Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[St George of England]

on a another note, I heard today on the radio that scientists have found out that people's ability to make instinctive, gut decisions varies from person to person, and it also varies depending on the internal conditions of a person's body- like chemical balance or something.Surely this further disproves the myth that we don't have a priori knowledge and that we can't live solely on instinct, and support the fact that conscious thinking has great significance in our lives?

Probably.

More importantly, it demonstrates what I've maintained all along. Lots of scientists have far too much time, and too much of other people's money, on their hands.

[Sibirsky]

on a another note, I heard today on the radio that scientists have found out that people's ability to make instinctive, gut decisions varies from person to person, and it also varies depending on the internal conditions of a person's body- like chemical balance or something.Surely this further disproves the myth that we don't have a priori knowledge and that we can't live solely on instinct, and support the fact that conscious thinking has great significance in our lives?

Probably.

More importantly, it demonstrates what I've maintained all along. Lots of scientists have far too much time, and too much of other people's money, on their hands.

Ha. I agree. But this isn't the worst offense.

[St George of England]

Probably.

More importantly, it demonstrates what I've maintained all along. Lots of scientists have far too much time, and too much of other people's money, on their hands.

Ha. I agree. But this isn't the worst offense.

Agreed.

[Staenwald]

Ha. I agree. But this isn't the worst offense.

Agreed.

better than learning the reaction times of flies, and why they can so easily avoid fly swats. Aparently thye can change their minds and directions in about 0.001 of a secons or something.or when they found out that forgs jump out of scalding water, but they dont notice the heat of the water if you warm it up slowly. ?! i know...

[DAVEYPROD]

communisim ftw!

[Staenwald]

communisim ftw!

you would stand more chance of being taken seriously if you spelt it correctly. And maybe if you changed that to socialism at least, but preferably capitalisismsismsimsmsim ...hehe

[Bobsia]

Libertarian Socialism.

[Sociobiology]

in a peotic sense yes freedom is a form of slavery, it always comes with a price, you can be free, or your can be secure, some of one must always be traded to gain the other. Freedom of speack means being continuosly confronted by Ideas and sentimates you would spend a life time fighting. giving everyone a vote means having to do your best to make sure they and you are worthy of the responsibility. accepting new Ideas also mean knowing the law will always be a mutable thing. being free to judge means being judged in turn. once education becomes possible, from then on you have no excuse in ignorance and must accept the facts nature hands you. Humans are shallow petty, lazy creatures, nature has insured that, to rise above that we must work at it constantly, any system worth using requires constant maintenance, society is no different.
thousands upon thousands of little things make our lives better everyday than our ancestors had, but the vast majority will never know them, we take a lot for granted. neighboring tribes no longer attack without warning simply to take rather than make, yet in the vastness of human history this is a novel situation. the flu is no longer fatal, nor is belonging to a different religion. "all people are equal" is something we take for granted but the vast number of our ancestors did not believe this, but even this had a price, if everyone is equal you are no longer special.
We decided, certain things were to big, to important, to powerful to leave in the hands of one person, thus bottom up governance was invented, let one man control the military, or the water supply or even education, and it invites a level of corruption most people born in mellow safe democracies cannot conceive of. So we said no these thing will be provided without favor, and everyone gives for it, lest we recreate the tyranny of kings and priests.

comparing jury duty to other service is very reasonable, I never said only military service, just public service, so lets keep the strawman population down.
I do love this will happen or that will happen as supposition when dozens of actual examples exist for you to look at, its the worst parts of philosophy, guessing ans assuming certainty without every inviting data or falsifiability.

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, I'm sorry, but that is literally and completely oxymoronic, you do not have a responsibility nor are you forced to respect freedom of speech, you just can't impede the freedom of another, there is no compulsion in that, you can say whatever you want, you can think whatever you want of what others say, but you can't stop the other from speaking his mind, that is not slavery, because it no person is being forced to do anything, except when they forced themselves on another first.

