I've noticed a bit of difference in economic point of views in this forum. I wanted to see in numbers where everyone stands.

I'm a capitalist to the point of anarchy. I am a firm believer that the blesséd Market holds the key to most of our economic issues. History shows that the most economic development happens in capitalist countries with little or no governmental involvement and that leads to more jobs and innovations. A lot of folks go countries like the United States and Hong Kong because of their economic systems that allow for so much growth. For these reasons, I am a capitalist and always will be.

What about you guys?

hoboy controversy!

capitalism may make a country rich, but it also makes for inferior school systems and social programs, which makes the quality of life for many go down. besides that, it has a tendency to create countries with large gaps between the rich and the poor. this is actually bad for the economy, as the poor obviously don't buy a lot, and the rich are much fewer in number.

call me pinko commie scum if you will, but i'm a card carrying member of canada's socialist party, and proud of it! ...even if we don't have a hope of ever seeing our leader in the prime minister's seat...

I'm a capitalismwithalittlebitofsocialismist. The free market isn't perfect, but I think it's really the only viable system - socialism has always failed. It needs checks, though, because laissez-faire policies lead to Bad Things.

going with commie on this one, as he worded it better than i could!!

now that's not exactly true, commie. the majority of first nations people of north america used a system that was more or less socialist for thousands of years before europeans came along. i'd call that a successful run.

but yes, a free market leads to bad things. like no unions, no minimum wage, no child labour laws, not welfare, no healthcare... basically, a lot of no's.

Allow me to rephrase. It doesn't work with industrialised nations - like we have now. Works fine in a tribe. Works fine on a kibbutz too - I stayed on one for a month, it was great. But today, it doesn't work.

I chose democratic socialism, but I also tend to lean towards capitalism. Not that I like the evils that capitalism brings, but I'm pretty much in favour of a free market. On the other hand, I'm way more left wing than most capitalists, and I'm all about social programs and progressive thinking. So democratic socialism it is, i guess.

Oh, and by the way, how can you be "capitalist to the point of anarchy"? Anarchism holds with the principles of rebelling against the established order and the rejection of all forms of governmental authority, and the established order in Western society *is* capitalism and the capitalist governments. Anarchism is anti-capitalist by definition, and has traditionally been closely allied with Marxist communism and the Left. You're proposing a contradiction in terms.

I chose democratic socialism as well, although, I found this hard to vote on. This is because I have a wierd lil economic system of my own that if you really wanted to know about you can pm me to find out. Either way it includes a little bit of everything. So I probably should've nulled my vote...

hmmm....

Null for me, since none of the above work.

I'm against money as a whole, currency seems to me an unnecessary obstacle on the way to unity. Then again I'm also against mass-agriculture and industrialization.

All of the above have their workability, except for the first two whch just revel in absurdity. They all can function for a gov't, with one problem. They all cut libeties in one way or another. The lefter ones enslave all in the name of equality, the moderate ones, while most feasible also restrict liberties in the name of oppurtunity and de-monopolization, and the right-wing idealogies enserf the poor to the all-powerful rich.

I think what Righteous means is that he is anti-controlled-capitalism-gov't because they restrict his liberties. However Righteous, what would your ideal world be like, another late 1800's early 1900's industrial revolution nightmare brought to bizarre proportions. During this time the gov't employed laissez faire, and that had such warm appeal to the working poor. They were just as exploited and much much more exploited than you are now, yet you still claim this to be a better option.

You said history produces nations with great power, and they often are laissez faire nations. Well, a bunch of those nations bit the dust due to lack of gov’t and a competitive money-running class that had no care about international politics and the very existence of their nation. They were only concerned with their own power. Case and point, Poland. Poland had no powerful gov’t, yet surrounded by Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, and Russia, the three eastern big-boys. They divided Poland and it ceased to exist. All due to lack of gov’t and overly selfish Polish nobles. Anarchy at its finest?

Squee! Socio-economics is my favourite subject!
Capitalism is OK, and it works well to a point, but it does have a few problems that can only be solved through Keynes-style government intervention.
Education and healthcare (these are examples of merit goods - that is, goods that are good for people, but in a free market tend to be priced too high and provided in too low a quantity to benefit everyone) don't do very well in a pure anarcho-capitalist system. There are also goods for which it is practical to have a central (preferably elected, and therefore accountable) authority, such as street-lighting and roads.
Capitalism also leads to inequity and monopolies. For instance, without the intervention of the United States Justice Department in the 90s, Microsoft would have become very monopolistic in the software industry. Again, a central authority needs to be able to regulate the economy. Inequity is the imbalanced spread of wealth in an economy. A small percentage of the population may harbour a disproportinately large percentage of wealth. This actually damages economic growth, which is BAD. A certain amount of income-redistribution is necessary to help the economy, as well as make people feel happier with the system.
And finally, capitalism without a regulatory body tends towards a "boom-and-bust" business cycle, which is really quite unstable. A regulatory body helps stabilise the economy, so that occurences such as the Great Depression do not happen so often or so severely.
And if you followed or understood any of that, then woo hoo!

