Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 13    Average: 3/5]
126 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 3309
Rating: 3
Category:
Date: 02/10/14 06:59 AM

126 Responses to Socialism Does NOT Work, Oxford Union Debate

  1. Profile photo of superboy0317
    superboy0317 Male 18-29
    12 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 6:59 am
    Link: Socialism Does NOT Work, Oxford Union Debate - Does Socialism Work?
  2. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:10 am
    I don`t think anyone will disagree with socialism not working. The huge flaw in it is Humans. It`s nearly impossible to have a group in power that truly feels for the needs of EVERYONE in it.
  3. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:11 am
    Much like how pure capitalism doesn`t work having a mix of the two (if possible) would be the best solution.
  4. Profile photo of Profworm
    Profworm Male 30-39
    379 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:23 am
    No form of government works as well as it should. People are greedy, biased and generally good at messing everything up, but until the robots take over it requires people to maintain any system of leadership.

    I for one welcome our nazi robot overlords.
  5. Profile photo of Ozmose
    Ozmose Male 30-39
    448 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:25 am
    First of all, how the **** is this a debate? Last time I checked, a debate requires at least 2 people.
    Second no one knows if socialism works, because no one has ever really tried it. Every time a country claims to be a socialist nation, they do it from the platform of communism. Contrary to what you might have heard on the Fox News, communism and socialism are two very different things.
  6. Profile photo of footpenis
    footpenis Male 18-29
    44 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:36 am
    It doesn`t matter what ism you try to live under if you have a ruling class who backs up their opinions with guns.
  7. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:41 am
    One thing this wasn`t a "debate" I only heard one guy talking. I`d like to watch the whole thing though! =)
  8. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5877 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:58 am
    Ozmose-Second no one knows if socialism works
    100% of the time it`s been tried it`s ended up in tyranny. If you can`t deduce that `someone` knows if socialism works from that, you`re an idiot.

    Ozmose-because no one has ever really tried it.
    Which pretty much demonstrates that it`s impossible to make it work.

    But I know, YOU think it`ll work THIS time...just as long as YOUR people are in charge. Right?
  9. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:07 am
    I believe socialism, even Communism, can work, but only with a very small population. I remember reading of several examples of Indian local villages that have pulled it off individually. Yet as population increases, it creates inefficiencies in price and investiture. A socialist economy does not respond to price signals, it seeks to manipulate them for a sense of quality, whether it be for morality, fairness, or well being. It bases economic planning on projections instead of current market acceptance and equilibrium price thereby investing in products that may never be needed or sold. This causes major budget inefficiencies and knowledge. It leads to an overall retardation of the economic structure of the effected society.
  10. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:14 am
    Capitalism has many faults as well (some are shared with socialism), monopolies, social inequality, unfair distributions of wealth and power, and a general heartlessness to name a few. But it is the most reliable form of economics because of its ability to quickly adapt to change, it`s efficiency, and that it drives incentive to better the conditions of oneself. Yet I think the best part is that capitalism can function in any environment and/or time and this gives it a resilience, dependability, and ubiquitous nature that socialism simply does not possess. In conclusion I think that real markets will always outdo the artificial markets.
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:18 am

    1st, this was not a debate. This was one side of a debate.

    2nd - Has there ever been a successful socialist government? One that was economically sound for an extended period? Not joking, I`m not up on those world politics.

    I do favor a few social programs {health care, schools, & elderly care}, but I would like to restore capitalism in the US. Real capitalism creates and environment of success. A real chance to build more, do more, create more. Our current Corporatism system crushes those hopes for individual, hence no incentive to grow/build.
  12. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:35 am
    @Gerry

    Norway and possibly Germany I believe have heavy doses of Socialism.
  13. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:35 am
    ALso guys let`s remember Communism=/=Socialism much like Capitalism=/=Fascism
  14. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:39 am
    normalfreak - the United States is already a mix between the two, if we use the definitions you use (which is the norm). Personally though, I don`t think Anarcho-capitalism should describe "pure capitalism", since law and order is needed for capitalism to function properly.

    And contrary to common belief the United States really isn`t "more capitalist" than most European countries. This is a lie. Did you all know that the Netherlands has no Capital Gains tax?
  15. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:42 am
    Ozmose, I studied Socialism for like 2 years in the Ivy League. The Soviet Union was Socialist, not Communist. I don`t know wtf Fox News has to do with this. It`s even in the name - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had a completely planned economy, profits were abolished, all entrepreneurship was abolished, every worker was in a union, and equality was strictly enforced.

    They never claimed they were in a communist country, that`s why Khrushchev said, "We will achieve communism in 20 years (1981)". Basically, he was saying Socialism would finally be perfected by that point so that the state could evaporate, leaving just communism.
  16. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:46 am
    What I think is interesting in the "socialism doesnt work" claims, is whats implied.

    For example, when people say that socialism ends up being inefficient, whats implied is that on the contrary, capitalism does work, and is efficient. Because having homeless people next to empty houses, or products designed to last the bare minimum of time and then break, so they can be sold again the next year, is clearly very efficient.

    Socialism doesnt work, because it creates poverty. Implied that capitalism does work, and that there is no poverty created in capitalism. Like, clearly, we dont have homelessness, and third world countries arent starving, and so on.

    Its the classic example of a false dichotomy. There are only 2 possible options, and you must choose one. So since socialism hasnt worked so far, that means that capitalism is amazing.


    So socialism doesnt work, but capitalism is leading to world hunger, widespread diseases, pollution,
  17. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:48 am
    And normalfreak, Fascism isn`t an economic system. Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are. However, Fascists usually adopted strongly Socialist systems with Capitalist facades. Imagine, how can a dictator keep control of a country with a free market? They need control. This is why Mussolini was an ex-Socialist who joined the Fascist movement. It was just an evolution of Socialism, a sub-branch. This is why Hitler was a National Socialist. There`s really nothing free-market Capitalist about these guys.

    I mean, they`re all Keynesians,:

    "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter`s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes` excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud." - Mussolini
  18. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:49 am
    Capitalism does not work- it IS not working. Liberal socialism seems to be doing okay in northern Europe - and communism seems to work on the small scales- but once it gets to a certain size seems to hit the standard issues of human greed. I would love to be able to suggest an alternative- but economics are not my forte. But here is the rest of the debate.. you do have to subscribe to the channel though here it is
  19. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:56 am
    morimacil, I don`t know where to start with you. Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism doesn`t. You can`t end poverty if you can`t create wealth, by definition. Capitalism does end poverty, the most recent era of unprecedented wealth creation around the world has coincided with the sharpest drop of poverty of all time.

    I don`t know what starvation in North Korea or Ethiopia has to do with it. If you want to talk about Starvation, look at Socialism`s record. It`s dangerous when people start talking about greedy farmer`s taking all the profits.

