reasons that capitalism is better than socialism...

[The Real]

Real socialist economies are countries like Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, along with the now dead communist china and ussr

Nice try. Historically, Socialism has never been restricted to Communism of the Marxist-Leninist variety or any other, or central planning more generally. Even the most basic sources, like Wikipedia, make this clear in their historical reviews.

And a mixed economy isn't "fundamentally" capitalist. Capitalism is not equivalent to market economies. It's only one kind of market economy.

 

[theworldismine13]

Nice try. Historically, Socialism has never been restricted to Communism of the Marxist-Leninist variety or any other, or central planning more generally. Even the most basic sources, like Wikipedia, make this clear in their historical reviews.

And a mixed economy isn't "fundamentally" capitalist. Capitalism is not equivalent to market economies. It's only one kind of market economy.

How are you defining a mixed economy and what is the difference between a market a economy and a capitalist economy according to your worldview?

 

[The Real]

How are you defining a mixed economy and what is the difference between a market a economy and a capitalist economy according to your worldview?

A mixed economy is an economy that mixes elements of different economic systems.

A market economy is just that- any economy that involves markets. Capitalism is an economic system in which private ownership of the means of production for the sake of profit is the primary mode of economic organization for goods and services. It's a specific kind of market economy.

And for completeness' sake, Socialism is any system in which the means of production are democratized- this can be through central planning or other modes, like unions or cooperatives, among many others. This is the standard definition you'll find in any major source- there's no bias in it.

 

[theworldismine13]

A mixed economy is an economy that mixes elements of different economic systems.

A market economy is just that- any economy that involves markets. Capitalism is an economic system in which private ownership of the means of production for the sake of profit is the primary mode of economic organization for goods and services. It's a specific kind of market economy.

And for completeness' sake, Socialism is any system in which the means of production are democratized- this can be through central planning or other modes, like unions or cooperatives, among many others. This is the standard definition you'll find in any major source- there's no bias in it.

Almost every country has a mixed economy Including the us, so that is not a differentiating or illuminating term

I think it's better to look at the overall direction and overall ownership in the economy, looking at it overall Western Europe is capitalist, even though they tend to have more government ownership of certain industries then say the us, overall the economies are almost all capitalist across the board

The point I'm making is that certain countries like Sweden having social programs does not make them NOT capitalist as some people are implying, Sweden has a capitalist economy (overall) and their peaceful existence is due to us military spending

 

[ghostwriterx]

Several ways the easiest, is to look at history.

You compare economies resembling capitalism, to those resembling socialism(the best you can hope for since neither have been truly implemented) and you look at the real world results. You should take a unbias look at the history these economies yourself and tell me which has the better track record in your opinion.

Hmmm, but whenever someone points out a negative effect of capitalism you dismiss it as "corporatism".
You've conceded in the past that a truly "free" market is not reasonable and that some level of govt. intervention is necessary so what's a historical example of a thriving capitalist economy that has what you consider an acceptable level of govt. interaction?

 

[DEAD7]

Hmmm, but whenever someone points out a negative effect of capitalism you dismiss it as "corporatism".
You've conceded in the past that a truly "free" market is not reasonable and that some level of govt. intervention is necessary so what's a historical example of a thriving capitalist economy that has what you consider an acceptable level of govt. interaction?

Capitalism has many downsides, every system does. The ones most people focus on though have nothing to with capitalism, and everything to do with corporatism.

Libertarians, the free market crazies love capitalism, and want to end all the things you point at as wrong with the system... It doesn't add up. Either libertarians hate capitalism, or what we are talking about isnt capitalism.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

get @Broke Wave in this topic

 

[ghostwriterx]

Capitalism has many downsides, every system does. The ones most people focus on though have nothing to with capitalism, and everything to do with corporatism.

Libertarians, the free market crazies love capitalism, and want to end all the things you point at as wrong with the system... It doesn't add up. Either libertarians hate capitalism, or what we are talking about isnt capitalism.

So are you going to answer the question or not?

 

[DEAD7]

You've conceded in the past that a truly "free" market is not reasonable and that some level of govt. intervention is necessary so what's a historical example of a thriving capitalist economy that has what you consider an acceptable level of govt. interaction?

Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

 

[NZA]

"corporatism" is not to blame for capitalism's problems

 

[ghostwriterx]

Singapore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

thanks...
of course there is the matter of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund
Sounds almost socialist

 

[DEAD7]

"corporatism" is not to blame for capitalism's problems

We'd have to have capitalism, in order to have problems with capitalism. We have corporatism, and it isnt experiencing problems at all, its doing exactly what it is suppose to do...

You just cant distiguish between the two

I suggest you take 5 minutes to google capitalism, then google corporatism and see how wrong you are... maybe reading it from an unbiased source will rid you of your ignorance but I doubt it. You seem convinced they are one in the same, and know amount of empirical data will change your mind.

 

[NZA]

We'd have to have capitalism, in order to have problems with capitalism. We have corporatism, and it isnt experiencing problems at all, its doing exactly what it is suppose to do...

You just cant distiguish between the two

I suggest you take 5 minutes to google capitalism, then google corporatism and see how wrong you are... maybe reading it from an unbiased source will rid you of your ignorance but I doubt it. You seem convinced they are one in the same, and know amount of empirical data will change your mind.

we dont have capitalism, yet capitalism is also responsible for america's standard of living, awesome!

 

[DEAD7]

thanks...
of course there is the matter of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Provident_Fund
Sounds almost socialist

Its an acceptable trade off for-

Government spending in Singapore has risen since the start of the global financial crisis, from around 15% of GDP in 2008 to 17% in 2012. The government's total expenditure as a percentage of GDP ranks among the lowest internationally and allows for a competitive tax regime.[45][dead link][46] The government has no foreign debt and consistent budget surpluses. Singapore government debt is issued for investment purposes, and not for fiscal needs.[47]

Despite the fact that all my arguments are framed as absolutes, it really comes down to what is and isn't an acceptable trade off. Nothing is truly off the table except for those things deemed immoral.

 

[DEAD7]

we dont have capitalism, yet capitalism is also responsible for america's standard of living, awesome!

yeah.