Socialism vs Free Market Capitalism

[Free Caramanians]

Personally, and this is reflected in my nation, I am strongly against socialism. when a government puts restrictions on Business, often times this makes people passive. For example:
Hong Kong in 1950 was a S**t hole. The British rulershad a policy of Laissez-Faire towards business and peoples' everyday lives. Today, Hong Kong is so rich, there are more Rolls Royce cars in Hong Kong than any other city in the world. Under socialism, any glimer of entrepreneurial ambition would've been bogged down by regulations and red tape.I would like to see some other view pionts.

[Gaiso]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

[Free Caramanians]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

That is one possible result of Laissez-Faire. What about a system of L-F that favored small businesses so they could grow into larger corporations?

[Wamitoria]

Socialism = chronic inefficiency, bureaucratic mess, stagnated technological development.

Free Market Capitalism = Chronic over-efficiency, extreme economic inequality, and the boom-bust cycle.

I'll choose a third route and just say that Keynesian/State Capitalism is the best system.

Oh, and Hong Kong is Mixed Free Market, and has a well-funded welfare system.

[Wamitoria]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

That is one possible result of Laissez-Faire. What about a system of L-F that favored small businesses so they could grow into larger corporations?

That's exactly what happened. Without some level of state intervention, the larger corporations eventually evolve into monopolies or oligopolies.

[Free Caramanians]

I see. So mabye a Teddy Roosevelt/ L-F mix? feeding the flame of small business while going out trust bustin' on the weekends?

[Wamitoria]

I see. So mabye a Teddy Roosevelt/ L-F mix? feeding the flame of small business while going out trust bustin' on the weekends?

So, you're on my side now?

[Aeronos]

The free-market is extremely efficient, but leads to high levels of income inequality, to extents such that the poor die of easily-prevented diseases and malnutrition, whilst the rich live extremely opulent lives without a single worry in the world.
On the other hand, socialism is extremely inefficient, but (if applied properly) leads to much lower levels of income inequality and thus increased happiness and attractiveness to other working classes.

Ultimately, there're thus many compromises to get around this. Liberal Social Democracy is generally one such compromise, having a free-market but with government-provided social welfare and/or income redistribution through negative tax. Systems like these, often practised in Scandinavia before the nationalist right started taking over in the past few years, provide the working class with well-off lifestyles without crushing economic prosperity.
On the other hand, there are less statist approaches such as Agorism (capitalism and socialism running parallel in a sort of market class-war) and Mutualism (anti-capitalist free-market) which attempt to combine the best of both.

However, between just the two? Free-market for me. Because in a free-market system, socialism can be practised in the form of charity, whereas in socialism, the free-market is by definition outlawed or fought against.

[Lokemburg]

Both look great on paper.

However, in a real life scenario they are both greatly corrupted by human greed and the need for power.

[Gaiso]

I see. So mabye a Teddy Roosevelt/ L-F mix? feeding the flame of small business while going out trust bustin' on the weekends?

I'd say something a bit closer to Germany/Sweden/France would do nicely.

Although Teddy was all manners of badass.

[Ellyandia]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

Sources please.

[Free Caramanians]

I see. So mabye a Teddy Roosevelt/ L-F mix? feeding the flame of small business while going out trust bustin' on the weekends?

I'd say something a bit closer to Germany/Sweden/France would do nicely.

Although Teddy was all manners of badass.

That he was!

[Free Caramanians]

"Because in a free-market system, socialism can be practised in the form of charity, whereas in socialism, the free-market is by definition outlawed or fought against"... Interesting point!

[Gaiso]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

Sources please.

Every damn history textbook in the U.S.A.

I'll pull out mine if you'd like.

[Anastasia Romanova (Ancient)]

Both have advantages. Both have shortcomings. I prefer Marxism personally.

[Free Caramanians]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

Sources please.

Any US history book or class

[SunsSon]

Honestly, I think the world is more ready for capitalism than it was one hundred years ago. I think that in order for it to work truly there would need to be less consumer apathy. I think that is the greatest thing that is holding back true capitalism.

[Lokemburg]

Both have advantages. Both have shortcomings. I prefer Marxism personally.

Self-sufficient community type thing?

[United Dependencies]

...

Why am I always limited to the two extreme choices?

[Gaiso]

Honestly, I think the world is more ready for capitalism than it was one hundred years ago. I think that in order for it to work truly there would need to be less consumer apathy. I think that is the greatest thing that is holding back true capitalism.

Can't change human nature, buddy.

[Wamitoria]

"Because in a free-market system, socialism can be practised in the form of charity, whereas in socialism, the free-market is by definition outlawed or fought against"... Interesting point!

Of course, problems arise in periods of economic downturn, when donations to charities tend to decrease.

[Lokemburg]

Honestly, I think the world is more ready for capitalism than it was one hundred years ago. I think that in order for it to work truly there would need to be less consumer apathy. I think that is the greatest thing that is holding back true capitalism.

And people's greed...

[Free Caramanians]

Both have advantages. Both have shortcomings. I prefer Marxism personally.

Marxism pfff!

[Esoterias]

I think that the current system the USA is using is pretty good. Corporations have to abide by certain regulations, while people are free to chose any job, and spend their money how they like. But I do think Socialism is too expensive in today's America. Maybe it could work in the future. But not today.

[Sibirsky]

In the U.S around 1900, pre-regulation and pre-labor union, the rich were fucking rich as hell, and everyone else was either a poor worker, or a poor farmer. Without regulations, corporations will abuse everyone they come across to get every last cent they can.

Garbage comparison is garbage. In 1900, there was no free market, and production was low.

Without regulations, most corporations will compete to get every cent they can.