Yeah, so I voted democratic socialism, which also makes people happier. In my opinion a society's main aim should be to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. To do this, you need a central, democratic government, which intervenes in the economy to make it function better and keep everyone pretty happy. Which is why I don't go in for all that anarchy stuff. Rule of the gun isn't up my street.

A lot of good it did, too.
/me bows down and worships the Almighty Microsoft Corporation.


jk

*Gives Tigersong stern look*

I hope that was serious young lady! The Microsoft Corporation has been forever crushed. It will never hold a monopoly again.

*Sniggers*

Sorry, I can only keep that up for so long. Microsoft was too powerful even for the US Justice Department (whose funding was mysteriously cut by half in the budget following the anti-trust lawsuit). Microsoft is a bitch.

Personally I'm all for a powerful ruling elite that feeds the poor on a diet of TV, shoddy newspapers, and keeps them desensitzed and past caring with reasonably priced drugs.

I love being an Illuminati.

RJ

Anarchy is on a different political axis to capitalism, and therefore, anarchist traits can go with both left and right politics. The existence of both anarcho-socialism and anarcho-capitalism are possible if you consider that there is another scale, with anarchy at one end and authoritarianism at the other. Having a simple Left/Right scale just doesn't work. I haven't actually got time to go into this right now, but I will later. In the meantime, have a looksee at this. It adds another axis to the politcal spectrum. You'll see what I mean.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm stealing this and making a seperate poll out of it.

Sounds like England to me.

RJ

Capitalism to work properly requires a widely accepted form of currency. Gov't solves this problem through money. W/out gov't, no currency. Capitalist anarchy is impracticle.

Not necessarily. If you look at ancient forms of trade, they usually used gold and other precious metals/stones at currency. You would often have money changers in the town markets that would exchange one accepted curreny from one market for the excepted currency of another. It's like credit cards. Some places accept Visa, but not American Express or what-have-you. In a general area, businesses may accept a few forms of currency with moneychangers e.g. banks in close proximities. It sounds like a good system to me.

If the government were to dissipate today, do you really think that workers would go back to accepting so little pay? How many businesses out there compete for good employees by offering higher pay, benefits, etc. for their workers? Also with the job market the way it is, if you don't like a job then you can always go out and get a new one. You're also forgetting how much of an economic power the middle class is these days.

You need to have money. It's the profit motive that drives people to work. I wouldn't work construction for my health. I work construction because I want a paycheck at the end of the week. And I work well because 1) my dad's a hard-ass and 2) he's enough of a hard-ass to can my sorry ass. We've got a good quality family business going and my pop does his best to give quality sevice at a customer-friendly price. Stuff like this drives capitalism. Besides, not all monopolies are bad. Albeit some are miserable, but that Standard Oil guy and him monopoly was able to drive down the cost of heating and lamp oil to the point where even the poor could afford it. You could call him greedy, but he was smart about his greed. If I had a huge corporation or monopoly, I'd want people to buy the hell out of my product so I would up the quility and down the cost. More profit = more growth = more jobs = more workers = better quality = more profit. And the cycle continues

Well I'm sure that's very inspiring stuff, Righteous, but I can see several key faults in your proposed system.



All money that has ever been issued has been issued by a central authority which also regulates the flow of the currency. People accept credit everywhere, but they most often use US dollars - a currency strictly controlled by a strong, experienced government. I can think of no accountable, effective mechanism for currency control without some kind of elected, central authority running the show.



That sounds nice, but have you noticed how countries with weak unions and laissez-faire governments tend to have the lowest-paid and most poorly treated workers (relative to the size of the economy)? Central government plays a key role in legislating for fair treatment for workers. And though it may be beneficial in the long-run for companies to up pay, most companies tend to think short-term, and will not risk cutting into their profits for the general good of the economy.



Well, maybe once in a while you get a nice guy running a monopoly, but you have you admit that generally monopolies are BAD THINGS. They are uncompetitive, fiercely protective of their market position and bad for the economy.



Again, it does sound nice, but in practice it doesn't happen nearly so smoothly. Another way of raising profits is to cut back on workers and lower wages, or to seek a monopoly and let the prices and quality go to hell. Without a regulatory body in place, best practice does not always occur.

Righteous, you talk of how the people wouldn’t accept low wages from an anarchist society where corporations are the law of the land.

Absurd.

Who would stop the companies from doing what they want with the person? Nobody would be able to stop them, and don’t give me unions and “the people will band together”. The serfs thought that too, and gee, they were successful. Lets remember the wonderful Pugachev rebellion in Russia.

