Socialism? Capitalism?

[LoadedWraps]

Socialism is a system where workers, and their communities own the means of production. It could be argued that we haven't really seen a real socialist economy in the post industrial revolution era if you apply the definition literally. We've seen mainly mixed economies, and social democratic policies applied in most of the industrialised world, the only thing that really differs is the level of regulation enforced by the state. Some countries like Japan for example operated a 'quasi-war economy' post world war 2 meaning that the government would 'advise' the bank of Japan to invest in certain sectors of the economy to promote growth, and although this did centre the the economy around several cartels, it did lead to a huge growth of the Japanese economy and middle class. That all changed when the state advised the bank of Japan to move more money into the Japanese housing market in the early 1980s, this created a huge crash that the Japanese economy is still struggling to recover from. On the flip side, countries like Switzerland and Australia have a small amount of regulation and enjoy very strong economies.

Personally, I think as technology evolves and the problems facing the world become more global we're going to have to find a new economic model to implement. We need to stop letting our political beliefs and morals influence our economic policy and start to think about what we want as a species and where we want to go - these are the real questions we should be asking ourselves.

Well said.

[siablo14]

I really don't see how this is even debatable..

Pure socialism leads to 3rd world status

Pure capitalism leads to 1st world status



Lmao at the idiots hating on capitalism yet every third world mother****er wants to come to America..

Why does all the people of socialist countries want to come to America.. have you ever seen an American wanting to go to a socialist country??

The USA hasn't been a true capitalist economy in close to, if not over, a century if indeed it ever was one. I would argue that it has never been a truly free market but I could see where someone could make the case for it being such in the past.

Regardless, the USA is what is called a mixed market economy or the argument being made that it is a state capitalist country but not in the classic sense and that being that the state does not have a majority control of the enterprises. However, it does intervene in the market to shield and further the interests of the largest corporate and financial institutions within the country.

To have a true capitalist nation depends on three aspects - the free market, contractual enforcement & private property. We truly have none of those.

The Federal Reserve dictates the interest rates and wields total control over the money supply thus negating.any notion of 'free market' because centralized economic planning, whether it is through income tax, control of the country's money supply or setting interest rates or wage and price controls, is not tenet of a truly capitalist nation.

True enforcement of contracts by the government is another cornerstone of a truly capitalist nation. For example, let's say I own a company and I enter into a contract with an employee with an agreed upon wage that happens to be under the Federal minimum wage guidelines. It doesn't matter to the government that I had a contract with this person, all that matters is that I subverted their law and will face a stiff penalty and possibly prison time. In a true capitalist system the contract between me, the employer, and the individual employee with which i made the contract would be enforced. Not enforcing contracts is definitely not a tenet of capitalism.

Private property is another thing. There truly is no private property in this country. The percentage of wealth confiscation through the income tax tells you right off the bat that this isn't a true capitalist country. The Federal Reserve's control of the money supply is another aspect of that. They can increase and decrease our purchasing power pretty much at will by simple interest rate manipulation. Property confiscation of any type is also not a tenet of a true capitalist country.

So, as I stated in another post, the USA is neither capitalist or socialist but it does have bits and pieces of both.

I guess, if anything, you could call the USA a corprocacy with socialist underpinnings. This is the very reason that the political atmosphere always remains the same regardless of political outcomes or which political party is truly in control.

Well said!
Adam Ali, I look forward to your response because you always deal with things in terms of black and white extremes. No middle ground.

[LoadedWraps]

Don't get me wrong. In an ideal world, socialism would be the best way

Well said.

[Hitman Hodgson]

On another note, Valenzuela is usually brought up in these kind of debates as an example of how socialism fails, but if you look at how the economy is structured as a whole: 2/3 of the economy is run by private industry, 70% of GDP comes from the private sector, 55% of health care is provided through private insurance, and 80% of the workforce is within the private sector. So where exactly is the Socialism? In reality Valenzuela is a Social 'democracy' similar to some of the Scandinavian countries. In the time since Chavez was elected president he used to money gained from the countries massive oil reserves to fund social and welfare programmes in things like health and education similar to the programmes we see in parts of Europe. In the 15 years since Chavez took power, unemployment halved, child mortality went down my over 30%, GDP per capita more than doubled, extreme poverty reduced by more than 2/3, illiteracy was all but eradicated, and the amount of people attending higher education increased from 1m to 4m.
All this was done as a result of a boom in oil prices, but as with any boom, a crash is likely to follow, and when 95% of your exports are from oil you're going to be hit harder than most. They're paying the price for not diversifying their economy.

[Butt stuff]

What's everyone's opinion on Sweden? Social democracy (i think?!).

Great healthcare, transport, wage compared to tax level is better than average. Harder to become a millionaire but there is less poverty and better standard of life.

Not sure how viable that is for a country with a large population though.

I don't think any one system works, you need a hybrid which keeps each side in check. Rampant capitalism isn't a good thing either, when managed and kept ethical it can be great for a country.