    This most era of wealth creation has also coincided with the end of major diseases, so I don`t know what you`re talking about there.

    Seriously, look at everything around you. It`s mostly a result of Capitalism. And you have so much of it because of Capitalism.
  20. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 8:58 am
    madduck, Denmark is not this strange "liberal socialist" word. That`s a lie. Denmark has more market freedoms than even the US of A if you do a proper analysis of the structure of its markets.
  21. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:07 am

    madduck, "Capitalism does not work- it IS not working."It did work very well for a good long time. But we don`t have that anymore. We have a few corporations that have a stranglehold on resources, market shares, and politicians. This is Corporatism squeezing out competition. Capitalism built both US & UK when it was a free open market. We need to restore the older system and break up larger conglomerates. If it`s Too Large To Fail it needs split apart.

  22. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:18 am
    Not really andrew, creating wealth doesnt end poverty.
    If a rich guy is getting richer, thats creating wealth, but its doing nothing to end poverty.

    If we have enough food to end world hunger, but food is getting thrown away while others starve, creating more wealth wont really help.

    Ending poverty isnt about creating wealth, its about not having a huge difference between how much the rich and the poor have.
    If the poor get 10% richer, and the rich get 100% richer, then poverty has actually increased, even though the poor people now have slightly more than before.
  23. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:24 am
    Also, starvation in thrid world countries is directly related to capitalism.
    Local farmers cant grow food items to eat locally, such as manioc, because they cant compete with imported goods such as rice from industrialized countries, thus they have to produce something else, like cotton, and export it, and rely on imports for food. And then prices on the exported goods drop, and suddenly they cant sell it anymore to import, but they cant eat it either, which leads to lack of food and starvation.
  24. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:28 am
    Well, its clear to me from reading the comments that the number one problem is that we have no consensus as to what the definition of many of these terms are. I bet my version of Socialism differs greatly from others as well. IMHO, I have yet to see any form of government, and I mean any, run perfectly, I think the problem with whatever brand of "socialism" you want to call it, seems to work fantastic on paper, but when put into practice fails miserably. Why? While there are likely many answers to that, I think one of the big ones is that it requires everyone to be equal and even think alike. That simply will never be the case, no matter how hard you try. One of the things I like about Capitalism in the USA, is that we are all guaranteed equal "opportunity". Not that we are all equal. I`ll stick with whatever allows me the most freedom and so far the USA, though flawed as it is, still leads in that category by a large margin.
  25. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:32 am
    andreww155- I think you miss quite a huge point. a starving man does not need money- he needs food. Money is just a shorthand- not an end in itself- given that starving man then uses it to buy food. And yes- I do know that northern Europe runs its economy on capitalist principles- but then taxes the crap out of it`s citizens- which then funnels the cash back to people. Certainly fairer all round- but try that trick in the USA and it would have people whine about how they prefer crumbs..
  26. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:41 am
    we are all guaranteed equal "opportunity"
    Are you? What does that even mean? So, being from Canada, which has much more socialization of policy and economics than the US, I somehow have less "opportunity" than you? France, Germany, UK, Japan, Australia, they don`t have "opportunity" either do they? What an asinine thing to say.
  27. Profile photo of Dead_mind
    Dead_mind Male 18-29
    303 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:47 am
    @Gerry1of1
    Yeah, Sweden was socialist for the longest time untill recently. And sweden is faling apart now when we are much less socialist.
    .
  28. Profile photo of McDuff73
    McDuff73 Male 30-39
    870 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:49 am
    I think all of the segments are set up to play one after another here.

    http://www.oxbox.tv/oxplayer.php?video=k1oxW7mg7Mp3C
  29. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:53 am
    And on the whole "capitalism worked in the good old days, but has been corrupted" thing:
    Which era are you speaking of exactly?

    1800, with slaves toiling away in cotton farms to keep up profits for the plantation owners, so that cotton, cocoa, tobacco and so on could be available on the free market for cheap?

    The industrial revolution, where child labour was used to keep prices low on the free market?

    The great smog of 1952, killing thousands, because coal and diesel were the cheapest sources of fuel?


    Capitalism just leads to exploitation of people and of the planet, because capitalism is all about making the biggest profit, and exploitating people and ressources has always been the best way to maximize profit.
    The "free market" and such has always lead to atrocities, which have lead to regulations, which have lead to people finding loopholes and other things to exploit, and so on.
    And the number of laws and re
  30. Profile photo of som-tam
    som-tam Male 18-29
    713 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:06 am
    @morimacil123: starvation in 3rd world countries is not due to capitalism, is is due to feudalism and dictatorships. the famous famine of the 80s which inspired bob geldof and co to release band-aid, was a result of the ethiopian government restricting the movement of people to punish dissent. Can you guess the political beliefs of the Ethiopian gov at the time? that`s right: socialist.
  31. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Capitalism lead to exploitation. Well, ANY business is exploiting a resource. Be it coal or people. But exploitation is not a bad thing when managed properly. My boss exploits my talents for use in his office. I get paid for this. EXCESS is usually a bad thing, yes.

    Socialsm exploits a different resource...the pockets of other people. But eventually any well will run dry if you don`t renew it. Capitalism allows you to seek out new opportunities. With full on Socialism it`s "why bother they`ll just take it away from me".
  32. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:22 am
    @morimacil123: None of those things deal with economics, they deal with legality, all of those things happened under socialist and communist regimes as well. Plus, you`re dealing with multible different issues, things like child labor laws for instance were not pressed because many families could not survive unless the children worked in the 1800`s. For example a farmer just didn`t have the technology to run a big farm by himself, it was a family affair and also the reason for summer vacations.

    "which have lead to people finding loopholes and other things to exploit"

    This only happens in mixed economies, it is impossible to have a loophole without government involvement.
  33. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:23 am

    morimacil123 - "And on the whole "capitalism worked in the good old days, but has been corrupted" thing: Which era are you speaking of exactly?"
    Mori - you will never find any era in human history when there wasn`t something wrong. Even now. That doesn`t make the economic system bad. Yes there was child labor in the industrial revolution and before it as well but capitalism allowed the country to develop to a point that we were wealthy enough to stop using child labor. Capitalsm worked.

  34. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:46 am
    @patchgrabber: "So, being from Canada, which has much more socialization of policy and economics than the US, I somehow have less "opportunity" than you?"


    Yes, because you have more regulations in forming a business, and because the taxes applied create "deadweight losses" for your economy. Yet, I hate these total overall comparisons that people like to do. Each state and industry in the US have different levels of socialism, so it would be hard to compare unless you had an area that started the same economic rules and it split.

    "France, Germany, UK, Japan, Australia, they don`t have "opportunity" either do they?"

