Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Sibirsky]

Yes, but a completely free market allows for monopolies and other nasty things that destroy competition and degrade human life as well as waste resources.

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism is by far the best system. Under socialism there is one problem that can never be overcome; proper resource allocation. Under socialism often times people would wonder why the state would make so many pencils but not enough paper for example. It's quite simple a bureacrat can't possibly under the full relation of prices in contrast with the items that are needed. That said s/he might choose to produce more pencils with the current amount of trees. By the time the edict is put into action and approved and carried out.
A. To many trees were used
B. To much paper was made
C. Now was far as opporunity cost is concerned the time, energy and man power that could of been used to make more pencils like the people wanted is now gone.

Now the people have tons of paper and not enough pencils, by the time the bureacrat fixes the mistake it's too late and people are dissatified. With capitalism the producer would of seen that people stopped buying as much pencils, capital would of flowed into paper making and everyone would be happy. The producer has a product, the consumer has enough pencils and paper and the world has not wasted trees for nothing. Besides that under socialism work incentive falls away and true innovation by competition gets crushed which means lack of productivitiy growth and technological gains.

That example doesn't make much sense, even to myself - a supporter of an Anarcho-Socialist system that doesn't fit. Central planning doesn't decide that millions of pencils are needed then forgets that paper is needed as well, what sort of moron do you think would be in charge of central planning? It seems more likely that for a centralised Socialist state to work it would need to be technocratic and a meritocracy, only in this way could the best planning be ensured.

I don't quite get what you're suggesting, that Socialists can't count?

The point he is trying to make, is that it is impossible for any central body to allocate resources where they are needed, and set correct price levels, on literally tens of millions of products.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism is by far the best system. Under socialism there is one problem that can never be overcome; proper resource allocation. Under socialism often times people would wonder why the state would make so many pencils but not enough paper for example. It's quite simple a bureacrat can't possibly under the full relation of prices in contrast with the items that are needed. That said s/he might choose to produce more pencils with the current amount of trees. By the time the edict is put into action and approved and carried out.
A. To many trees were used
B. To much paper was made
C. Now was far as opporunity cost is concerned the time, energy and man power that could of been used to make more pencils like the people wanted is now gone.

Now the people have tons of paper and not enough pencils, by the time the bureacrat fixes the mistake it's too late and people are dissatified. With capitalism the producer would of seen that people stopped buying as much pencils, capital would of flowed into paper making and everyone would be happy. The producer has a product, the consumer has enough pencils and paper and the world has not wasted trees for nothing. Besides that under socialism work incentive falls away and true innovation by competition gets crushed which means lack of productivitiy growth and technological gains.

That example doesn't make much sense, even to myself - a supporter of an Anarcho-Socialist system that doesn't fit. Central planning doesn't decide that millions of pencils are needed then forgets that paper is needed as well, what sort of moron do you think would be in charge of central planning? It seems more likely that for a centralised Socialist state to work it would need to be technocratic and a meritocracy, only in this way could the best planning be ensured.

I don't quite get what you're suggesting, that Socialists can't count?

The point he is trying to make, is that it is impossible for any central body to allocate resources where they are needed, and set correct price levels, on literally tens of millions of products.

[New Genoa]

Capitalism allocates resources to their most highly valued use. If that is quick and easy energy blam, coal plants. After that stage usually comes the "I value clean air more than quick and easy energy" blam scrubbers and such put on coal plants, and new energies are investigated and brought to the fore.

Sadly, as for now externalities are involved in the process, a company dumps oil in the river because no one owns the river, so no one will charge them for it's use, if someone or some larger organization took charge of the rivers and lakes and oceans water pollution, overfishing, and many other unpleasantries would be eliminated, much the same as animal extinction. Air is perhaps the only thing which is difficult to produce ownership of, though I imagine the effects on the ground like acid rain could be made actionable in court.

And if the people producing the externalities buy the river?

[Occupied Deutschland]

And if the people producing the externalities buy the river?

A lawsuit could still easily be made to apply to them as long as it came from someone affected by their dumping of harmful stuff in the river.

