Which economic system is the best?

[Anennki]

Competition creates unwanted animosity, it separates human kind, creates fads, and as we've seen a lot of lately rhetoric. No doubt capitalism was a good system, but it is a little primitive. Why would everyone work for the minimum? Sure, some people would, they do that now. Others however, would want to improve, intellectuals always want to improve. It's really a pretty simple concept and would work rather well. With technology going as far as it is, that's where society will be. Using technology to establish a well being and working spending more time on what's important. Not getting caught up on who's product is best and who's ideals are better. Competition separates society.

Please, give one example where your system has ever worked, en masse, better than capitalism. I'll wait.

I don't believe it's been used. Technology also has never been this advanced. Like I said capitalism is a good system but primitive.

[The Northerns States]

My 2cents

From an economic effiency viewpoint, you need capitalism.

But because you need political stability to have a climate favorable to investment and growth, you need handouts (social welfare and such). Even if those are an hindrance from a strictly economic viewpoint, politically they allow for better stability.

The trick is to find the precarious balance between economic incentive and social peace.

^ Agreed

Though, what's your view on stuff like government spending (aka demand-side policies) from an economic viewpoint?

[Mongolian Khanate]

Please, give one example where your system has ever worked, en masse, better than capitalism. I'll wait.

I don't believe it's been used. Technology also has never been this advanced. Like I said capitalism is a good system but primitive.

This reminds me of Gosplan Soviet planners in the 1960s, with their lectures about how a planned economy was more efficient and more scientific than market economies.

[Ceannairceach]

Please, give one example where your system has ever worked, en masse, better than capitalism. I'll wait.

I don't believe it's been used. Technology also has never been this advanced. Like I said capitalism is a good system but primitive.

So... Its never worked, never been tested, and you say its perfect for the modern climate?

Thats bad logic.

And considering Capitalism has been around for a short amount of time--being preceded by the actually rather primitive Socialistic form of Feudalism and the proto-capitalist form of Mercantilism--it most certainly not primitive.

[Josh Sinister]

Capitalism advances human relations and technology by existing.

Right now, I'm on BLAZIN FAST internet, talking to you idiots while watching some insipid cartoon on Netflix.
The only arbitrary barriers it lays is when idiot fanboys and "brand loyal customers" put up with inferior product and hamper advancement.

The new biotechnology that promises to give us superpowers is only truly useful when someone tries to get it sold. Competition is created, and the process speeds up a bit to get the super-pooping power.

[Anennki]

I suppose you are right, why live in a world where everyone has the same opportunity and given the same equality. Hell, since people who have an outstanding amount of currency did it through their hard work, let's make them better than us too. We could go back to the caste system in saying that if you don't have X amount of currency then you have no rights. Because clearly everyone who has money did it themselves, and they should be the only ones that get to go golfing in Hawaii every weekend. Hell those same people need tax cuts, let's make the lesser ones who don't have enough money to do much of anything recreational pay in to higher tax brackets.

we're not going to go back to the caste system and you can earn cash just as easily as everyone else unless your too lazy to work.

Wow, definitely primitive thought. Anyone who doesn't earn money is lazy. What about disabled people? Oh there lazy.

[SimMars]

we're not going to go back to the caste system and you can earn cash just as easily as everyone else unless your too lazy to work.

Wow, definitely primitive thought. Anyone who doesn't earn money is lazy. What about disabled people? Oh there lazy.

no they get on welfare and such

[Mongolian Khanate]

My 2cents

From an economic effiency viewpoint, you need capitalism.

But because you need political stability to have a climate favorable to investment and growth, you need handouts (social welfare and such). Even if those are an hindrance from a strictly economic viewpoint, politically they allow for better stability.

The trick is to find the precarious balance between economic incentive and social peace.

^ Agreed

Though, what's your view on stuff like government spending (aka demand-side policies) from an economic viewpoint?

I'm not a big fan of direct government spending. Too easily hijacked by special interests groups. For example, I prefer broad-based programs to facilitate reconversion of workers in new fields and helping adults go back to school to learn a new trade. Why this one in particular? Because it helps prevents "inefficients" workers and owners from looking to political tools to get subsidies from the state in an effort to maintain their non-competitive businesses.

At the same time, if you don't do jack for them, they get pissed and block the streets, monopolize the medias, and if they get serious enough, they try to overthrow you.

[Anennki]

I don't believe it's been used. Technology also has never been this advanced. Like I said capitalism is a good system but primitive.

So... Its never worked, never been tested, and you say its perfect for the modern climate?

Thats bad logic.

And considering Capitalism has been around for a short amount of time--being preceded by the actually rather primitive Socialistic form of Feudalism and the proto-capitalist form of Mercantilism--it most certainly not primitive.