    It is not a all or nothing thing, the more regulations an industry has, the less opportunity it has. Each of those nations have varying levels of socialism depending on the region, resources, industry, and laws. It isn`t that they have 0 opportunity but people have a harder time finding it.
  35. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:53 am
    @madduck: "a starving man does not need money- he needs food."

    Correct, which is why capitalism will work with any currency and does not cause inflation. Where as the German citizens after WW1 used socialism. In 1913 the government was spending approximately 20.5 per resident; by 1925 it had risen to almost 65 marks per resident and finally in 1929 it reached over one hundred marks per resident.

    People were starving, had wheelbarrows full of money, but couldn`t even afford a loaf of bread.
  36. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:55 am
    moramacil - Slavery is an atrocious example of capitalism. Slavery is, in fact, anti-capitalist. What is more anti-capitalist than a labor force that is forced to work for free? How can wage workers compete with slaves who work for free? That`s the exact opposite of a free market.
  37. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 10:57 am
    Just to clear the air about Economic Freedom

    In truth, most of the "Socialist" countries are not that different than the US here in 2014.
  38. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:01 am
    And finally, here is a list that shows Denmark and Switzerland are more unequal.
  39. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:07 am
    but people have a harder time finding it.
    How do you figure? It seems like your only definition of "opportunity" is "ability to start a business."

    Our unemployment has been lower than yours for years, that might be a better measure of "opportunity." But that`s all missing the greater picture, which is that there are other barriers to opportunity beyond tax rates and business loans, such as race, socioeconomic status, cultural bias, and others.

    That`s the exact opposite of a free market.
    Hold on you communist liberal. In a place where slavery is legal, there is nothing preventing you from getting some slaves and starting your own business to compete. You might say that capitalism would encourage slavery, since it would be the cheapest means of producing profit, and as long as everyone who is allowed to can own slaves, then that is just part of your free market.
  40. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:16 am
    Slavery, child labor, etc, those are all normal parts of a free market with no regulations.

    The ethical thing to do is not usually the way that will maximize profits.
    And since capitalism is all about maximizing profits, well a totally free market will lead to some of the most unethical things possible.

    In fact, the very idea of capitalism makes it hard for ethical businesses to compete.
    If my competitor is found a way to make the same product I do, but cheaper, then he is going to drive me out of business.
    If he is underpaying his workers, then to compete, I have to underpay my workers even more than him. If he is using slaves, then to compete, I have to use slaves too, and make them work harder than his, etc.
  41. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:18 am
    But capitalism is NOT working. The US and certainly the UK are very rapidly becoming more unequal- and that has happened since that bitch and Reagan decided to `let the markets rule`.... or whatever. Sorry- trying to finish an assignment, and off to bed shortly so not well sourced!
  42. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:27 am

    madduck, you`re right, our current system is not working. But my point is we don`t have capitalism anymore. There is no free or open market. It`s called "capitalism" but it`s not the same as we used to have.
  43. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:43 am
    @patchgrabber: "It seems like your only definition of "opportunity" is "ability to start a business."

    No, but I can see how you got that. Economic opportunity, as I view it, is the ability for one to improve ones own financial ability and durability. If you want to take it from the point of an employee. You have more opportunity to be hired in a economic system that allows its citizenry more choice with their money. When a industry is taxed, there is less capital to invest in new businesses and personnel. Therefore there is less opportunity.
  44. Profile photo of xbx214
    xbx214 Male 18-29
    956 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:51 am
    It takes the right leader for communism to work. There was so speak of its structure nor planning. Most downfalls are because of human error. Not actual system failure.
  45. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:51 am
    "In a place where slavery is legal, there is nothing preventing you from getting some slaves and starting your own business to compete. You might say that capitalism would encourage slavery, since it would be the cheapest means of producing profit, and as long as everyone who is allowed to can own slaves, then that is just part of your free market."

    No, again this is not related to economics. Just because Capitalism focuses on efficiency, does not mean it forces slavery.
    Take Nike for instance, they were using sweat shops in Indonesia. The word got out, people didn`t like it, stopped buying nike for a while, hurt its profits and resulted in Nike closing the sweatshop. Pure capitalism forcing the market to clean up because of competition.
  46. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    You could just as easily have a socialist country where slaves are 3/5ths of a person. That 3/5ths of a person is poor and receives gov. aid so the slave owner has an incentive to increase his amount of slaves.

    Not saying this is how it would be, but just showing that slavery does not enter into a discussion of economic construct viability.

    "Our unemployment has been lower than yours for years, that might be a better measure of "opportunity."

    No because tied to unemployment are things like inflation, age statistics, and population. You could employ 1 out of 1 people and it would be %100 employment, or I could employ ten thousand people and have one person unemployed and be at %99.99 employment.

    @xbx214: Yes, a communism can only work under the right circumstances, this is where Capitalisms durability really shines.
  47. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    @madduck:

    The reason the rich become richer during times of economic stress is due to many businesses going out of business and the slack is taken up by bigger more durable companies. When local produce shops close their doors, companies like Walmart takes up the slack. On a global scale this can be exponential. Combine this with market instability and the wealthier companies and people prefer to have more liquid funds and less investitures increasing personal wealth but limiting personal investment. When government forces business to spend their money on regulations smaller mom and pop shops often are the first fall when operating cost increase. As they do larger corporations make a profit due to their ability to fill the void left by the smaller companies closing.
  48. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    @morimacil123
    You may be my new favorite poster! Everything you`ve said is logical, accurate and to-the-point. Well done! 8-)
  49. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Not saying this is soley it, you have things like the stock market where the more money you invest the more money you can make. You can easily double your money in less than two years in stock market. So people with more money are able to build more, where as the guy who can`t afford a $100 stock is going to have less of a return and riskier investments. This is increased when federal money props ups stocks, as with the stimulus. It also the reason the market retracts when "tapering" is ever mentioned.
  50. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    As for Capitalism, though it seems to have more positives than most other systems it has the HUGE negative that morimacil123 pointed out: ETHICS. Current free-market capitalism must, by it`s very nature, put short-term profit ahead of all else, including ethics, morality, and even common sense. That will be completely unsustainable in the long run. The term "profit" should be redefined to include gains other than just monetary. For example, keeping the air and water clean for our kids could be considered a "profit" for future generations. Good working conditions and a living-wage pay might be considered "profit" if stronger more stable families are the result. These types of things should be looked at as investments, not costs.
  51. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm
    Just out of curiousity- who here has read Marx?
  52. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm
    @morimacil123: You seem to be under the idea that laissez faire capitalism requires anarchy. This is not so, it just requires that government does not interfere with the market. Capitalism is the use of competition to affect efficiency. If the public views slavery as a bad thing, then any industry that employs it will lose profits, just as with Nike.