[Sibirsky]

And capitalism allocates resources well? Really? That's why we have these ecological crises approaching us head on?

It allocates resources the most efficiently, sadly in the case of public land, most efficiently tends to coincide with most ecologically destructive, however resource allocation is one thing no one can say Capitalism does not do well, as I haven't heard of a shortage on well, almost anything in the Western World for the past two decades.

Funny thing eh? No shortages in the Western world. Yet, when I was back in the USSR shortages were the norm. If there was an ample amount of anything (which did happen on occasion) that was extraordinary. Usually word got out quickly, people gathered, and it turned into a shortage again. My mom has friends that really could not handle the west at first when they came over. They had panic attacks, and really strange effects like going into shock from seeing the abundance of everything, anywhere they went. The number of Westerners in these threads preaching the wonders of socialism is disappointing, saddening, and disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was born here, so the first 10 years of my life would be easier. At other times, I'm glad I wasn't because I have a different perspective. I don't take it for granted.

[New Genoa]

And if the people producing the externalities buy the river?

A lawsuit could still easily be made to apply to them as long as it came from someone affected by their dumping of harmful stuff in the river.

Except the company most likely has more financial resources to handle the situation than the average person affected by it. Furthermore, that doesn't prevent subsequent problems at all. Very short-sighted solution..

[New Genoa]

It allocates resources the most efficiently, sadly in the case of public land, most efficiently tends to coincide with most ecologically destructive, however resource allocation is one thing no one can say Capitalism does not do well, as I haven't heard of a shortage on well, almost anything in the Western World for the past two decades.

Funny thing eh? No shortages in the Western world. Yet, when I was back in the USSR shortages were the norm. If there was an ample amount of anything (which did happen on occasion) that was extraordinary. Usually word got out quickly, people gathered, and it turned into a shortage again. My mom has friends that really could not handle the west at first when they came over. They had panic attacks, and really strange effects like going into shock from seeing the abundance of everything, anywhere they went. The number of Westerners in these threads preaching the wonders of socialism is disappointing, saddening, and disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was born here, so the first 10 years of my life would be easier. At other times, I'm glad I wasn't because I have a different perspective. I don't take it for granted.

Of course there are fewer shortages in the west, when we can just take whatever we want from the rest of the world. Political persuasion, you know.

[Mike the Progressive]

You make good arguments, but they aren't evidence, they are your beliefs. Don't conflate the two. That being said, my point still stands.

You could just say how before the establishment of the federal reserve in the USA, in the 1800s recessions where much more frequent and severe. There were much less regulations back then, and the economy was freer and more decentralised, but it was obviously worse.

That's true, but the government was favoring capital. In a free market, unions aren't banned or favored, they work with firms without intervention. In the 1800s, many unions were banned. Subsidies also encouraged poor business ethic and practice, resulting in companies that were dependent on the government's teat. Again, that is not a free-market, it's corporatism and contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same.

[Sibirsky]

Capitalism allocates resources to their most highly valued use. If that is quick and easy energy blam, coal plants. After that stage usually comes the "I value clean air more than quick and easy energy" blam scrubbers and such put on coal plants, and new energies are investigated and brought to the fore.

Sadly, as for now externalities are involved in the process, a company dumps oil in the river because no one owns the river, so no one will charge them for it's use, if someone or some larger organization took charge of the rivers and lakes and oceans water pollution, overfishing, and many other unpleasantries would be eliminated, much the same as animal extinction. Air is perhaps the only thing which is difficult to produce ownership of, though I imagine the effects on the ground like acid rain could be made actionable in court.

You want to preserve animals going extinct? Eat them. No, no, I am not crazy. But we certainly do not have shortages of cows, chickens, or turkeys. What we do have is demand for them. So they are being bred.

On a less crazy note, endangered in Africa were bred and tourists were brought in for safaris, and that allowed the population of these animals to once again expand.

[Glorious Homeland]

Yes, but a completely free market allows for monopolies and other nasty things that destroy competition and degrade human life as well as waste resources.

