Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Mercator Terra]

Theres no taxes because you dont get payed in N Korea they take all your money.

You do get paid in north korea.

Exactly thats you "tax"

[Mercator Terra]

Source?

Source for the entire economic history of the world eh? Try a library or book store.

Books are for squares

[Sibirsky]

So why use them as a source? FFS the less central planning there is the better.

Source?

Start with this. Central planning lowers economic freedom. Economic freedom results in prosperity.

Dark green are the most free 20%
Light green second 20%
Yellow middle 20%
Orange 2nd lowest 20%
Red lowest 20%

The most free nations dominate in every category. Because it is impossible to efficiently plan an economy.

[New Hampshyre]

Are you saying global warming is fake?

No.
Are you trying to derail the thread? Yes.

Fortunately I'm not taking the bait.

And i would like to see a source for your claim that "Libertarians have been calling for the fining of pollution in 1970, possibly earlier, far before global warming had even been raised as an issue".

Chapter 13 of the Libertarian manifesto. You can access it here:

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

[Sibirsky]

North Korea is also 1 of 2 nations that has worldwide taxation.

The other being the good ol' US of A, correct?

Correct. Good company huh?

We do get an exemption of like $93k or so, plus a housing allowance which varies by location (higher in high cost locations).

[Staenwald]

Source for the entire economic history of the world eh? Try a library or book store.

Books are for squares

i got myself The Wealth of Nations and i'm reading that atm. 1000 page sof economic theory ^^..it will take a while.

[Rudfud]

Why does one have to be better?

[Staenwald]

Why does one have to be better?

[Lackadaisical2]

Why does one have to be better?

Because equality is for fuddy duddies.

[Staenwald]

If no system was better than the others the USSR would have been a success, and so would north korea. Thats obviously not the case.

[Sibirsky]

Clearly my charts are just numbers.

[Staenwald]

Clearly my charts are just numbers.

don't worry i see them

[Lackadaisical2]

Clearly my charts are just numbers.

No, no, its capitalist propaganda.

[New Hampshyre]

Clearly my charts are just numbers.

Just cuz they're made with pretty colors doesn't mean they're important! Heck, them lines aren't even symmetrical!

[Sibirsky]

[Arilando]

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

What if it was proved that genocide of one race of people would prove better safety and standard of living for the rest of society? What would you do then?

That is never going to happen.

[New Hampshyre]

What if it was proved that genocide of one race of people would prove better safety and standard of living for the rest of society? What would you do then?

That is never going to happen.

It already has... The Nazis, by looting all the wealth of the Jews and others they tried to kill off, became wealthier than beforehand.

And besides, it is called a hypothetical. They are important and valid parts of intellectual discussion.

[The Deep Vault]

Source?

Start with this. Central planning lowers economic freedom. Economic freedom results in prosperity.

Dark green are the most free 20%
Light green second 20%
Yellow middle 20%
Orange 2nd lowest 20%
Red lowest 20%

The most free nations dominate in every category. Because it is impossible to efficiently plan an economy.

Or that the planned economies exist mostly within nations that are either poorly run or had worse economies to start with. Because corporations plan their segments of the economy every day.

[The Deep Vault]

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

What if it was proved that genocide of one race of people would prove better safety and standard of living for the rest of society? What would you do then?

How do you define "saftey and standard of living"? Killing to survive is something I find acceptable.

[Staenwald]

What if it was proved that genocide of one race of people would prove better safety and standard of living for the rest of society? What would you do then?

How do you define "saftey and standard of living"? Killing to survive is something I find acceptable.

I was just being hypothetical. Say eliminating a certain group of people who commit crimes in the majority of cases, regardless of whether this is a small portion of the group. Now i'd argue that society would be economically worse off, because there are less people to do business, but the problem of crime would decrease. I was just being hypothetical as I said.

I would kill if someone was going to kill me, I wouldnt if I wasnt being threatened by anyone.

[Mercator Terra]

Books are for squares

i got myself The Wealth of Nations and i'm reading that atm. 1000 page sof economic theory ^^..it will take a while.

The Wealth of Nations is not that great. May I recommend Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (If you not new to economics go ahead and read The Wealth of Nations I just didn't care for it that much)

[Sibirsky]

Or that the planned economies exist mostly within nations that are either poorly run or had worse economies to start with. Because corporations plan their segments of the economy every day.

Excuses, excuses. You guys never run out.

Explain East/West Germany. Explain North/South Korea. Explain Hong Kong, Taiwan and China.

I'll make it easy for you. East Germany, North Korea and China have sucked because they were centrally planned. It's common fucking sense.

[Arilando]

Or that the planned economies exist mostly within nations that are either poorly run or had worse economies to start with. Because corporations plan their segments of the economy every day.

Excuses, excuses. You guys never run out.

Explain East/West Germany. Explain North/South Korea. Explain Hong Kong, Taiwan and China.

I'll make it easy for you. East Germany, North Korea and China have sucked because they were centrally planned. It's common fucking sense.

No it's not.

[Arilando]

How do you define "saftey and standard of living"? Killing to survive is something I find acceptable.

I was just being hypothetical. Say eliminating a certain group of people who commit crimes in the majority of cases, regardless of whether this is a small portion of the group. Now i'd argue that society would be economically worse off, because there are less people to do business, but the problem of crime would decrease. I was just being hypothetical as I said.

I would kill if someone was going to kill me, I wouldnt if I wasnt being threatened by anyone.

I dont know what you mean by a gruop of people.

[Arilando]

Are you saying global warming is fake?

No.
Are you trying to derail the thread? Yes.

Fortunately I'm not taking the bait.

And i would like to see a source for your claim that "Libertarians have been calling for the fining of pollution in 1970, possibly earlier, far before global warming had even been raised as an issue".

Chapter 13 of the Libertarian manifesto. You can access it here:

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

It says nothing about green house gases, only air and sound pollution.