Voting is not a right nor a freedom, self-election in the sense of choosing what you do for yourself is however a fundamental freedom, democracy is merely an extension, and is in no way a fundamental right, even so, it is not a duty to vote or to "make sure your worthy", none of the things you said were in any way true duties of persons.

you should look up the meaning of the word poetically.
Freedom + self control + knowledge of the likely outcome of your actions = responsibly
Responsibility + morality = limits of choice
the more accurate your knowledge of the effects of your actions the less choice there is.

in debate the free exchange of ideas, the free exchange of anything requires rules, deciding on rules fairly requires an unbiased decider a rule maker without a stake in the outcome. Thus we invented government, our best attempt to create an arbitrator without bias. I say attempt, because no system composed of humans will ever be truly free of bias, but we can minimize it. being aware of bias helps so we tried to make the government transparent. we wanted composed of the best of us, but deciding who was best is tricky at best, so we said, everyone gets a say so no one bias can hod sway. we knew if it was funded by one source of few sources it would be beholden to them so we said everyone pays, but this had practical issues so we weighted the system so those with less wouldn't starve.
government is flawed certainly, but less so than anything else thats been tried.

[The Merchant Republics]

Freedom is slavery, war is peace, I'm sorry, but that is literally and completely oxymoronic, you do not have a responsibility nor are you forced to respect freedom of speech, you just can't impede the freedom of another, there is no compulsion in that, you can say whatever you want, you can think whatever you want of what others say, but you can't stop the other from speaking his mind, that is not slavery, because it no person is being forced to do anything, except when they forced themselves on another first.

Voting is not a right nor a freedom, self-election in the sense of choosing what you do for yourself is however a fundamental freedom, democracy is merely an extension, and is in no way a fundamental right, even so, it is not a duty to vote or to "make sure your worthy", none of the things you said were in any way true duties of persons.

you should look up the meaning of the word poetically.
Freedom + self control + knowledge of the likely outcome of your actions = responsibly
Responsibility + morality = limits of choice
the more accurate your knowledge of the effects of your actions the less choice there is.

Self-control is freedom, literally speaking, freedom is the ability to do as you choose, self-control is the ability to control what you do, however there is no duty to do anything within the sphere of your personal being, you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone directly through that action, self-control and responsibility do not need to coincide.

Indeed, if you are a responsible and informed your choices are diminished, however it is diminished only by your own decision, it is ultimately under your control to do something which is very risky, even if your knowledge advises you against it, saying knowledge creates diminished choices is no more then saying reality creates diminished choices.

in debate the free exchange of ideas, the free exchange of anything requires rules, deciding on rules fairly requires an unbiased decider a rule maker without a stake in the outcome. Thus we invented government, our best attempt to create an arbitrator without bias. I say attempt, because no system composed of humans will ever be truly free of bias, but we can minimize it. being aware of bias helps so we tried to make the government transparent. we wanted composed of the best of us, but deciding who was best is tricky at best, so we said, everyone gets a say so no one bias can hod sway. we knew if it was funded by one source of few sources it would be beholden to them so we said everyone pays, but this had practical issues so we weighted the system so those with less wouldn't starve.
government is flawed certainly, but less so than anything else thats been tried.

Rules and arbitrators do not require governments, consider for instance Lex Mercatoria and other common law courts.

[Sociobiology]

you should look up the meaning of the word poetically.
Freedom + self control + knowledge of the likely outcome of your actions = responsibly
Responsibility + morality = limits of choice
the more accurate your knowledge of the effects of your actions the less choice there is.

Self-control is freedom, literally speaking, freedom is the ability to do as you choose, self-control is the ability to control what you do, however there is no duty to do anything within the sphere of your personal being, you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone directly through that action, self-control and responsibility do not need to coincide.

Indeed, if you are a responsible and informed your choices are diminished, however it is diminished only by your own decision, it is ultimately under your control to do something which is very risky, even if your knowledge advises you against it, saying knowledge creates diminished choices is no more then saying reality creates diminished choices.

in debate the free exchange of ideas, the free exchange of anything requires rules, deciding on rules fairly requires an unbiased decider a rule maker without a stake in the outcome. Thus we invented government, our best attempt to create an arbitrator without bias. I say attempt, because no system composed of humans will ever be truly free of bias, but we can minimize it. being aware of bias helps so we tried to make the government transparent. we wanted composed of the best of us, but deciding who was best is tricky at best, so we said, everyone gets a say so no one bias can hod sway. we knew if it was funded by one source of few sources it would be beholden to them so we said everyone pays, but this had practical issues so we weighted the system so those with less wouldn't starve.
government is flawed certainly, but less so than anything else thats been tried.

Rules and arbitrators do not require governments, consider for instance Lex Mercatoria and other common law courts.

so merchants voluntarily created there own governance, and that is an argument against governance?
Do not understand what a government is? do you think that its some independent life form?