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

Except for the security monopoly, as evidenced by the Mafia and Sicilian history of fairly state-free capitalism.

You could just say how before the establishment of the federal reserve in the USA, in the 1800s recessions where much more frequent and severe. There were much less regulations back then, and the economy was freer and more decentralised, but it was obviously worse.

That's true, but the government was favoring capital. In a free market, unions aren't banned or favored, they work with firms without intervention. In the 1800s, many unions were banned. Subsidies also encouraged poor business ethic and practice, resulting in companies that were dependent on the government's teat. Again, that is not a free-market, it's corporatism and contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same.

Yeah but 1800s USA wasn't exactly British Empire when it came to state intervention in corporations for the interests of the state. You have any reading on the subject to throw my way?

[Trotskylvania]

You could just say how before the establishment of the federal reserve in the USA, in the 1800s recessions where much more frequent and severe. There were much less regulations back then, and the economy was freer and more decentralised, but it was obviously worse.

That's true, but the government was favoring capital. In a free market, unions aren't banned or favored, they work with firms without intervention. In the 1800s, many unions were banned. Subsidies also encouraged poor business ethic and practice, resulting in companies that were dependent on the government's teat. Again, that is not a free-market, it's corporatism and contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same.

I hate to be anal, but state intervention =/= corporatism. I'm sure Panzerjaegar has harped on this a lot, and I will too.

[Occupied Deutschland]

A lawsuit could still easily be made to apply to them as long as it came from someone affected by their dumping of harmful stuff in the river.

Except the company most likely has more financial resources to handle the situation than the average person affected by it. Furthermore, that doesn't prevent subsequent problems at all. Very short-sighted solution..

1) The Gov't itself could sue the company if there were a national park or forest on the river somewhere (and with the acreage of those things, it'd happen easily). I doubt the company could resist a suit from the government (or alternatively a class action by the towns/townspeople that the river affects)
2) If companies see that when they pollute they can be slapped with legal fees as well as restitution, etc. they will be dissuaded from doing such things. Plus, there are incentives towards being able to say "we donated ten million dollars to help clean up the environmental waste caused by our competitors. Buy from us!"

[Sibirsky]

A lawsuit could still easily be made to apply to them as long as it came from someone affected by their dumping of harmful stuff in the river.

Except the company most likely has more financial resources to handle the situation than the average person affected by it. Furthermore, that doesn't prevent subsequent problems at all. Very short-sighted solution..

Have you heard of class action lawsuits, or litigation law? Resources are not necessary for the plaintiffs.

[Sibirsky]

Funny thing eh? No shortages in the Western world. Yet, when I was back in the USSR shortages were the norm. If there was an ample amount of anything (which did happen on occasion) that was extraordinary. Usually word got out quickly, people gathered, and it turned into a shortage again. My mom has friends that really could not handle the west at first when they came over. They had panic attacks, and really strange effects like going into shock from seeing the abundance of everything, anywhere they went. The number of Westerners in these threads preaching the wonders of socialism is disappointing, saddening, and disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was born here, so the first 10 years of my life would be easier. At other times, I'm glad I wasn't because I have a different perspective. I don't take it for granted.

Of course there are fewer shortages in the west, when we can just take whatever we want from the rest of the world. Political persuasion, you know.

Bullshit. We pay very well for anything we get from the rest of the world.

[Azaca]

SOCIALISM! HAIL STALIN! HAIL THE MOTHERLAND!

[Caelestius]

Seems that Capitalism and Socialism are both tied as of this post. This tells me that a compromise of "Mixed-Economy" would be better in the end, which is already running in 1st place anyway.

[The Merchant Republics]

Funny thing eh? No shortages in the Western world. Yet, when I was back in the USSR shortages were the norm. If there was an ample amount of anything (which did happen on occasion) that was extraordinary. Usually word got out quickly, people gathered, and it turned into a shortage again. My mom has friends that really could not handle the west at first when they came over. They had panic attacks, and really strange effects like going into shock from seeing the abundance of everything, anywhere they went. The number of Westerners in these threads preaching the wonders of socialism is disappointing, saddening, and disgusting. Sometimes I wish I was born here, so the first 10 years of my life would be easier. At other times, I'm glad I wasn't because I have a different perspective. I don't take it for granted.