    "The ethical thing" as you put it is your own individual, unquantifiable, generalized feeling of quality. I could believe that "ethical" is everyone getting a billion dollars per hour. It would result in hyperinflation, unemployment, and poverty, but the intent would be ethical.

  53. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:27 pm
    "slavery does not enter into a discussion of economic construct viability"
    It does if you talk about a system in which the state sets no regulations except those to protect private property.

    "Take Nike for instance, they were using sweat shops in Indonesia. The word got out, people didn`t like it, stopped buying nike for a while, hurt its profits and resulted in Nike closing the sweatshop. Pure capitalism forcing the market to clean up because of competition."
    Really? So there are no more sweatshops now, all is well? Good to know.

    Sweatshops wouldnt exist under free market capitalism, that is true.
    Without child labor laws, minimum wage, overtime pay, etc, you cannot have an establishment violating those laws.
    But then again, without those laws, the work conditions of sweatshops just become the norm.
  54. Profile photo of Listypoos
    Listypoos Male 40-49
    3069 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    I`ve read a little years ago for one of my a levels, Madduck... not enough to try and quote any of it now though :)

    I think the problem with the socialist countries that have tried so far is that the flaw isn`t in the concept, it`s in the execution of it. Even if in theory all people are equal some will always want more power and exceptions are made for those. The state may well own everything..but the ones in power own the state and treat everything as personal possessions to them. That`s why the people starve whilst the comrade leader dines in privilege whilst telling everyone else what their duty to the state is.

    I think the best government type would be a mix of regulated capitalism along with some aspect of socialism...for instance I believe that the state should always own infrastructure items like healthcare, transport, and energy.


    If only we could get the star trek mix of socialism and small capitalism right :)

  55. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm
    "If my competitor is found a way to make the same product I do, but cheaper, then he is going to drive me out of business.
    If he is underpaying his workers, then to compete, I have to underpay my workers even more than him."

    Yes, this is the market balancing itself, at some point the workers will simply leave the market and the companies will be forced to raise their rates and wages to the equilibrium price. Yet all the while both industries will be compelled to innovate to reduce costs and the public will be able to buy a cheaper good for the same quality.

    "If he is using slaves, then to compete, I have to use slaves too, and make them work harder than his, etc."

    No, you can innovate, publicize that you use free workers, increase the quality products or reduce the quality and price of the good and focus on quantity, etc.
  56. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    You can`t let the market balance itself. It doesn`t. What it does is buy its way out of trouble... it MUST be regulated...
  57. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:47 pm
    I have read most of it- doing a philosophy degree at present.
  58. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm
    @madduck: Read Marx, the Leviathan, the Republic, Economic Sophisms and a few others. I had to read all that crap for school. I actually have a few next to me right now infact.

    "You can`t let the market balance itself. It doesn`t. What it does is buy its way out of trouble... it MUST be regulated..."

    Lol, there are infinite example of the market balancing itself out, I`ve mentioned a few of them on here. Not every transaction requires government intervention and not every business is corrupt. I helped run a fruit stand when I was younger, we were very capitalistic, and never once broke any laws or paid "its way out of trouble." It may surprise people but the vast vast vast majority of bosses don`t sit in a evil lair stroking a white cat.

    "doing a philosophy degree at present"

    What`s your focus? Religion, politics, economics, ethics, language, metaphysics, etc.?
  59. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:56 pm
    It`s just a basic BaHons in philsophy- done via OU, so modular- just finished Philosophy of Mind, I am starting to think my brain is full.
    .
  60. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm
    No - I understand the inherant capitalism in a fruit stand- but if you don`t keep the fruit stall in check it turns into Nestle... thats what I mean about regulation.
  61. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 12:58 pm
    @madduck: Read Marx, the Leviathan, the Republic, Economic Sophisms and a few others. I had to read all that crap for school. I actually have a few next to me right now infact.

    "You can`t let the market balance itself. It doesn`t. What it does is buy its way out of trouble... it MUST be regulated..."

    Lol, there are infinite example of the market balancing itself out, I`ve mentioned a few of them on here. Not every transaction requires government intervention and not every business is corrupt. I helped run a fruit stand when I was younger, we were very capitalistic, and never once broke any laws or paid "its way out of trouble." It may surprise people but the vast vast vast majority of bosses don`t sit in a evil lair stroking a white cat. They are just doing what they can to make their business work.

    "doing a philosophy degree at present"

    What`s your focus? Religion, politics, economics, ethics, language, metaphysics,
  62. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    "at some point the workers will simply leave the market and the companies will be forced to raise their rates and wages to the equilibrium price."
    the workers cant decide to leave the market, because there is no welfare, unemployment checks, or anything like that. If they are underpayed to the point of being barely ever to survive, they cant save up money to ever stop working, the moment they stop working, they are on the street and starving.

    "No, you can innovate, publicize that you use free workers, increase the quality products or reduce the quality and price of the good and focus on quantity, etc."
    The other guy can do the same thing, but better.
    Whats stopping him from publicizing that he uses free workers? There are no regulations against false advertising.
    Reduce the quality and price? He already has lower prices, since he doesnt have to pay his workers.
    At best, you end up same price, lower quality -> free market competiti
  63. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm
    "No - I understand the inherant capitalism in a fruit stand- but if you don`t keep the fruit stall in check it turns into Nestle... thats what I mean about regulation."

    Yes it grows and expands if the product is popular and more people want it, thats a good thing. I assume you mentioned Nestle because of the breast milk thing right? Hey they`re doing a wrong and what happened, the market reacted and boycotted Nestle. The boycott has done far more than the European Parliament did wouldn`t you agree.
  64. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm
    @morimacil123:"the workers cant decide to leave the market, because there is no welfare, unemployment checks, or anything like that. If they are underpayed to the point of being barely ever to survive, they cant save up money to ever stop working, the moment they stop working, they are on the street and starving."

    Lol, how many jobs have you had man? I`ve been broke a quit, I`ve been in a low paying job and found another, and I`m willing to bet everybody has at some point in their life. The trick is, you setup your new job before you quit your old one, it works, trust me.
  65. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm

    "the workers cant decide to leave the market, because there is no welfare, unemployment checks, or anything like that. If they are underpayed to the point of being barely ever to survive, they cant save up money to ever stop working, the moment they stop working, they are on the street and starving."

    You`re describing "Anarchism" which is a different economic philosophy than capitalism. Plus, your making me chase down every little "well, what if..." and assuming that the consumers have no choice but to go for the cheapest and completely not taking into account overhead costs.

    You can have rules for truth in advertising because this does not result in a inefficiency. And people buy higher goods all the time, that doesn`t mean its not capitalism.

