Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Liberaxia]

It was not an adhoc, there is a difference between delegates and representatives. You refused to acknowledge that.

It dosnt matter if you cannot opt out of it it is a state.

Can I opt out of the laws of the free market?

[Liberaxia]

Smart phones and laptops don't go against the laws of physics.

In all of human history we have never once added a proton to an atom.

If we ever do it will cost 10s of millions in electricity in a billion dolar facility. For 1 Atom! Its not not ever will be feisable.

You've never heard of nuclear fusion!?

[Liberaxia]

By only your warped definition they are.

By definition a state is an entity which exercises a legitimate monopoly on the use of force, which the supreme soviet holds in this case.

Oh yeah? Why should we use your definition?

[Kitchenistan]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=288179
I kind of had a thread on this before, if you want to read through the answers.

And yes. Capitalism drives innovation and industry.
Nothing else works as well.

America created:
The transistor.
ARPANET (the internet).
3D printing.
Cars.
Spaceships (not satellites).

What is the significance of these inventions?

Transistor - all modern technology would not exist without this.
ARPANET - the internet would not exist without this.
3D printing - Current innovation in production of artificial limbs would not be possible without this.
Cars - this one is obvious.
Spaceships - this one is obvious.

So people bash capitalism, but a big part of major innovation in the past 100 years came from America.

You can thank capitalism for all of the luxuries you enjoy today.
And that computer you are reading this on?
Macintosh, Microsoft, and GNU/Linux all started in...
You guessed it. Capitalist America.

ARPANET was not created by private enterprise. Cars were not invented in the US. The US isn't the only space-capable society; the USSR had a fine space program.
Maybe you shouldn't buy into the US-version-of-capitalism propaganda so hard. (My apologies to the thread. Personal pet peeve.)

[Jarden]

Capitalism is the answer. The problem is human greed getting in the way of cultural, scientific and economic progress. That's why I believe in a society where laws require corporations, people and government to pass them. A world where scientific advancement is privatized and competitive where they don't just compete for better efficiency, they compete for the most amazing technologies and advancement. A world where the government rewards those not only who bring in the most money but those who bring in money, invest in communities, are sustainable and efficient, and are uncorrupt and transparent.

[Nervium]

Capitalism is the answer. The problem is human greed getting in the way of cultural, scientific and economic progress. That's why I believe in a society where laws require corporations, people and government to pass them. A world where scientific advancement is privatized and competitive where they don't just compete for better efficiency, they compete for the most amazing technologies and advancement. A world where the government rewards those not only who bring in the most money but those who bring in money, invest in communities, are sustainable and efficient, and are uncorrupt and transparent.

Scientific progress privatised? Horrible plan.

[Pilotto]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=288179
I kind of had a thread on this before, if you want to read through the answers.

And yes. Capitalism drives innovation and industry.
Nothing else works as well.

America created:
The transistor.
ARPANET (the internet).
3D printing.
Cars.
Spaceships (not satellites).

What is the significance of these inventions?

Transistor - all modern technology would not exist without this.
ARPANET - the internet would not exist without this.
3D printing - Current innovation in production of artificial limbs would not be possible without this.
Cars - this one is obvious.
Spaceships - this one is obvious.

So people bash capitalism, but a big part of major innovation in the past 100 years came from America.

You can thank capitalism for all of the luxuries you enjoy today.
And that computer you are reading this on?
Macintosh, Microsoft, and GNU/Linux all started in...
You guessed it. Capitalist America.

ARPANET was not created by private enterprise. Cars were not invented in the US. The US isn't the only space-capable society; the USSR had a fine space program.
Maybe you shouldn't buy into the US-version-of-capitalism propaganda so hard. (My apologies to the thread. Personal pet peeve.)

"The USSR had a fine space program."

[Tehraan]

Capitalism is the answer. The problem is human greed getting in the way of cultural, scientific and economic progress. That's why I believe in a society where laws require corporations, people and government to pass them. A world where scientific advancement is privatized and competitive where they don't just compete for better efficiency, they compete for the most amazing technologies and advancement. A world where the government rewards those not only who bring in the most money but those who bring in money, invest in communities, are sustainable and efficient, and are uncorrupt and transparent.

Scientific progress privatised? Horrible plan.

I've to second this, if there is anything that makes science rigid, slow and really really expensive it is privatization.