I also like the way you strwman my very simple formula, i present 1+2+3=6
and you reply" thats not true 1+2 does not equal 6"

[The Merchant Republics]

Self-control is freedom, literally speaking, freedom is the ability to do as you choose, self-control is the ability to control what you do, however there is no duty to do anything within the sphere of your personal being, you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone directly through that action, self-control and responsibility do not need to coincide.

Indeed, if you are a responsible and informed your choices are diminished, however it is diminished only by your own decision, it is ultimately under your control to do something which is very risky, even if your knowledge advises you against it, saying knowledge creates diminished choices is no more then saying reality creates diminished choices.

Rules and arbitrators do not require governments, consider for instance Lex Mercatoria and other common law courts.

so merchants voluntarily created there own governance, and that is an argument against governance?
Do not understand what a government is? do you think that its some independent life form?

I also like the way you strwman my very simple formula, i present 1+2+3=6
and you reply" thats not true 1+2 does not equal 6"

Aye, That was a mistake. I was equivocating government to state, a simple but very much crucial mistake I agree. I'm sorry I've been operating on borrowed time.

[Kruplyan]

I think Communism (Socialism is a stepping stone to it) is a fantastic idea with communism being everyone just works together and is always equal. But it just doesn't work. People simply don't function like that. Men will always have greed or want on some sort of level. It's also very dangerous, as most politicians in the past have used Communism as an alibi to work their way into power and create a tyrannical Oligarchy or Dictatorship, or a corrupt form of Communism that makes equality low.

Capitalism is also very risky with the threat of economic meltdown, but it's proved better (in my opinion) than Communist nations in the last 100 years. If you can put small limits on the power of major corporations, and cut back on spending and fix the economy so more people can get jobs, Capitalism will work great. The problem is to many gigantic umbrella organizations, and not enough smaller, independent company's.

[Sociobiology]

so merchants voluntarily created there own governance, and that is an argument against governance?
Do not understand what a government is? do you think that its some independent life form?

I also like the way you strwman my very simple formula, i present 1+2+3=6
and you reply" thats not true 1+2 does not equal 6"

Aye, That was a mistake. I was equivocating government to state, a simple but very much crucial mistake I agree. I'm sorry I've been operating on borrowed time.

evryone has bad day, theres a thread were I argue international land use law, only to realise I was confusing land sovereignty law and maritime ship law.

[Staenwald]

I think Communism (Socialism is a stepping stone to it) is a fantastic idea with communism being everyone just works together and is always equal. But it just doesn't work. People simply don't function like that. Men will always have greed or want on some sort of level. It's also very dangerous, as most politicians in the past have used Communism as an alibi to work their way into power and create a tyrannical Oligarchy or Dictatorship, or a corrupt form of Communism that makes equality low.

Capitalism is also very risky with the threat of economic meltdown, but it's proved better (in my opinion) than Communist nations in the last 100 years. If you can put small limits on the power of major corporations, and cut back on spending and fix the economy so more people can get jobs, Capitalism will work great. The problem is to many gigantic umbrella organizations, and not enough smaller, independent company's.

Communism is neither great in practice or theory- considering our current pschology and biology. If we were more atuned to living like ants, then sure communism might be a great idea- but somehow you assess the workings of an ant community as barbaric from our own ethical standpoint. Every ant will die for the sake of the next generation or ants and the rest of the next- sound familiar? USSR anyone? People will always think individually, it's not just about greed, it's about individuality- something which brings society sucha great mix of people. Ant's arent that individual really- and if they act so they will most likely die pretty quickly- or get killed for it. they probably can't anyway. Some people will always be smarter, more energetic and go-getting, others will be more naturally less intelligent, less active and even lazy. It's only fair that wealth is distributed by a free market along these lines.

Capitalism turns greed into a force for good. there is much to say that it's economic meltdowns are as much to do with the government (if not more so) as the free market itself. it's funny since most things (maybe not anti-trust) you propose in order to make capitalism work better- such as lower government spending and less regulation so mroe jobs can be made -moves towards a laissez faire market, something which you seem to oppose from a moral standpoint?

[Staenwald]

I'd start with a standard first year economics book. Mankiw or something. A first year finance text, featuring basic discounted cash flow valuation for shares and bonds would be good too. I don't think the great classics of economics are going to help you much until you have some grounding in modern mainstream theory. Same goes for any alternative schools of thought.

It still may be at least an interesting and vaguely helpful read though? perhaps learning some history of economic though. and i'm sure smith establishes some of the basic principles?

[Tajpania]

I am going to start with a short view on the debate before expanding.