  66. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm
    "If the public views slavery as a bad thing, then any industry that employs it will lose profits, just as with Nike. "
    But people do view sweatshops as a bad thing, yet they are still widely ongoing.
    People generally view pollution as a bad thing, and companies still do that too.
    Overfishing, intensive animal farming, etc, companies do a ton of stuff that people view as bad.

    Also, with no regulations, how would you even know that they do it? Every product is certified organic, free range, fair trade, etc

    I have slaves, you dont. I make more money, cose I dont have to pay employees. I add a tage "mad by free workers" to my product. I then use some of the extra money I have to pay the media to run a story on how YOU use slaves, and how my company treats its workers so well.
    The media is just trying to make a profit, so they choose to run my story over yours, since I pay them more.
  67. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm
    People buy costlier goods all the time, cost does not irrevocable impair competition. People buy organics, Bugatti`s, and non-gas-station-pizza. Why because the "Utils" (measurement of happiness)is greater when they buy the more expensive good.

    Your trying to reduce everything to slavery to make this an ethical argument. But the very conditions you mentioned existed and capitalism stopped it via competition.
  68. Profile photo of DinVen
    DinVen Male 30-39
    390 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    No system of government - regulating society - invented so far works.

    Let us look at the foremost capitalist country in the world and see how much money they owe China, how many children who live in extreme poverty (16 mil), how unhealthy people are, how educated people are, how bought the politicians are, how thriving the middle class is...

    Nothing works, but some societies are less dysfunctional.
  69. Profile photo of wiscesq
    wiscesq Male 30-39
    112 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    It is a bit disingenuous to post this video with the pronouncement that "socialism does not work" when this one side`s opening statement in a debate on the subject. You might want to watch the whole debate with an open mind before deciding that your initial prejudice is correct. Only exposing yourself to points of view that you already believe is the sign of a decaying intellect. Are you afraid of hearing something that makes you feel like you might have been wrong all these years?
  70. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:42 pm
    "But people do view sweatshops as a bad thing, yet they are still widely ongoing.
    People generally view pollution as a bad thing, and companies still do that too.
    Overfishing, intensive animal farming, etc, companies do a ton of stuff that people view as bad. "


    Yes exactly, despite nations being either socialist or capitalist. Both still fund such things. It`s not an economic argument, you`re talking about society ethics.
  71. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:44 pm
    "Lol, how many jobs have you had man? I`ve been broke a quit, I`ve been in a low paying job and found another, and I`m willing to bet everybody has at some point in their life. The trick is, you setup your new job before you quit your old one, it works, trust me."
    Im willing to bet that you have never been working 14+ hours per day in a sweatshop in indonesia for a couple of cents. At worse, what you describe as "being broke" was you working on minumum wage.

    Also, setting up a new job only works as long as there is another job available, and the conditions in the other job are better than your current ones. Which is quite often simply not the case.

    You make it sound as if those sweatshop workers work there by choice, and if they wanted to, they could just go and find another better paying job, but they just work those incredibly long hours each day because they are lazy...
  72. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 1:55 pm
    "Every product is certified organic, free range, fair trade, etc

    I have slaves, you dont.

    I make more money, cose I dont have to pay employees.

    I add a tage "mad by free workers" to my product.

    I then use some of the extra money I have to pay the media to run a story on how YOU use slaves, and how my company treats its workers so well.

    The media is just trying to make a profit, so they choose to run my story over yours, since I pay them more."


    Again you`re, moving back into a circle. That is Anarchism not Capitalism, you`re using extreme examples, you`re assuming that media and other outside entities just buy in, you`re assuming that people can only by the cheapest good, and you`re assuming that no one has any sources of information.

    Honestly, this is as realistic as the economy of the land of OZ. You just keep making more fictional stipulations and criteria.
  73. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:03 pm
    Hm, ok, lets have some stuff from real life then.

    Sweatshops. Do they not exist?
    They exist, but they arent caused by the free market, they are cause by state involvement?
    Its the minimum wage that is causing corporations to pay those workers less than minumum wage, and if the governement just looked the other way, then BAM!, suddenly corporations would start paying them more?
    Or how does that work?
  74. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm
    "Sweatshops. Do they not exist?"

    yes

    "They exist, but they arent caused by the free market, they are cause by state involvement? "

    Both, Nike has caused sweatshops, green subsides and energy policies have created Chinese slaves.

    "Its the minimum wage that is causing corporations to pay those workers less than minumum wage, and if the governement just looked the other way, then BAM!, suddenly corporations would start paying them more?"

    That doesn`t make sense, but no increase a minimum wage would increase unemployment and although the works would make less money the money would have more value.

    "Or how does that work?"
    Like this:


  75. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    need to walk my dogs back in 1 hr

    thought you said "Sweatshops. Do they exist?" not "Sweatshops. Do they not exist?"
  76. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    @morimacil

    Consider that every country you`re using to exemplify the evils of capitalism is very low on the economic freedom scale, while every country you`re using to exemplify the benefits of socialism is high on the economic freedom scale.

    From this alone, one could rightfully infer that the things you fear are inherent in socialistic economies and those things you seek are inherent in more capitalistic societies.

    You seem to be saying that capitalism is bad, while simultaneously lauding capitalistic nations. On the other hand, you implicitly praise socialism, while criticizing socialistic nations.

    Forgive me, but I believe you are confused.
  77. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    Over fishing, pollution, child labor, slavery, intensive animal farming, etc.
    Those are all current issues.
    There are even regulations that were set up to stop/reduce those issues, but companies are willing to find ways around those regulations, or in some cases, to just break the law.

    If in a totally free market, things would "regulate themselves" to stop all of that, then why hasnt it happened yet?
    I know we arent in a totally free market. But if a market with 0 regulations on pollution was truly able to regulate itself, and stop polluting, then why has this never happened, in the history of mankind, and why did we always have to set up regulations to stop the abuse?


    You seem to think the government involves itself in economics for no reason at all. Like hey, looks like everyone is being paid more than enough, so lets make some minimum wage regulations!
    In truth, these regulations arrive after the abuse that happened under the fr
  78. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    See, the problem with redistributionists is that they believe the fairy-tale notion that money will somehow flow from rich people to poor people.

    In reality, redistribution (inherent in socialism) depends on taxation, which actually takes money from poor and middle class people and gives it to a very elite group of rich people (See: Congress). You`re all operating on the notion that they`ll be so kind as to give that money back. More likely though, they`re probably going to squander it on their corporate friends or blowing up sand.
  79. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm
    @humanaction: Im using those countries as examples simply because the issues are ongoing there.

    If we look at europe, or the USA for example, well yeah, there is almost no child labor anymore. Because the state stepped in, and made regulations against it.
    There are no sweatshops here, because of things like overtime pay, minimum wage, minimum safety features for the workplace, etc.
    There is no more smog, because you arent allowed to build a big coal using factory in the middle of a town.

