Capitalisim vs. Socialisim

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Bull.

In socialism, the nomenklatura own 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of the people are almost starving.

Stop for a second there.

Saying that 100% of the population owns 100% of the wealth is tautologically true of any society.

I was only referencing the 2nd part.

[Trotskylvania]

Stop for a second there.

Saying that 100% of the population owns 100% of the wealth is tautologically true of any society.

I was only referencing the 2nd part.

So is this your account to post on when you are drunk?

[Patriqvinia]

There may be a limited number of a certain machine, so some factories may have to make do with something else that's maybe less cost effective... also, some places may find it more difficult to ship materials in, or perhaps the climate they are in is unfavorable to the material, which would create a necessity to treat it or specially store it (extra facility cost, maybe extra labor to move it).

Yeah. So different firms face different marginal costs depending on their method of production. The rule for allocative efficiency is that a firm sets its price at whatever marginal cost it faces.

Oh, I thought you meant across the board for a specific product no matter where it came from.
In that case, competition would balance the profit motive. If a firm can't sell anything, it can't exist.

[Kleomentia]

I ar Capitalist.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Yeah. So different firms face different marginal costs depending on their method of production. The rule for allocative efficiency is that a firm sets its price at whatever marginal cost it faces.

In that case, competition would balance the profit motive. If a firm can't sell anything, it can't exist.

Right but the point is that in reality firms aren't perfectly competitive, they have some market power (some much more than others, especially in fields with high natural barriers to entry).

[Airstrip 100]

Socialism 100% of the pop owns 100% of the wealth.

Capitalism 1% of the pop owns 99% of the wealth

Bull.

In socialism, the nomenklatura own 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of the people are almost starving.

The Soviet Union was never socialist.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

I was only referencing the 2nd part.

So is this your account to post on when you are drunk?

Something like that.

[-St George]

Please fix the typo. /grammer nazi

It's too late, and I have school tomorrow, but I'll give a brief opinion.

I personally prefer capitalism. Capitalism gives incentive to enterprise, innovation, and technological development. Inherently, it is efficient, as the firm that is not efficient fails at the market. Inherently, the firm which cannot adapt to developments fails at the market. Inherently, the firm which does not produce desired products, fails at the market place.

The only type of socialism I think can compare to the kind of success capitalism enjoys is market socialism.

Inherently, it encourages cost cutting and penny pinching, the employment of low wage workers, outsourcing, corner cutting, corruption and regulation breaking also.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Bull.

In socialism, the nomenklatura own 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of the people are almost starving.

The Soviet Union was never socialist.

State owned means of production. Yeah, it was socialist.

[Airstrip 100]

The Soviet Union was never socialist.

State owned means of production. Yeah, it was socialist.

Socialism implies common ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.

By your logic, Imperial Russia would have been socialist as well, as 80% of the enterprises there were controlled by the state.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Please fix the typo. /grammer nazi

It's too late, and I have school tomorrow, but I'll give a brief opinion.

I personally prefer capitalism. Capitalism gives incentive to enterprise, innovation, and technological development. Inherently, it is efficient, as the firm that is not efficient fails at the market. Inherently, the firm which cannot adapt to developments fails at the market. Inherently, the firm which does not produce desired products, fails at the market place.

The only type of socialism I think can compare to the kind of success capitalism enjoys is market socialism.

Inherently, it encourages cost cutting and penny pinching, the employment of low wage workers, outsourcing, corner cutting, corruption and regulation breaking also.

Cutting costs is a good thing. Wages, in capitalist economies are much higher for a reason. Outsourcing is not inherently bad. Corner cutting, corruption and non compliance with regulations is not exclusive to capitalism.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

State owned means of production. Yeah, it was socialist.

Socialism implies common ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.

By your logic, Imperial Russia would have been socialist as well, as 80% of the enterprises there were controlled by the state.

By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned

[Airstrip 100]

Socialism implies common ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.

By your logic, Imperial Russia would have been socialist as well, as 80% of the enterprises there were controlled by the state.

By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned

So you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist?

Try a dictionary, not wikipedia:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

So you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist?

So you agree that the USSR was socialist?

[Industrial Republics]

Socialism implies common ownership of the means of production, not state ownership.

