Economics

[Cobreiny]

Throughout history, there have been numerous economic systems created as used. And each system has had a variety of forms created. Many have either failed for whatever reason or just evolved or was replaced by another system. Each system has its flaws and its benefits.

Communism has equality, in theory.
Fascism the rich are in charge while the poor are oppressed. The economy and government is dominated and/or controlled by coporations. Look up Fascist Italy or just fascism.

Socialism provides High quality public services (education, healthcare, etc.) Heavy Taxation rquired. Has private enterprise, while government owns large businesses
I think you get the idea. I'll write more later.

[Soviet Klaec]

OOC: I don't think this is quite the place for such a discussion as it is OOC, regardless of if it pertains to Economics. Just my thoughts.

On topic: I'd highly suggest adding more variables since you added "etc". However, for such a topic, you can not simply "etc" with any real accuracy. Give us all the variables you'd like us to judge on, since 1 variable could completely change our answer. However, for the 3 you have at the time I'm making this post, I'd have to say Socialism. It has a high degree of economic equality and fairness, while still allowing a vast amount of competition between companies and industries.

[Neu Leonstein]

Fascism the rich are in charge while the poor are oppressed. The economy and government is dominated and/or controlled by coporations. Look up Fascist Italy or just fascism.

Yes, please do.

People misunderstand what a "corporation" in fascist corporatism actually is. You can think of it more like the country being one body, with different organs. They all have to work together for the body to function and perform some action (ie the national destiny - fascists usually imagine that to be empire building). So a big company is one organ - but so is the union. They both receive their orders from the brain, which is ultimately the leader as the personification of the nation and the one who drives it to its destiny.

Big companies are not in charge in a fascist country any more than big unions are. Both receive their orders (eg build me 10,000 tanks this year, without inflation and without strikes) and are then left to their own devices as to how to achieve it. Does that mean unions didn't get to push through wage demands, and strikes were outlawed? Sure. But prices were fixed as well, and companies received orders as to what to produce. In return, everyone got to keep what was left over after they had fulfilled their national purpose.

Did the system work? Well, one could argue that it did in Germany temporarily, while in Italy it never managed to meet the goals set by Mussolini. In Germany it disintegrated into more and more centralised planning, which then became unable to deal with the lack of resources created by the war.

[Cameroi]

the economic, is a mythical beast.

[Mavorpen]

Fuck, I picked communism instead of socialism. Oh well, socialism fits the bill when those.

[Divair]

Whatever the hell you would classify Sweden as. Very well regulated capitalism, I suppose.

[Regnum Romanum]

All of the above. One system doesn't work so very well.

[Mahlen]

Just choosing one answer, I'd have to say moderately-regulated capitalism. In theory, it gives people the opportunity to expand and compete with each other (along with partnering with whoever they choose), while being kept in check ethically at the same time (ex., minimum wages, overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc.) In practice, it still has a ways to go- you still have to deal with corruption and lobbying, but it still seems to be the most suitable choice.
Of course, theoretically, they all sound like perfectly good systems. I just find regulated capitalism to be the most successful when put into practice.