    Imo, capitalism works very well, as long as you dont take ethics into account.
    As soon as you do, the whole idea of a free market with no state regulations just crumbles.
  80. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    @morimacil

    Because the state stepped in, and made regulations against it.
    Child labor was already on its way out when those laws were passed in the US; they were effectively redundancies. Why? Economic prosperity had reached a level where a single person in the household could sustain a family.

    To say that the reason child labor stopped in the US is wholly the result of child labor laws is disingenuous.

    I`ve been noticing your trend of conveniently forgetting to reference relativity.

    Are there no sweatshops in state-controlled economies?
    Is there no smog in China?
    Is there no child labor in Cambodia?

    Your statements are arrogant in that they implicitly assume that the problems you present are somehow worse in Capitalistic nations. History, and every ounce of data available suggests otherwise.
  81. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:44 pm
    @moramucil

    Essentially, you`re acting like "ehrmygerd sun exposure causes skin cancer! the sun is so terrible!"

    Well, relative to what? Explain why you`re alternative is better. Provide examples of how your alternative scenario has alleviated the problems you`re attempting to address.
  82. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm
    Holy crap, this debate is hilarious.

    I refer everyone once again to the ranking of economic freedom. Every country that has policies that are pro-economic freedom are nice to live in. The ones that have poor economic freedom are bad.

    And once again, the United States in 2014 is not the ultimate example of Laissez-faire capitalism. Hong Kong easily takes that crown.

    Read Marx, it`s self-refuting. Besides, haven`t the writings of Marx caused enough death already? The only response they have to that is, "Well they just didn`t do Socialist correctly, what we have in mind is Denmark in 2014! (which is a Capitalist country in which markets totally exist)."

    Well, that`s the "No True Scotsman fallacy". All of the previous Socialist attempts weren`t "real". You will always deny it every time your theories fail.
  83. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    It`s just convenient that you can deny all the Socialism attempts as "not real Socialism". Every time.
  84. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm
    Explain why you`re alternative is better

    Wow... can`t believe I actually used "you`re" there. Herp Derp.
  85. Profile photo of Agent00Smith
    Agent00Smith Male 18-29
    2581 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    What if I told you... that we already live in a socialist regime? (well, fascism technically)

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

    -Benito Mussolini
  86. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 2:59 pm
    Its always so much fun reading comments when its about politics.
    Ill take liberal socialism any day over capitalism/communism.

    Moderation works, raw anything does not.
    And anyone fighting to maintain any one extreme are doomed to fail.
    It appears pretty silly to debate which is better, when either part is sure "their" system works.
  87. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    Pure socialism doesnt work, its true, we have seen it.
    But what Im saying is pure capitalism doesnt work either. The whole free market with no state involvement has never worked either.

    Each time we tried socialism, it wasnt economically viable, and each time we tried a free market with no regulations, it wasnt ethically viable.

    None of those 2 systems has worked at all for any extended period of time.
    What we have now, is a mix of both, with a little more of one or the other.
    And it kind of works, but its not that amazing either, and it seems to be crumbling under itself more and more.

    People always argue that socialism doesnt work, and its implied that since socialism didnt work, capitalism must be the most amazing thing in the world!

    Its just a cheap way to make people accept the current way without looking further.
    Somone will point to a flaw in the current system, and then people will say "socialism doesnt work".
  88. Profile photo of uatme
    uatme Male 18-29
    1068 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    All -isms don`t work
  89. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    Im not saying I have a perfect answer to how to make a the best most perfect system ever.

    But it still greatly annoys me to see all of those "socialism doesnt work" posts, that imply capitalism is perfect.

    It also annoys me when its used as a false dichotomy to cover up flaws in the current system.

    Something isnt working, and thats pointed out. Response is, "well we tried socialism, and it didnt work, the current system is the best weve found", and thats that. Implying that there are only 2 possible systems, the current one, or socialism, and since socialism didnt work, well it has to be the current system.
    And we should stop trying to find ways to improve it. Because socialists tried to improve it, and look what happened!
    And these flaws with the current system, they could also happen under socialism, so that makes the current system as good as it gets.

  90. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 3:35 pm
    Also, europe and america having a higher standard of living than other countries, is only due to capitalism.
    Other factors, such as getting "free" ressources due to slavery and colonies, and stuff like that are conveniently ignored.

    China holding 1.3 trillion of the US debt is also conveniently ignored.

    Its always just looking at the countries where socialism failed, and then just stating "it doesnt work" blindly.
  91. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    @morimacil

    Regarding Andrew`s list of countries by economic freedom, it`s very obvious that there is a point where government-regulation becomes very bad. We can pretty much pick any country in the 35-178 range and see that too much government control is bad.

    However, after looking at the top six freest economies (Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand, Canada) I can`t say the same about market freedom.

    Where is this magical point where an economy becomes too free? I`ve yet to see it. People always go on and on about how we need moderation and a mixed economy but no one has yet to present a country that was "too free" economically.
  92. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 4:32 pm
    moramicii - Slavery absolutely didn`t enrich America one bit. Slavery impoverished America. Slavery not only made the 12% that is black poor, but also impoverished poor white Southerners that had to compete with free labor for jobs. Slavery is an extractive institution that hurts everyone in the long run. Even the guys at the top didn`t keep their money in the end.

    Slavery also did not help Europe in the long run. Which countries were the biggest slavers in Europe? Spain and Portugal were some of the biggest. Look at them now, they are some of the worst off in the Western Europe region. But Germany, which barely had any colonies, is doing basically the best. And Ireland and Finland actually WERE colonies, enslaved, and oppressed. They`re very well off now.

    So that line argument is a dead end.
  93. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 4:38 pm
    Also, I`m hearing this bs term "liberal socialism" come up an awful lot - I`m looking at you Essersmith. The term actually has a wikipedia article. The article states "the unequivocal support of a market economy", and it advocates that a state is necessary to avoid monopolies and such.

    This is also known as Capitalism where a government, you know, exists. People are confusing Anarcho-Capitalism with Capitalism, and I`m certain they`re doing it on purpose to purposefully mislead.

    Most of the arguments in favor of "liberal socialism", such as "preventing monopolies", are COMPLETELY in agreement with Adam Smith.

    I repeat, you guys are in complete agreement with Adam Smith. Read him. College made me read every Marxist document that exists, but they never made me read Adam Smith once. Actually do it, I`m convinced you guys never have.
  94. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm
    "Where is this magical point where an economy becomes too free? I`ve yet to see it. People always go on and on about how we need moderation and a mixed economy but no one has yet to present a country that was "too free" economically."

    France tried it, but had to stop in 1768, because there was a famine, and merchants were exporting the grain to make bigger profits, leading to widespread starvation.
    Economically, it was perfectly viable to export the grain, and make as big a profit as possible. Ethically and morally however, it was a horrible idea.