Things change swiftly, making other things outdated. I bet you see my system, or one similar to mine set in place before we die. I said before, being so used to current systems I see where you cannot fully grasp an understanding. As technology improves so will societies need to sell it.

[The Northerns States]

Wow, definitely primitive thought. Anyone who doesn't earn money is lazy. What about disabled people? Oh there lazy.

no they get on welfare and such

Not in a perfectly free market.

[SimMars]

no they get on welfare and such

Not in a perfectly free market.

i can't think of a single country in the world that has a perfectly free market

[Ceannairceach]

So... Its never worked, never been tested, and you say its perfect for the modern climate?

Thats bad logic.

And considering Capitalism has been around for a short amount of time--being preceded by the actually rather primitive Socialistic form of Feudalism and the proto-capitalist form of Mercantilism--it most certainly not primitive.

Things change swiftly, making other things outdated. I bet you see my system, or one similar to mine set in place before we die. I said before, being so used to current systems I see where you cannot fully grasp an understanding. As technology improves so will societies need to sell it.

No, I grasp your system; I used to be a Communist, specifically a Titoist. But, I learned from others that communism, in perfection, is unobtainable.

Quite frankly, your idea promotes communes; AKA tribalism and very primitive ideals. Capitalism survived the Cold War because Communism couldn't--and heres the clincher--compete. Theirs a reason Communism has mostly died out; it doesn't work.

[The Northerns States]

Not in a perfectly free market.

i can't think of a single country in the world that has a perfectly free market

That's not the point of this discussion.

[SimMars]

i can't think of a single country in the world that has a perfectly free market

That's not the point of this discussion.

why not? there is no countries (that i can think of) that are purely only in one style of economy

[Senestrum]

State Capitalism. Allowing the market to flow fairly smoothly while adjusting for the needs of the country and the security of the people.

This.

[Wamitoria]

State Capitalism. Allowing the market to flow fairly smoothly while adjusting for the needs of the country and the security of the people.

^This

[Great Nepal]

Except while trying to make pockets deeper: you cause advancements. To see how exactly: see my previous post.


Except the fact that everyone has chance to have money. And if one succeeds and another fails, sorry but its their own fault.

Since you love to give situational circumstance (the auto efficiency example) I will also. Let's say Joe here is an aspiring electrical engineer, this position has a 100% employment rate, right after school he gets hired by Xcel Energy, seen as a prodigy by his peers. Unfortunately early in his career he develops lymphoma and can no longer work because of the medication that is required for treatment effects his ability to work.

Guess that's Joes fault, what an idiot, getting lymphoma and all.

How many of this case happens? Because I dont see questioning whole system for few incidents. Not to mention, if people have large surplus money, they are likely to donate some money to charity which can in turn help few incidents like one you mentioned.

[Eisen Reich]

State Capitalism. Allowing the market to flow fairly smoothly while adjusting for the needs of the country and the security of the people.

good show old chap. you might be on to something. if only we can convince the communists

[Great Nepal]

Free market Capitalism with very minimal government involvement (Government controlling only defense and road). Free market can do everything government does a lot more efficiently since there is no need for all red tape process.

Why cant we have private roads and private defense? Its not like we currently have traffic jams, oversubsidized unused highways, and regular foreign adventures that kill thousands of innocent people.

For Roads: It seem too far, too fast from where we are now: with major government interventions. And you cant really have competition in terms of road (there is one road; and thats it). Of course, this could be possibility but doing so in any near future is not likely to go down well...
For Defense: Its just too risky. A nation could simply bribe companies controlling defense if they want to invade.

[Conserative Morality]

This.

good show old chap. you might be on to something. if only we can convince the communists

^This

State Capitalists of the world, unite!

[Mongolian Khanate]

This.

good show old chap. you might be on to something. if only we can convince the communists

^This

State Capitalists of the world, unite!

Given the aleas of International Relations...

I guess you can count me in as a centrist state capitalist

[Ceannairceach]

This.

good show old chap. you might be on to something. if only we can convince the communists

^This

State Capitalists of the world, unite!

Like most economic systems, I can see the benefit of it.

[The Corparation]

I think the cow analogy sums this one up for me pretty well:

SOCIALISM : You have 2 cows, so you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM :> You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM : You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

CAPITALISM : You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income

[Conserative Morality]

Given the aleas of International Relations...

I guess you can count me in as a centrist state capitalist

I count myself as a Centre-Left State Capitalist.

[Ceannairceach]

I think the cow analogy sums this one up for me pretty well:

SOCIALISM : You have 2 cows, so you give one to your neighbour.

COMMUNISM :> You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM : You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.

CAPITALISM : You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income

That doesn't accurately describe Fascism.