|
Macro Economy - Socialism or Capitalism
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
what school of economic principles due you subscribe to?
me personally i tend to align myself with the austrian ecomomists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Haye. they favor a more pure capitalist form where the market is set soley on supply/demand. i have to admit i only took one macro-economy class here in college so i have only a very general scope of knowledge when it comes to the subject but i was deeply fascinated (as i saw it to be less business but more like politics/philosophy class).
Altough Socialism strives for the better of society i tend to be more selfish and go for capitalism which tends to be better for the individual.
anyways feel free to take this subject where ever it leads |
|
|
| Dupz |
I have to agree with you here. It's proven that, in the long run, a capitalist free market is the most efficient and beneficial for ALL.. not only the individual.
Socialism requires a more equitable distribution of income, and resources etc. but this will only be a short term solution to social equality.
If resources are allocated to everyone equally, simply because it is fair that everyone gets their share, then these resources are not being allocated to the most efficient user.
Only natural market forces can do this, and it doesnt happen overnight. It may take years, if not decades, but it's mathematically proven that this method is not better for the individual only, but for everyone.
This does become a political discussion when it involves issues such as free trade, and tariffs. Here in Australia we've heard how some of our trading partners (USA) have closed some of their markets to our exports (especially wool), simply because they want to protect their local producers. This is an effective vote winner for the local government, but in the end it not only hurts the Australian exporter, but also the American consumer who losses out on the benefits that natural market forces bring. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
I too tend to subscribe to a capitalist way of looking at things. One of the main reasons is that capitalism has simply worked better than any form of Socialism...especially radical ones like Communism. Capitalism is probably not the best thing, the only way it can work is if there is inequality in society, much to the loathing of people who subscribe to socialism. The reason I can see inequality as justifiable in a capitalist society is due to the fact that in a capitalist society, people are allowed freedom of determination. So if someone doesn't like their status, wants to better themselves, then the means is there to do so. Also, it seems that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, countries with capitalist economy tend to have strong democratic values. The big problem with socialism is that it requires a huge amount of government intervention to "force" an equilibrium upon the people.
A lot of people argue that in a capitalist society corporations have too much influence on government policy and hold too much power. In socialism, the government holds all the power. So it seems like in capitalism we have the power in corporate buraucracy and in Socialism it lies in the Government buraucracy. THe difference IMO is that at least with corporations, the way they sustain power is through selling products and making money. THe masses can still influence the corporations by not buying their products.
I have no formal background in politics or economics so if you think I"m bull, feel free to tell me! (in a nice way;) ) |
|
|
| biznology |
as with some others here, i dont have formal training in the subject but have learned a bit thru sociology courses and changing themes of thot that derived our current situation.
i wont say i agree with everyone else tho. the complete disregard for the whole over the individual is an interesting development over the last 1000 years. it has led to colonization, imperialism, slavery and other nasty pieces of business. people in the present often do not realize that the way the US, especially, centers the wants/needs of an individual is not the way it has always been.
that being said, it is still difficult to choose between socialism and capitalism. a true free market capitalist society would be quite interesting to live in, since it has never been done and US's form is quite a perversion of that ideal. socialism has some merits as well tho. i dont necessarily think its a 'good idea' because of its goal of accomplishing 'social equality' because i think that is not an ideal goal and possibly misguided(impossible). i do think that socialism offers better social welfare programs to the average person, and while they may be lacking somewhat from the private sphere in that society, the overall benefit for the whole is better than say a doctor gettting 3x the salary of the average person, for a job he does cause he *needs* to, just like every other position in society| |
|
|
| Juricimo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
Altough Socialism strives for the better of society i tend to be more selfish and go for capitalism which tends to be better for the individual.
|
i agree. capitalism. socialism just creates high taxes, and people that earn a ton of money have to give up their share for the poor and the bums that drag around being lazy. survival of the fittest - Darwin;)
:p sucKas
>JM< |
|
|
| Illusion |
I tend to a deeply divided man when it comes to this issue.
I guess I'll always be a socialist at heart but I'm gonna be working for some major corporations in the next few years.
The whole issue is still highly debatable though. I mean socialism might not have triamphed but that doesn't mean it won't be an option in the future.
In the past our ecomony was pased on a second wave industrial force (As Alvin Toffler puts it) but as we move into the future the production and equal disimination of wealth becomes more and more possible.
Capitalism is doing a marvelous job revolusionizing the forces of production. A good few years from now we might reach a point where a socialist sort of utopia could become quite probable.