    You can do it for a limited amount of time, but it inevitably leads to either the government having to step in, or revolutions.
    Thats why you dont see any countries with too much economic freedom. Because it wasnt sustainable for any length of time.
  95. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:42 pm
    @mora

    Forgive me, but I had to research the French economy during that timeframe.

    Wiki

    Here is a direct quote that you can find from the link above:

    "... and the state remained highly mercantilistic, protectionist, and interventionist in the domestic economy, often setting requirements for production quality and industrial standards, and limiting industries to certain cities..."

    Would you care to clarify what exactly was happening in France during the mid-1750s that you believe merit labeling them "too free" economically?
  96. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:43 pm
    "Also, I`m hearing this bs term "liberal socialism" come up an awful lot - I`m looking at you Essersmith. The term actually has a wikipedia article. The article states "the unequivocal support of a market economy", and it advocates that a state is necessary to avoid monopolies and such.

    This is also known as Capitalism where a government, you know, exists. "

    Thats pretty much the "no true scottsman" fallacy you mentioned earlier, just the other way around.
    Oh, free market with no state involvment doesnt work.
    Guess we do need the state to step in and set up some regulations. We are now at a mix in between, called liberal socialism. Actually, no, wait, that is pure capitalism, and exactly what what meant all along when we said the state shouldnt involve itself in economics.
    When we said it should be a free market with no state regulations, what we actually meant was a market economy with state intervention.
  97. Profile photo of morimacil123
    morimacil123 Male 18-29
    171 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Flour_War_of_1775
  98. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 6:54 pm
    @morimacil123: I wrote a very long post to you but I clicked my mouse wrong, the screen diapered and what I wrote with it. I`m tired now, I`ll rewrite it tomorrow.
  99. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:17 pm
    @mori

    Regarding the Flour War, from what I gather the issue appears to be that price fixings were removed in a time a drought and prices subsequently rose. Well, duh. The market wasn`t even given enough time to begin to stabilize.

    Furthermore, it`s still quite a stretch to think of 1700`s France as Capitalistic in general. One instance hardly defines a era.

    Essentially, you`re cherry-picking a single instance of what you consider capitalism from a wholly socialistic state and using that as evidence that the state was capitalistic.

    Sorry, everything I`ve found thus far points to 1700`s France as being a heavily-regulated economy.
  100. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 7:46 pm
    I would hardly consider pre-revolutionary France a "free market" country. It was definitely Mercantilist, as were all the colonial powers at the time. The United Kingdom and Protestant Europe (Scandinavia, Holland, and most of the Germans) would go on to become the most Capitalist countries in Europe in the 1800s. Go read the great German Sociologist Max Weber`s works.

    Mercantilism example: Great Britain told America it wasn`t allowed to produce certain finished goods, just the raw materials so that those raw materials could be shipped to GB to be refined. This benefited GB, but not America.

    And also, without a doubt, whenever you have heavy state controls and you suddenly decide to take those state controls away - you WILL have a major correction. That`s just inevitable. The economies of the former Soviet Union shrank incredibly, but it was the right move without a doubt.

    That`s all I have to say right now.
  101. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:54 pm
    Does Socialism Work?
    Well, if you`re one of the privileged few who gets to boss people around and take their stuff, it works GREAT! On the other hand, if you`re one of the masses getting bossed around and having your stuff taken...not so much.
  102. Profile photo of Bealzebubble
    Bealzebubble Male 18-29
    352 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 9:59 pm
    @OldOllie So it`s basically the same as capitalism.
  103. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 10, 2014 at 11:21 pm
    @OldOllie So it`s basically the same as capitalism.
    No, it`s the exact opposite. What you are mistakenly calling capitalism isn`t capitalism at all; it`s cronyism. We haven`t had capitalism in the the USA for over 100 years.
  104. Profile photo of Essersmith
    Essersmith Male 18-29
    275 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 2:29 am
    @Andrew
    I believe we agree. As you read, I believe moderation is key.

    @Oldollie
    Sure it sucks to be at the bottom, but is that unique to socialism? And is it even relevant? Since no real socialistic countries exists.
    In Spain Ive heard:
    ~"Denmark is a great place to be poor and Spain is a great place to be rich"
    From living in both countries I very much agree and from living in the US I found that what was said about Spain is also true for the US.
    It was very much worth it living in the US, but I was not poor.
    Bear in mind that being poor in denmark does not resemble poverty at all.

    The concept of equal oppotunity for everyone is pretty bland, when not everyone have equal ability. And especially bland if you factor in concepts like gender and especially racial discrimination which are prominent in some of these "equal oppotunity" countries.
  105. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 3:43 am
    So how come we only get one side of the argument?
    It`s a debate so where`s the rebuttal?

    How can you possible draw a conclusion with only half of the information?
  106. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 6:04 am

    Been a while since we had a thread with over 100 comments.
  107. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 6:18 am
    @HA I feel your argument saying child labor was on its way out is disingenuous there is no way to know for sure if it was. What we DO KNOW is that regulations had to come on down from on high to stop that practice. It`s you stepping into the realm of "could be and what ifs"
  108. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36196 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 6:45 am

    Child labor was forced out only after Capitalism made the country wealthy enough they could afford to.
  109. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 6:46 am
    @normalfreak

    Not quite, but a good effort nonetheless.

    You`re mistakenly suggesting that child labor was wholly negative and rampant right up until the magical laws were passed and then everything was swell and dandy afterwards.

    In reality, throughout most of history, child labor was necessary for survival. Families did not have, and could not earn, enough money to survive. Hence, they sent their children to work in one form or another. Had child labor laws been imposed on those families during this time, it would have killed them.

    Rather, these regulations were created when enough capital and wealth had been generated and accumulated such that children were no longer required to work.

    Essentially, the law was only able to be effective as a result of the successes of capitalism.
  110. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 7:25 am
    Ok, here is the official debunking of child labor.

    Child labor is the default human condition. Child labor existed for all of human history until the late 1800s and early1900s. It was the norm. Now, it`s not.

    The elimination of child labor coincides with the introduction of global capitalism and the immense growth of incomes along with it in the 1800s.

    The fact is that children were able to be taken out of the workforce because now an adult could support a family. Before, you literally had 10 kids so that they could be child workers. No more.

    The success of capitalism also created enough wealth for the state and citizens to educate their children. So now those children could actually go to school, and it had nothing to do with Socialism.
  111. Profile photo of chimmeychang
    chimmeychang Male 30-39
    685 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 9:38 am
    I`m confused, why is there no child labor in Europe if Europe is all socialist?
  112. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:44 am
    @chimmeychang: Because as Gerry said, capitalism created industrial scale farming, medicine, energy and transportation so that children didn`t need to work and they could instead be educated in schools longer.