Both capitalism and socialism in their pure forms produce a lot of negative
occurences within their systems. Thus in the current economic system
they should in ideal case be in balance. However in our nation state
we are trying to achieve a social order in which the individual
development and growth is combined with a strong sense for community
thus taking best of both worlds without having to take the negatives of them
through implementing new dimensions of policies.

A short view on the last 143 pages would be a little more than a paragraph. You've seen the way the balance has gone in the UK or the USA based on the current economic situation- not well.
if individuals refuse to develop a sense of community what would you do to 'correct' that? One of the main negative aspects of a system which uses social engineering policies is that it requires the use of force, which can't be eliminated, whatever policies you use. Capitalism is a system which makes individuals use their self interest to produce products for others in order to make money for themselves. Socialist systems force individuals to make products for others for the benefit of others- and cooperative ownership can be done through capitalism without the requirement of force as all parties who want to be involved would do so of their own free will.

Well that's why I said we need to develop a new system since it is not working, thing is, just as you said - how do you get people to understand the need for change? Force? Depends on what you call force. I agree that social engineering from top obviously has issues, you can pass laws, but people can still find a way to undermine them or oppose them, so the ultimate effect would be laughable. I know this may sound a bit naive, but how about change from below? People always crave a sense of community and belonging somewhere. I think it is all about education, people think about socialism and capitalism, because they have been usually brought up to live in one of them. Social norms are the framework that is often difficult to break as lots of times it is the only mindset lot of people have ever known. But it doesn't make them stupid or incapable. What could change this would be education, but not the education in the brainwashing sense, but more as in development of self, I do not know if you are familiar with informal and non formal education that happens all over the world through various organisation ( also called participatory education ), it can be used to get people to formulate their opinions freely regardless of the norms, social or cultural. And through this framwork I think you could create a decentralised system based on philosophical communities, but that is for a longer debate.

the Norwegian system has always struck me as interesting, having a mandatory 1 yr of service, either in the military or other government dept. with exemption for those is higher education, provided they graduate, if they drop out they are once again required.
Making various government benefit, (public health, social sec.) contingent on such service(or legal exemption there of) would be an interesting system.
it provides optional vocational certification thru the mil.( if you stay in longer), reduction in military cost, incentive for entering and completing higher education, large scale vaccination, reduction in abuses of free services by non-contributers.
any thoughts?

The norwegian system though has a big support from their oil industry, which allows them to have a kind of a social state withint the capitalistic framework, I am not sure it would be implementable on a large scale. However a better example would be Finland. They do not posses any strategic resources so they decided they are going to make educated people their strategic resource and started to build on that. I think that is a good direction that would be possible to go with on a large scale with some tweakings. They have a pretty strong social state while remaining competitive.

[Sociobiology]

A short view on the last 143 pages would be a little more than a paragraph. You've seen the way the balance has gone in the UK or the USA based on the current economic situation- not well.
if individuals refuse to develop a sense of community what would you do to 'correct' that? One of the main negative aspects of a system which uses social engineering policies is that it requires the use of force, which can't be eliminated, whatever policies you use. Capitalism is a system which makes individuals use their self interest to produce products for others in order to make money for themselves. Socialist systems force individuals to make products for others for the benefit of others- and cooperative ownership can be done through capitalism without the requirement of force as all parties who want to be involved would do so of their own free will.

Well that's why I said we need to develop a new system since it is not working, thing is, just as you said - how do you get people to understand the need for change? Force? Depends on what you call force. I agree that social engineering from top obviously has issues, you can pass laws, but people can still find a way to undermine them or oppose them, so the ultimate effect would be laughable. I know this may sound a bit naive, but how about change from below? People always crave a sense of community and belonging somewhere. I think it is all about education, people think about socialism and capitalism, because they have been usually brought up to live in one of them. Social norms are the framework that is often difficult to break as lots of times it is the only mindset lot of people have ever known. But it doesn't make them stupid or incapable. What could change this would be education, but not the education in the brainwashing sense, but more as in development of self, I do not know if you are familiar with informal and non formal education that happens all over the world through various organisation ( also called participatory education ), it can be used to get people to formulate their opinions freely regardless of the norms, social or cultural. And through this framwork I think you could create a decentralised system based on philosophical communities, but that is for a longer debate.

the Norwegian system has always struck me as interesting, having a mandatory 1 yr of service, either in the military or other government dept. with exemption for those is higher education, provided they graduate, if they drop out they are once again required.
Making various government benefit, (public health, social sec.) contingent on such service(or legal exemption there of) would be an interesting system.
it provides optional vocational certification thru the mil.( if you stay in longer), reduction in military cost, incentive for entering and completing higher education, large scale vaccination, reduction in abuses of free services by non-contributers.
any thoughts?