Marx Himself belived that capitalism's main role in society was to revolutionise the forces of production and lead the way for a socialist world.
But the problem with the revoution of 1917 was that it was far too premature. |
|
|
| Illusion |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
It's proven that, in the long run, a capitalist free market is the most efficient and beneficial for ALL.. |
Half the world is growing at the expense of the other half!
Oh yeh! you've hit the nail right on the head there
"beneficial for ALL.. " |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | | In the past our ecomony was pased on a second wave industrial force (As Alvin Toffler puts it) but as we move into the future the production and equal disimination of wealth becomes more and more possible. |
I think this is a good point. A capitalist society might pave the way for a more socialist society of the future as we can see in our own society. I mean, the wealth that is created through a capitalist society will trickle down from the top. In capitalism the wealth lies in the hands of the few at the top, but the people at the bottom benifit. If you look at the standard of living for someone on welfare in America and compare that to the standard of living for an average person in huge areas of the world (throughout Africa for example), the person on welfare in North America has a better standard. They benefit from what a capitalist economy has produced, still even though they did not contribute to production of that wealth.
But, I guess it's the "relative" aspect of the wealth distribution that is the problem for some. I mean, if someone in America on welfare still owns a car, a tv, and has roof over his head, but can't afford a nice tv, a new car, nice clothes, or take his family on vacation, the animosity towards those that can afford that stuff will always be there. He will still see himself as downtrodden, oppressed and poor even though someone in the same situation in Africa goes weeks without food and his last three babies didn't make it past the first week of life.
Here's a recent example. I'm not turning this into a middle east debate but I think it illustrates my point. I'm reading a book about middle east history so it came to my mind. When the Jews first migrated to Palestine it was sparsely populated and the economy was virtually non-existant. The Jews over years of populating the area turned it into a capitalist economy and the standard of living went way up. Meanwhile, arabs from all over the area moved in to take advantage of this growing "Western style" economy and benifitted as evidenced by drastic drops in infant mortality and huge increase in standard of living. BUT, the average standard of living for the palestinian arabs was still about half that of the Jewish population, and still is, I believe. SO, that disparity in wealth creates animosity, and contributes to the conflict between the two groups. Just like in all capitalist societies. Like I said, I don't want this to be a middle east debate, it was just to make a point. |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Illusion
Half the world is growing at the expense of the other half!
Oh yeh! you've hit the nail right on the head there
"beneficial for ALL.. " |
:) I think you've misunderstood my friend.
Maybe i was a bit too general in my comments, as i forgot to mention the poorer majority of the world.
I'm actually doing an economics major at the moment and we learn all about this ... what actually needs to happen in the 3rd world for them to catch up to the western world is for these countries to get major boosts in technology. Plus improvements in political stability etc etc..
There's a lot more to it, but they're the major points.
Sorry if i offended. |
|
|
| Illusion |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
:) I think you've misunderstood my friend.
Maybe i was a bit too general in my comments, as i forgot to mention the poorer majority of the world.
I'm actually doing an economics major at the moment and we learn all about this ... what actually needs to happen in the 3rd world for them to catch up to the western world is for these countries to get major boosts in technology. Plus improvements in political stability etc etc..
There's a lot more to it, but they're the major points.
Sorry if i offended. |
Sorry for the misunderstanding dude! Didn't mean to flame or anything. |
|
|
| Renegade |
The best system of economics? In the current world, capitalism, in the ideal world, socialism. Having said that though, I don't think the distinction is that easy.
For instance, I believe that while capitalistic theory may dominate the method of most western economies, it is still the socialistic theory that holds them together. Government spending - not a laissez faire capitalist method, but rather a socialistic method - was, essentially, the glue that held the western economies together during the great depression, and - although governments seem to be promoting a more individualistic conception of capitalism than ever - it is still socialistic theory that holds the economies together.
A society that wills the sovereignty of specific individuals ahead of the overall wellbeing of its society is one that is doomed to failure. While I don't think any society has quite gotten to that stage yet, I believe that Australia and the US are pushing for a more individulistic economic method, and that is an attitude - after studying economics for 2.5 years - that I can't agree with. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
A society that wills the sovereignty of specific individuals ahead of the overall wellbeing of its society is one that is doomed to failure. |
since you've had education in economics i'd love to hear some examples as to why your statement is true. whats the disadvantages of having a system geared towards the benifet of the individual and would socialism solve those problems? if capitalism wasnt as regulated, or more laissez faire'ish would we be in a better state or worse and why? what would happen? im interested in learning more from both sides :) |
|
|
|
|