Of course there are fewer shortages in the west, when we can just take whatever we want from the rest of the world. Political persuasion, you know.

Really? You think that's true? Then tell me how the entire world is eating more then it ate 50 years ago, that is by volume per person and total as a population. Shortages of everything in the free world not just in the West are becoming rarer, not perfect no, and a lot of it has to do with the countries actions.

[The Merchant Republics]

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

Except for the security monopoly, as evidenced by the Mafia and Sicilian history of fairly state-free capitalism.

From what you've shown me, it's clear that while city by city there was usually monopoly, there was most certainly was competition. Still I have significant doubts about much of what has been said about the Sicilian Mafias anarcho-capitalist heritage.

[Sungai Pusat]

Seems that Capitalism and Socialism are both tied as of this post. This tells me that a compromise of "Mixed-Economy" would be better in the end, which is already running in 1st place anyway.

The case of democracy. Well, if that's the case, you're wanting to forgo the other 200 voters for the sake of 110 voters, since the 200 were divided almost equally into capitalism and socialism. But meh, this is about economic systems, not democracy.

[Glorious Homeland]

Except for the security monopoly, as evidenced by the Mafia and Sicilian history of fairly state-free capitalism.

From what you've shown me, it's clear that while city by city there was usually monopoly, there was most certainly was competition. Still I have significant doubts about much of what has been said about the Sicilian Mafias anarcho-capitalist heritage.

It's a very good example on the situation, as often we don't get to see how organisations and people emerge and behave when the state withdraws, especially when it withdraws as much as from feudalism directly and immediately to an anarcho-capitalist system, or at least night watchman system.

[The REAL Glasers]

Yes, but a completely free market allows for monopolies and other nasty things that destroy competition and degrade human life as well as waste resources.

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

But a completely free market does not allow for the breaking up of monopolies should they occur, once something grabs a stranglehold on the market, good luck having other companies pop up.

[The Merchant Republics]

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

But a completely free market does not allow for the breaking up of monopolies should they occur, once something grabs a stranglehold on the market, good luck having other companies pop up.

Good luck indeed, as they can and usually do. For instance, let's take the US Postal Service, here is a state-enforced monopoly it doesn't get more clear cut then that, it is illegal to compete with the USPS, and yet, someone managed to do just that, there was a small local postal service that managed to not only cost less but deliver faster the the USPS in the United States even with the USPS near unlimited supply of income. It had to destroy the company with force.

The true story is monopolies don't form in the free market, even if they come very close to full control they eventually lose it to competitors, Standard Oil is by far a great example, yes the quintessential "free market monopoly" did never control more then 90% of the market, and by the time it was indicted it controlled only 61%, in the time of 15 years it went from virtual monopoly to simply being largest of a large pool of competitors.

[Sociobiology]

And capitalism allocates resources well? Really? That's why we have these ecological crises approaching us head on?

It allocates resources the most efficiently, sadly in the case of public land, most efficiently tends to coincide with most ecologically destructive, however resource allocation is one thing no one can say Capitalism does not do well, as I haven't heard of a shortage on well, almost anything in the Western World for the past two decades.

grain crops leading up to the great depression, then the government set up some subsidies to keep the cost of food down so people wouldn't starve. the modern western world isn't capitalist anymore all kinds of safe guards were put into play to prevent the busts built into the nature of capitalism.
we tried total capitalism once is became the caste system, which e decided was bad. capitalism has been tried and failed, so by the way have socialism and communism. you have to balance stability and adaptation.

[Sibirsky]

Monopolies are a creation of the state. A completely free market allows competition, and no monopolies exist.

But a completely free market does not allow for the breaking up of monopolies should they occur, once something grabs a stranglehold on the market, good luck having other companies pop up.

What part of "monopolies are a creation of the state" did you miss?