The norwegian system though has a big support from their oil industry, which allows them to have a kind of a social state withint the capitalistic framework, I am not sure it would be implementable on a large scale. However a better example would be Finland. They do not posses any strategic resources so they decided they are going to make educated people their strategic resource and started to build on that. I think that is a good direction that would be possible to go with on a large scale with some tweakings. They have a pretty strong social state while remaining competitive.

both countries do have extensive welfare systems and mandatory military service but yes, it is more reliant on manufacturing rather than reasources, of coarse the US is a resource rich country so trade will work in our favor.

both follow something called the Nordic model, which is what we should be emulating.

whatever you think of this system, Its effectiveness is undeniable.

[Neu Leonstein]

It still may be at least an interesting and vaguely helpful read though? perhaps learning some history of economic though. and i'm sure smith establishes some of the basic principles?

Interesting, yes. Helpful? Probably not.

The point is that when people like Smith first came up with this stuff, it was not yet standardised, explanations weren't necesarily fully optimised yet and, really, the stuff modern economics is based on was not invented yet. Smith was a moral philosopher, who made some observations on how the economy works. You might at best learn something about political economy, but not really about economics.

As I said, you're better off getting an actual economics textbook. Much as the teaching of the discipline annoys me at times, a modern textbook has many decades of teaching methods and improvement of explanations to base itself on.

[Staenwald]

It still may be at least an interesting and vaguely helpful read though? perhaps learning some history of economic though. and i'm sure smith establishes some of the basic principles?

Interesting, yes. Helpful? Probably not.

The point is that when people like Smith first came up with this stuff, it was not yet standardised, explanations weren't necesarily fully optimised yet and, really, the stuff modern economics is based on was not invented yet. Smith was a moral philosopher, who made some observations on how the economy works. You might at best learn something about political economy, but not really about economics.

As I said, you're better off getting an actual economics textbook. Much as the teaching of the discipline annoys me at times, a modern textbook has many decades of teaching methods and improvement of explanations to base itself on.

i've started reading those things in your sig too. Interesting. so you think instead of support failing businesses you should accelerate market transition? just tell me if i'm going the wrong way and i'll shut up and you can explain- but from my own libertarian view, surely accelerating the transition would destroy the hard work of a near 'monopoly' business and give the less competitive and less efficient group a better chance, or just destroy them faster?

[Neu Leonstein]

i've started reading those things in your sig too. Interesting. so you think instead of support failing businesses you should accelerate market transition? just tell me if i'm going the wrong way and i'll shut up and you can explain- but from my own libertarian view, surely accelerating the transition would destroy the hard work of a near 'monopoly' business and give the less competitive and less efficient group a better chance, or just destroy them faster?

If it's already a failing business, it's already not competitive or efficient and doesn't deserve any further rewards for hard work.

But more generally, the point is that public policy settings must be designed to bring about an environment that is good for society as a whole, not for any individual interest group. Monopolies are good for the monopolist and nobody else. It is very difficult to separate Schumpeterian innovation rents from the kind of entrenchment that comes about if a large firm dominates an industry for a while (also due to government involvement). If other firms exist and can sell their products freely, but fail to do so because one firm is just better, then that's fine. I wouldn't want the government to stop that. But where the competition doesn't exist anymore, the market (and prices) cease to be the mechanism they normally are and the outcomes are no longer pareto optimal.

[Mercator Terra]

Interesting, yes. Helpful? Probably not.

The point is that when people like Smith first came up with this stuff, it was not yet standardised, explanations weren't necesarily fully optimised yet and, really, the stuff modern economics is based on was not invented yet. Smith was a moral philosopher, who made some observations on how the economy works. You might at best learn something about political economy, but not really about economics.

As I said, you're better off getting an actual economics textbook. Much as the teaching of the discipline annoys me at times, a modern textbook has many decades of teaching methods and improvement of explanations to base itself on.

i've started reading those things in your sig too. Interesting. so you think instead of support failing businesses you should accelerate market transition? just tell me if i'm going the wrong way and i'll shut up and you can explain- but from my own libertarian view, surely accelerating the transition would destroy the hard work of a near 'monopoly' business and give the less competitive and less efficient group a better chance, or just destroy them faster?

