NationStates

Capitalism all the way.

Socialism, even in it's mildest form, hurt humanity in the long run. It lets the ones who would naturally fail, and most likely die because they were idiots, survive and reproduce. If this is repeated enough time, Humanity will evolve to be very stupid. Like that stupid movie: Idiotocracy.

While in Capitalism, the smart will become successful and be able to reproduce more. This means a smarter and stronger human race. Sure, they will go through resources like pigs. But what happens when they run out? They seek for more. Know how? First by fighting, second by substitution, and third by finding more resources on another planet. This means in the short run, it would look bad. But in the long run, it is actually better for the human race.

Laissez-faire capitalism.

New Manvir wrote:Stalinism. No justification is necessary, unless you'd like to visit a gulag.

Panzerjaeger wrote:Third Position FTW!

More like "Turd Position".

Can I be the Malenkov to your Stalin?

Trotskylvania wrote:

New Manvir wrote:Stalinism. No justification is necessary, unless you'd like to visit a gulag.



More like "Turd Position".

Can I be the Malenkov to your Stalin?

Only if you dress up as Robin to my Batman.

Servantium wrote:

Maurepas wrote:I call bullshit on that. Andrew Carnegie received no help from the US Government, in fact, said government went so far as to bring an Anti-Trust suit against him.

I didn't say they helped him directly. I said that his monopoly is a direct result of interventionism.

I'm currently searching for literature to substantiate this claim, but I'm working with dial-up internet, so things are slow.

Ya hah, found some. This relates to Andrew Carnegie because his product (steel) was used in the production of all of these subsidized industries such as the railways and steamboats. Couple that with the high tariffs that all but eliminated international competition and you've got a monopoly that is anything but natural.

New Manvir wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Can I be the Malenkov to your Stalin?

Only if you dress up as Robin to my Batman.

Done.

Conservative Alliances wrote:Laissez-faire capitalism.

^This

Conservative Alliances wrote:Laissez-faire capitalism.

this.. Amen Bro

Mixed economy is best economy, I lean slightly towards Socialism however.

Servantium wrote:

Servantium wrote:I didn't say they helped him directly. I said that his monopoly is a direct result of interventionism.

I'm currently searching for literature to substantiate this claim, but I'm working with dial-up internet, so things are slow.

Ya hah, found some. This relates to Andrew Carnegie because his product (steel) was used in the production of all of these subsidized industries such as the railways and steamboats. Couple that with the high tariffs that all but eliminated international competition and you've got a monopoly that is anything but natural.

The US government subsidizing the creation of railroads, steamboats, and other infrastructure has nothing to do with U.S. Steel gaining control over most of the market. They just happened to be the largest manufacturer of steel in the country, so the government contracted them to work on these projects.

And how exactly did the government prevent domestic competition between different steel companies?

Auremena wrote:

JJ Place wrote:Even though you still have less than you would if you lived in a society mainly of Capitalism?
If an economic system meets all of your needs, It's still abject poverty compared to a society in which an economic system can allow you to meet many of your wants as well ; and Capitalism does just that for individuals.
Also, it's an incredibly high degree of poverty if a person ' s needs are not met, something Socialism periodically has trouble with.

Not just my needs, but what about others? I care about other people. I don't want them out in the street. I could care less right now, I'd prefer to be out on the street. I'd be no better off there than I am right now.

I care about other people as well. As do many business leader, or Capitalists. Charity is among some of the founding principles of a vast majority of Capitalists; people whom use Capitalism to their benefit often come from decrepit conditions themselves, work their way up, and improve their lives with Capitalism; because of this, many people become extremely charitable, and give back to society. In Capitalism, the lives all people are improved; even the of the individuals whom cannot or minimally fend for themselves are vastly improved with Capitalism via both the ability of individuals to be charitable , and, simply by a society having the economic system of Capitalism.

Mixed. I accidentally hit socialism though cause I didn't see mixed at first.i (Doh!)

Concordeia wrote:

Servantium wrote:Ya hah, found some. This relates to Andrew Carnegie because his product (steel) was used in the production of all of these subsidized industries such as the railways and steamboats. Couple that with the high tariffs that all but eliminated international competition and you've got a monopoly that is anything but natural.

The US government subsidizing the creation of railroads, steamboats, and other infrastructure has nothing to do with U.S. Steel gaining control over most of the market. They just happened to be the largest manufacturer of steel in the country, so the government contracted them to work on these projects.

And how exactly did the government prevent domestic competition between different steel companies?

Didn't prevent it per se, but you should refer to the large portions of your quoted post.

Genivar wrote:(Doh!)

I imagine you say that a lot.

I think both systems suck in their own way, but if comes down to the two of them, then I definitely prefer a mix to all one or the other.

Mixed economy is the only thing that makes any goddamn sense.

Give people no economic power they loose incentive to work, give people too much and they try and take over. A healthy balance of the two is really the only logical way to run a nation.

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Genivar wrote:(Doh!)

I imagine you say that a lot.

Oh go get arrested Nixon.

Genivar wrote:

Mike the Progressive wrote:
I imagine you say that a lot.

Oh go get arrested Nixon.

He he.

FREEaquaticdancelesson wrote:give people too much and they try and take over.

Try and take over what, exactly?

Servantium wrote:

FREEaquaticdancelesson wrote:give people too much and they try and take over.

Try and take over what, exactly?

Society? The Business? Your assuming that all people are greedy, which is complete nonsense. I just got done arguing this in another thread dammit.

Servantium wrote:

Concordeia wrote:The US government subsidizing the creation of railroads, steamboats, and other infrastructure has nothing to do with U.S. Steel gaining control over most of the market. They just happened to be the largest manufacturer of steel in the country, so the government contracted them to work on these projects.

And how exactly did the government prevent domestic competition between different steel companies?

Didn't prevent it per se, but you should refer to the large portions of your quoted post.

Buying their products =/= causing them to become a monopoly. It was US Steel that bought out the rest of the competition, not the government.

Genivar wrote:

Servantium wrote:Try and take over what, exactly?

Society? The Business? Your assuming that all people are greedy, which is complete nonsense. I just got done arguing this in another thread dammit.

Umm, I assumes that the "too much power" was refering to capitalists om a capitalistic society will try and take something over. I was merely asking what he thinks there would be for a business to take over in a capitalist society.

Genivar wrote:

Servantium wrote:Try and take over what, exactly?

Society? The Business? Your assuming that all people are greedy, which is complete nonsense. I just got done arguing this in another thread dammit.

Not all people are greedy, but the idea of greed is why utopian ideas like communism and socialism don't work (the same can be said of 'The Zeitgeist Movement)'. Or why a laissez-faire society can never be completely achieved. It's why the abolishing of religion, property and everything else cannot and will not make any difference in the world.

Concordeia wrote:

Servantium wrote:


Didn't prevent it per se, but you should refer to the large portions of your quoted post.

Buying their products =/= causing them to become a monopoly.

It was part of the reason. Combined with all of the other stuff.

It was US Steel that bought out the rest of the competition, not the government.

And? The fact that they had to buy out competition meant that there was demand for competition. There is a certain point where a monopoly becomes inefficient, which is when it begins to become oppressive and fail under a LF-Cap system.

Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably become Corporatism.