    But right now According to the UN`s research, in Georgia 29 percent of children aged 7-14 are working. In Albania the figure is 19 percent. The government of the Russian Federation has estimated that up to 1 million children may be working in the country. In Italy, a study of June 2013 indicates that 5.2 percent of children younger than 16 are working. But from most other countries no data are yet available.
  113. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:10 pm
    But here is my problem. With capitalism I can look at a computer see how much of a product is being made and sold, I can calculate the slope of the elasticity for supply and demand, graph the taxes, price floors ceilings, and minimum wages, trace it, take the area, and tell you exactly how much your making, how many workers you can afford, how much you need to pay them to have enough to meet equilibrium, how much deadweight loss will occur today, how this will impact the stock market, how this company falls into local, national, and global GDP. Or I can do it with a group of businesses, or whole markets.

    Capitalism is based in mathematics and it flawlessly can move from macro to micro economics.

    You can`t do any of that in socialism. Socialism, is macroeconomic focused, is not based in mathematics, creates inefficiencies that can be quantified, and is based around politics and individual opinions.
  114. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm
    y goodness! Do Americans no longer study history, civics, or economics anymore? The question is so simple and so necessary for us to know, yet most of your responses are so absolutely wrong or mixed up it`s appalling. And dangerous to our country.

    Here`s what`s dangerous about that: A majority of the country thinks only raw capitalism is acceptable and that any hint of socialism is evil incarnate. But if these comments here are any indication, most don`t have even the most basic understanding of what they are. How on earth can you make reasonable, informed decisions in the voting booth in the interests of your country and yourselves?

    This seems to be what everyone thinks, right? Capitalism: GOOD, socialism: BAD! Wrong.
  115. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm
    Consider this. The partially socialist-leaning European Union has its problems, but none of the many Europeans I know ever express dissatisfaction with their economic systems. But they find ours appalling - heartless, inefficient, and expensive. Not one of them has any desire to remain here after their business is concluded, because they think their systems provide much more at far less cost.

    Western Europeans have good unemployment insurance, excellent universal health care, lengthy paid maternity and paternity leave, earlier retirement, considerably shorter working hours, far more vacation, better paid retirement (for people of all classes), free university educations for all students who pass the exams, and much, much more. They don`t worry about much of anything economically. they are economically secure.
  116. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm
    So you say that our system is so much better because we lead the world economically? Then how come our deregulation of our banking and investment systems is wrecking not only our economy but the world`s right now? How come the Big Three auto makers are begging at the public trough, along with our biggest banks and insurance companies.

    They said deregulation, i.e. getting government out of business would bring down prices and improve business. So how did deregulation land line phones go? Prices skyrocketed. How about deregulating the airlines? Same thing- prices shot up, service went way down, and a some of the big airlines went bust. All of them have been struggling for most of the time since deregulation.
  117. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Most recently, they deregulated the banks and the investment industry. Anybody look at the news lately? Obviously most of those responding to this know no history, but the banks and Wall Street are in almost exactly the same position they were in during the Great Dpression: the banks going bust, foreclosures running rampant, stocks crashing, unemployment high.

    Why? Because capitalism unrestrained destroys itself through sheer recklessness, arrogance, greed, and stupidity, just like it did 75 years ago.
  118. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm
    Even with all that said Capitalism is the very best of all of these imperfect systems, and we should never, never give it up. But it must be regulated to keep it functioning - and softened with a touch of socialism to protect the people from the ravages abuse of it creates.
  119. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 12:29 pm
    Both capitalism and socialism have grandiose visions, but socialism stops at the proposal part. Capitalism keeps on going and proves its hypothesis with math.
    I can walk out onto any stock market, talk to people who have their entire futures wrapped up on the success of the markets and get paid through the nose to tell them what a capitalism teaches. Being called a socialist or a keynesian here is viewed as an insult, literally.

    Socialism can create predictions, but they may may be correct they may not be. I remember all the politicians talking about economic racism and how blacks didn`t own as many houses as whites and how if we just made banks offer mortgages to risker individuals then suddenly everything would be fine. Capitalists were screaming that this would cause a bubble and providing every piece of mathematics under the sun. But it was passed and hailed as a step against racism.

  120. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm
    Then three years later, people can`t afford the mortgages, houses are being foreclosed, the politicians retire, the great recession ensues, and now the very loans and mortgages that were being praised are now called "predatory."

    I can look up how "great society" policies drove down interest rates and created crazy usury laws and created economic frankensteins like credit cards.

    I watch as restrictions to the market cause a less inspected Chinese oil rig to be off the coast instead of a American one.
  121. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    @normalfreak2: Listen you sound like a honest guy, but europeans are constantly talking about socialism, yes socialism is more popular there but there are many capitalists as well, I`ve listened to german and british parliaments on C-span and I hear it. People like Margret Thatcher are a perfect example.

    And yes, Europeans love the benefits, who doesn`t like vacations and such? But they don`t like it when their currency is on the verge of collapse, when their products have trouble competing in a global market, when they find out that their pensions they were promised don`t come true, when severe austerity becomes the only option, when investors flee their markets, they don`t like it when a recession is twice as bad for them than more capitalist nations.
  122. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    You mention auto dealers and banks that all got government funding and were "to big to fail" and are now being picked apart and sold overseas to more capitalistic markets. You mention a dot com bubble that predicted booming success, even when Capitalism doesn`t make predictions it runs on current price controls. Capitalists will put their hand out to soak up government loans and subsidies just like now with the stimulus, anyone will pick up free money. But they will leave just before the house of cards falls, like whenever tapering is mentioned.

    And banks are nowhere near what they were like in the great depression, they`ve done multiple stress tests to make sure they always have money, plus pages of other differences. I can go into it but it`s a whole other subject.
  123. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    Again, you sound like a great person, your not dumb, and I`m not saying that socialism has no benefits or that capitalism is perfect.

    But I`m saying the benefits of socialism are usually short lived (a few decades depending on the GDP and socioeconomic status)and cause bigger worse problems and the evidence is in almost every economic textbook you can pick up.

    Capitalism is firmly based in science just as biology is based firmly in science. It may seem more moral to believe in socialism, it may be more moral to believe in textualist creationism. But in the long run society and individuals fare better when they apply science not their personal feelings.
  124. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3382 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    Thanks for the discussion Richanddead =)
  125. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm
    @normalfreak2: Yea, you too man. I love these discussion, I just wish I could show other people what I`ve seen and learned.

    Yet I`m sure others feel the same way...
  126. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 11:31 pm
    @Essersmith Since no real socialistic countries exists.
    Of course, the only reason for this is that in the entire history of the world, there has never been anyone as smart as you put in charge of running everybody`s lives.

Leave a Reply