[LoadedWraps]

On another note, Valenzuela is usually brought up in these kind of debates as an example of how socialism fails, but if you look at how the economy is structured as a whole: 2/3 of the economy is run by private industry, 70% of GDP comes from the private sector, 55% of health care is provided through private insurance, and 80% of the workforce is within the private sector. So where exactly is the Socialism? In reality Valenzuela is a Social 'democracy' similar to some of the Scandinavian countries. In the time since Chavez was elected president he used to money gained from the countries massive oil reserves to fund social and welfare programmes in things like health and education similar to the programmes we see in parts of Europe. In the 15 years since Chavez took power, unemployment halved, child mortality went down my over 30%, GDP per capita more than doubled, extreme poverty reduced by more than 2/3, illiteracy was all but eradicated, and the amount of people attending higher education increased from 1m to 4m.
All this was done as a result of a boom in oil prices, but as with any boom, a crash is likely to follow, and when 95% of your exports are from oil you're going to be hit harder than most. They're paying the price for not diversifying their economy.

Outstanding post. Thank you for this.

[Hawkins]

On another note, Valenzuela is usually brought up in these kind of debates as an example of how socialism fails, but if you look at how the economy is structured as a whole: 2/3 of the economy is run by private industry, 70% of GDP comes from the private sector, 55% of health care is provided through private insurance, and 80% of the workforce is within the private sector. So where exactly is the Socialism? In reality Valenzuela is a Social 'democracy' similar to some of the Scandinavian countries. In the time since Chavez was elected president he used to money gained from the countries massive oil reserves to fund social and welfare programmes in things like health and education similar to the programmes we see in parts of Europe. In the 15 years since Chavez took power, unemployment halved, child mortality went down my over 30%, GDP per capita more than doubled, extreme poverty reduced by more than 2/3, illiteracy was all but eradicated, and the amount of people attending higher education increased from 1m to 4m.
All this was done as a result of a boom in oil prices, but as with any boom, a crash is likely to follow, and when 95% of your exports are from oil you're going to be hit harder than most. They're paying the price for not diversifying their economy.

One of the big reasons for Venezuela's failing economy is due to the fact that Chavez nationalized the country's oil industry. This was done under the pretext of taking the money from the 'capitalist' and therefore returning it to the average citizen of Venezuela. Which, predictably, did not happen.

With nationalizing the oil industry they effectively negated the profit based incentive for people keeping the machinery and equipment that brings oil to the world market in good repair and updated when needed. This has not happened thus ensuring that much of it has fallen into a state of disrepair costing much more to maintain than it should.

The incentive of loss has also been completely removed and negated. In privatized industry it goes like this; good decisions beget profit for decision-makers, and poor decisions beget losses. The dual forces of profit and loss guide management, and the investors who hire them, to use resources in a sensible and astute fashion. But within nationalized industries, politicians share the 'consequences' of their decisions. Good decisions translate into profit for the political elites. Poor decisions get passed down to the people via losses. And so it has gone in Venezuela, where not only the poor decisions of the socialist politicians lead to the people not having oil, they also don’t have food and other essentials.

In times of profit the politicians burned through the money to further their socialist utopia, but did little to nothing to ensure the industry’s, as well as the nation’s, long term viability. How did this happen? Because they hoarded the profit for themselves, but passed off its losses. Those were for the Venezuelan people. And so Venezuela’s oil industry went into a virtual free fall.

Chavez’s Venezuelan socialist experiment is going down in flames in the same manner as others before it. That being, rampant poverty. Why? Because all socialist 'experiments' are all built upon a proven lie. This lie being that an economy can be effectively and successfully managed by the political elite. As you can see, this is not the case not has it ever been the case. This, in and of itself, is a prime example of Socialist failure and the pain it brings.

[Hitman Hodgson]

Most of the Venezuelan economy is centered around the private sector, most of it's GDP comes from the private sector, most of the work force works within the private sector, so where is the Socialism?
Sure, they're paying the price for not diversifying their economy. Having 95% of your export market in oil only requires a drop in price and demand to leave your economy in the 5hitter, but is that because of Socialism or the bad decisions? Was the great depression or the great recession proof of capitalism's failure?

[Hype job]

Capitalism = Working for someone else to generate wealth for them, the capitalist then chucks you a tuppence.

Capitalists = Getting rich off of others peoples (workers) wealth generation.

Capitalism = Exploitation and freeloading on behalf of land/business owners.

[Hawkins]

Most of the Venezuelan economy is centered around the private sector, most of it's GDP comes from the private sector, most of the work force works within the private sector, so where is the Socialism?
Sure, they're paying the price for not diversifying their economy. Having 95% of your export market in oil only requires a drop in price and demand to leave your economy in the 5hitter, but is that because of Socialism or the bad decisions? Was the great depression or the great recession proof of capitalism's failure?

Nationalizing their largest industry directly led to what is happening now. Socialists have proven time and again that, regarding nationalized industry, the only interest they have is in the profits that come from it. Everything else is someone else's problem. There in lies their greatest conundrum.

You can't dig a water well and just leave it be. It takes upkeep and maintenance. If you just leave it alone year after year at some point the water will become undrinkable or stop flowing all together. Same principle with nationalized industry in Venezuela.

Is lack of diversity a problem. Certainly. Is it the cause of the cluster**** in Venezuela? Absolutely not.