[Nervium]

Scientific progress privatised? Horrible plan.

I've to second this, if there is anything that makes science rigid, slow and really really expensive it is privatization.

Not to mention medical costs.

[Jarden]

The only reason privatized science is slow is cause they only work to get richer i believe in holding national scientific fairs and completions that have science companies race for cures and such. Cause if capitalism has no goal it is useless. Capitalism is more of a game than a system. How do we get everyone to benefit if they lose or win. Let's turn capitalism to a system of progress rather than profit. There are already examples such as STEM, companies that create student camps, races for the cure. Society is at its best when those with money partner with those with knowledge and they work towards a better tomorrow.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Everything is flawed, so everything crumbles. I think Righteous Capitalism (see factbook) would be a decent way to go though. That or a full-blown mixed economy.

[Jarden]

Capitalism has become to selfish instead of braving about profit margins they should brag that they made profit AND helped society advance one step further.

[Liberaxia]

Everything is flawed, so everything crumbles. I think Righteous Capitalism (see factbook) would be a decent way to go though. That or a full-blown mixed economy.

I'm not quite sure "mixed economy" is a useful term.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Everything is flawed, so everything crumbles. I think Righteous Capitalism (see factbook) would be a decent way to go though. That or a full-blown mixed economy.

I'm not quite sure "mixed economy" is a useful term.

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

[Lithuanian Empire]

I'm not quite sure "mixed economy" is a useful term.

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

Short answer: It would.
Long answer: Because it would be useful.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

Short answer: It would.
Long answer: Because it would be useful.

Somebdy finally agrees with me?

[Lithuanian Empire]

Short answer: It would.
Long answer: Because it would be useful.

Somebdy finally agrees with me?

I though everyone except me here was a communist or an anarchist?

[Duvniask]

I'm not quite sure "mixed economy" is a useful term.

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

That would only be true if socialism was somehow a measure of government, but it's not. Nonetheless, mixed economies imply a compromise between planning and markets.

[The Fascist American Empire]

Somebdy finally agrees with me?

I though everyone except me here was a communist or an anarchist?

Meh. I'm socially liberal and conservative in everything that actually matters.

[Liberaxia]

I'm not quite sure "mixed economy" is a useful term.

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

Because all economies would be "mixed economies". You're drawing boxes around particular elements and just calling them "capitalist" or "socialist".

[Liberaxia]

Why ever not? It's mostly Capitalist with some Socialism thrown in (banks, hospitals and mines being owned and operated by the government). It's happening in England and mostly working I believe, why wouldn't it be useful?

That would only be true if socialism was somehow a measure of government, but it's not. Nonetheless, mixed economies imply a compromise between planning and markets.

Firms are inherently planned, but it would be fallacious to say that that negates the market nature of an economy.

[Duvniask]

That would only be true if socialism was somehow a measure of government, but it's not. Nonetheless, mixed economies imply a compromise between planning and markets.

Firms are inherently planned, but it would be fallacious to say that that negates the market nature of an economy.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. In the context of the prior post, I was referring to state directed planning.

[Camelza]

Capitalism is a very useful tool, not a perfect tool, but the best we actually have available at the moment.
With a regulated capitalist economy, a healthy democratic representation system and a huge investment in education, our societies will eventually grow into more tolerant and egalitarian ones, without that meaning that they will be perfect. However, what we have now are the worst versions of all of the above and thus need serious "fixing" by all the means that democratic states allow(if they're not democratic states, then violence is acceptable).

I will not throw an unjust functioning system(that can slowly be bettered) in favour of a clearly more just but also extremely fragile one.

[Liberaxia]

Firms are inherently planned, but it would be fallacious to say that that negates the market nature of an economy.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. In the context of the prior post, I was referring to state directed planning.

Meh. Even then, state directed planning isn't necessarily socialist in orientation. Saudi Arabia is a command economy, for instance, but I doubt that you'd hold up that country as an example to follow.

[Duvniask]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. In the context of the prior post, I was referring to state directed planning.

Meh. Even then, state directed planning isn't necessarily socialist in orientation.

Which is what I've been saying. In fact, it's contrary to the whole concept to have a central authority direct the economy.

Saudi Arabia is a command economy, for instance, but I doubt that you'd hold up that country as an example to follow

I wouldn't.