Why would you want to give subsidies to failing businesses. No business failing or not should get subsidies.

[Tajpania]

Well that's why I said we need to develop a new system since it is not working, thing is, just as you said - how do you get people to understand the need for change? Force? Depends on what you call force. I agree that social engineering from top obviously has issues, you can pass laws, but people can still find a way to undermine them or oppose them, so the ultimate effect would be laughable. I know this may sound a bit naive, but how about change from below? People always crave a sense of community and belonging somewhere. I think it is all about education, people think about socialism and capitalism, because they have been usually brought up to live in one of them. Social norms are the framework that is often difficult to break as lots of times it is the only mindset lot of people have ever known. But it doesn't make them stupid or incapable. What could change this would be education, but not the education in the brainwashing sense, but more as in development of self, I do not know if you are familiar with informal and non formal education that happens all over the world through various organisation ( also called participatory education ), it can be used to get people to formulate their opinions freely regardless of the norms, social or cultural. And through this framwork I think you could create a decentralised system based on philosophical communities, but that is for a longer debate.




The norwegian system though has a big support from their oil industry, which allows them to have a kind of a social state withint the capitalistic framework, I am not sure it would be implementable on a large scale. However a better example would be Finland. They do not posses any strategic resources so they decided they are going to make educated people their strategic resource and started to build on that. I think that is a good direction that would be possible to go with on a large scale with some tweakings. They have a pretty strong social state while remaining competitive.

both countries do have extensive welfare systems and mandatory military service but yes, it is more reliant on manufacturing rather than reasources, of coarse the US is a resource rich country so trade will work in our favor.

both follow something called the Nordic model, which is what we should be emulating.

whatever you think of this system, Its effectiveness is undeniable.

You probably misunderstood what I meant. I have lived in Finland for a short period of time and what I was saying is - I belive that the Nordic model is also supported by the Nordic mentality which is a cultural thing that arose from all different kinds of conditions in the area, thus the emulaion would be somewhat tricky, but I believe that yes, it has lots of positives and definitely should be used in other states as well. I used Finland as a better example compared to Norway as it seems to me to be more adaptable to other countries than the Norwegian system that is supported from the strategic resources not all countries might posses, thus building on the Finnish model would be more plausible.

[Staenwald]

i've started reading those things in your sig too. Interesting. so you think instead of support failing businesses you should accelerate market transition? just tell me if i'm going the wrong way and i'll shut up and you can explain- but from my own libertarian view, surely accelerating the transition would destroy the hard work of a near 'monopoly' business and give the less competitive and less efficient group a better chance, or just destroy them faster?

Why would you want to give subsidies to failing businesses. No business failing or not should get subsidies.

oh i didn't mean i supported supporting failing businesses. i was merely comparing the difference between one type of interventionism and another.

[Xomic]

Capitalism is fine when dealing with societies' wants, but when it comes to a societies' needs, the greed inherent to capitalism screws people over without offering all that much in terms of the innovation it's suppose to provide.

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

Long and short of it is: private industry can provide innovation and such, but it needs to be regulated by government agencies so monopolistic corporations don't form. Further, private industry simply cannot provide needs; needs (such as water, electricity, health care) really must be provided by the public system.

[Staenwald]

Capitalism is fine when dealing with societies' wants, but when it comes to a societies' needs, the greed inherent to capitalism screws people over without offering all that much in terms of the innovation it's suppose to provide.

Another core problem with capitalism is that it almost always leads to monopolys. This is not a product of "government interference" that Ancaps would want you to believe, rather it's a product of the fact that success breeds success. Anyone who wins a competition comes out stronger then they did before, and they can use that strength to win more.

Long and short of it is: private industry can provide innovation and such, but it needs to be regulated by government agencies so monopolistic corporations don't form. Further, private industry simply cannot provide needs; needs (such as water, electricity, health care) really must be provided by the public system.

Yeah americans are the most prosperous and overweight people on the planet. Capitalism really hasn't fulfilled their needs. In capitalism needs are even more in demand than wants, so there is even more supply for the needs. Just look at the 10+ different brand of stuff next time you're in the supermarket.

Monopolies [i]can and are[i] created by the government. They can form on their own as success does breed success. Mainly though, the monopolies we have seen in the past have been aided by the government at some point. Plus coercive government maintained monopolies can crush competition with force. Free market monopolies are still not safe and must remain efficient to hold their market share.

Private companies can provide water electricity and healthcare- you're just chatting balls there.