By your logic, Imperial Russia would have been socialist as well, as 80% of the enterprises there were controlled by the state.

By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned

You believe Wikipedia? And on top of that, on an ideology which changes from person to person?

[Airstrip 100]

So you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist?

So you agree that the USSR was socialist?

If you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist, I'll agree that the USSR (and every single country in the world except Somalia) was socialist.

Regarding that link, note that 'state ownership' was not the only criteria for socialism. You've fallen into the trap of assuming that since the Soviet Union met one of the criteria for socialism, it met all of them.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

You believe Wikipedia? And on top of that, on an ideology which changes from person to person?

An article that has 152 references, yes.

There is a mainstream definition of socialism. I gave it. The USSR was socialist.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

So you agree that the USSR was socialist?

If you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist, I'll agree that the USSR (and every single country in the world except Somalia) was socialist.

Regarding that link, note that 'state ownership' was not the ONLY criteria for socialism. You've fallen into the trap of assuming that since the Soviet Union fit one of the criteria for socialism, it fit all of them.

How is every country in the world socialist?

It fit more than one.

[Industrial Republics]

You believe Wikipedia? And on top of that, on an ideology which changes from person to person?

An article that has 152 references, yes.

There is a mainstream definition of socialism. I gave it. The USSR was socialist.

Lol, wut?

You know, because you checked every single one of those references to make sure they agreed with exactly what they're referenced too. And that all 152 where based on that single definition, amirite? There is no mainstream definition, the people who try to make a mainstream definition can't agree on it.

[Airstrip 100]

If you agree that Imperial Russia was socialist, I'll agree that the USSR (and every single country in the world except Somalia) was socialist.

Regarding that link, note that 'state ownership' was not the ONLY criteria for socialism. You've fallen into the trap of assuming that since the Soviet Union fit one of the criteria for socialism, it fit all of them.

How is every country in the world socialist?

It fit more than one.

It doesn't fit common ownership. Please google the etymology of 'socialism'.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

An article that has 152 references, yes.

There is a mainstream definition of socialism. I gave it. The USSR was socialist.

Lol, wut?

You know, because you checked every single one of those references to make sure they agreed with exactly what they're referenced too. And that all 152 where based on that single definition, amirite? There is no mainstream definition, the people who try to make a mainstream definition can't agree on it.

Yes, there is. And the basics of it are state or commonly owned means of production.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

How is every country in the world socialist?

It fit more than one.

It doesn't fit common ownership. Please google the etymology of 'socialism'.

It fits state owned.

[Airstrip 100]

It doesn't fit common ownership. Please google the etymology of 'socialism'.

It fits state owned.

Just because it fits state-owned does not mean it fits socialism.

Remember, state-owned is not the only criteria for socialism.

[The Necessary]

Seriously, socialsim is a much better alternative

The problem is, is that leaders have the power. Does socialism benefit the leaders? Yes, along with everyone else. Does capitalism benefit the leaders? Yes, ot sureas hell does and the vast majority of power goes to the leaders. Leaders can be anyone, from someone who generally cares about the public (like the Labour party) to some idiot who passed university in the fields of law and politics, which may be a familiar politician to you and me. Capitalism strives on the fact that one can make it out of poverty and beyond through work. Socialism is clearly better than capitalism as it ensures mequality, which is far ethical than who has the biggest paycheck on your office floor. But, as a political satyracal cartoon suggests, both socialism and capitalism have a gun pointed at your head, with the only difference between the doctrines being that with capitalism the one holding the gun has the money whilst with socialsim YOU have the money.

Socailsm or Capitalism

Pick your poison

[Meryuma]

People are lazy so Socialism will not work, we all think that our neighboors are always two steps away from killing us. Capitalism allows monopolies to form and then 90% of people are starving and dependent on coporations as the rich get all the money. Both suck

Do you really think your neighbors are two steps away from killing you? Maybe you should move?
Capitalism doesn't inherently allow monopolies to form (government favoring one company with resource allowance or copyrights) nor is it inherently corporatism. And... 90% of people aren't starving...

You don't know what corporatism is.

Socialism 100% of the pop owns 100% of the wealth.

Capitalism 1% of the pop owns 99% of the wealth

Bull.

In socialism, the nomenklatura own 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of the people are almost starving.

You don't know what socialism is.