too much because spending a penny of someone else's money presumably costs you nothing, but you will make sure to buy the best thing possible since you're receiving it.

3) Spending your own money on someone else. You'll make sure to spend as little as possible because every penny spent is 1 less you have to spend, but you won't be able to buy the best thing possible because you don't know the preferences of the person you're buying for as well as they do.

4) Spending someone elses money on someone else. You'll not make sure to spend as little as possible because spending the money costs you nothing, and you'll also not buy the best thing possible because you don't know the preferences of the person you're buying it for as well as they do themselves. This is the WORST way to spend money and that is how money is spent in a planned economy.

You're 100% wrong Arilando.

i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

Allowing the government to be tyrannical has some pretty serious consequences Arilando!

[Arilando]

Show where i'm wrong. Come up with a counter-argument.

I dont need a counter argument. You havnt stated anything to counter. You have just pulled shit out of your ass that makes no sense.

What? You say that the free market is the best economic model because consumers will buy the best products, but that ignores the other aspects of an economy like saving and investment. And than you say that there are taxes in a planned economy what the fuck?

[Arilando]

How is my logic contradictory?

Okay your saying government would compete with itself to create the best product?

It could have two teams competing about making the best product and than sell the best product to the consumers. So yes.

[Mercator Terra]

I dont need a counter argument. You havnt stated anything to counter. You have just pulled shit out of your ass that makes no sense.

What? You say that the free market is the best economic model because consumers will buy the best products, but that ignores the other aspects of an economy like saving and investment. And than you say that there are taxes in a planned economy what the fuck?

First off best is subjective thats why different people buy different products. And what about savings and investment? And yes there is taxes in a planned economy. Everyone who supports a planned economy besides you acknowledges this.

[Mercator Terra]

Okay your saying government would compete with itself to create the best product?

It could have two teams competing about making the best product and than sell the best product to the consumers. So yes.

First who decides what is the best. Second forcing the consumers to buy that one product is the "tax". Its just has a different nature.