I am also pleased to see you have found a way around gov’t controlled currency, looking to the ancients. The ancients didn’t have electronic wire transfers and high-tech money moving operations. Plus, more trade was done by bartering than the giant stones of the forest (was a magnificent idea, btw), so unless you want to work for pelts as your profit, keep you gov’t. Profit is not motivation. Useful profit is, and the whiny material people of today want money to throw around, not pelts. They would be considerably unhappy if you took away their money system.

You are fighting for freedom that people don’t want.

I voted for democratic socialism (as did a lot of people, apparently). I don't believe in pure socialism, though. I think there should be some difference in income between people in different positions, but it shouldn't be terribly significant - just enough for there to be some insentive for people to work.

The reason I don't believe in capitalism is because, whether you like it or not, people are not given equal opportunities. Some just have a better chance not because of their abilities but because of where they were born, and how much money their families have, etc. This is made even worse by capitalism, generally, because the rich get richer and the poor stay very poor. I'm basically repeating what other people have said here...

I know that socialism hasn't worked well in the past, but I do believe there's some chance of it working if governments try to balance it out with some capitalism. Then again, I'm not running the world, so what do I know?

I suppose that I support the idea of the Mixed Economy Welfare State.

The state owns (or has a certain level of control over) various key and essential services, the private sector owns everything else (though is kept in line by specific legislation and possibly governmental or industry regulators). The state provides limited welfare for those who who need it.

Sort of Keynesian.

I haven't much time to comment (I'm in a bit of a hurry), but I did want to mention something on the discussion here. I find it very interesting, however I'd like to compare the debpting styles of Polo and Sir Maxerpopple. I enjoy debating with Polo because we can present our ideas without goint at eachother's throats. Maxerpopple, however, debates aggressively and nothing personal, but that gets on my nerves. The key word here is discussion and I'm not a big fan of aggressiveness and sarcasm. Can we please keep this civil?

Here's something for you guys to chew on: In the area of socialism, what industries/businesses should the sate control/own/regulate?

Now I've to go to the monument of consummerism known as Wal-Mart and support out capitalist society by giving into tradition and buying gifts for one holiday instead of just being able to buy gifts year-round like I want to so that I can promote "cheer" and not "holiday cheer (goddamn Christmas)."

Sorry Righteous, twas a long week and I was irritable, but a nice vacation is calming me down!

---


I see socialism with a few options.

First it can promote new industries with money as needed in an unregulated by written law manner, to best suit the needs at hand. Otherwise I see it as a more controlling power, controlling all industry so the state is a massive conglomerate of economic might. This way, there is no foolish politcs occuring between industries for political power (if done correctly). However I just realized this is communism not socialism, so I suppose its either what we have in the US now, or total comunism, or the promotion idea as the way to go with leftist economics.

However being a laissez-faire socialist, or "societal socialist" of sorts, leftist economics, rather economics in general, is evil.

---

There seem to be a few followers of Keynsean (spelling?) economics here. This means you beleive in promoting the economies of weaker nations to get them dependant on your own goods. However I see a flaw here. Improving other economies could get them to have more money to spend on your goods, but the more likely path is they themselves will become self-sufficient and perform the same (pardon the perhaps far strectched term) feudal technique on even weaker nations. Leaving you (the powerful nation-state{I loive the word "nation-state"}) biting the dust.

Ever played NationStates?

[/irrelevancy]

In my opinion, the STATE should:

OWN:-
The Courts / the Judiciary / possibly Prisons etc, the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the Emergency Services (the Police, Fire Service and possibly the Ambulance Service), the Roads and the majority of Hospitals.

CONTROL:-
Essential Services - Gas, Electricity, Water, Public Transportation. Possibly Prisons and the Ambulance Service.

REGULATE:-
Everything in the Private sector through legislation, specific government regulators and / or industry regulators.

Well - as I claimed, my views (in this specific case) are sort of Keynesian... meaning that I believe in the Mixed Economy Welfare State.

Reading your post I'm not quite sure I follow you on your interpretation of Keynesian economics with reagrds to the "support of weaker economies to get them dependent on your goods."

Certainly - my (albeit limited) undersatnding was the Keynes suggested that weaker economies should be strengthened to allow them to trade with stronger economies. The desired result was an increase in trade rather than formenting economic dependency... or a feudal system amognst states.

In July 1944 Kaynes and over a hundred other leading academics, intellectuals and civil servants (involved in economic theory and practice) met at the convention in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire (USA). There, Keynes and others argued that (post WW2) the Allies must rebuild the Axis Countries, not exploit them as had been done after WW1, and establish a new international monetary system to support developing economies... not exploit them.

The Bretton Woods Convention produced: the Marshall Plan, the Bank for Reconstruction and development known as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). The World Bank would borrow from rich nations and lend to poorer nations. The IMF working closely with the World Bank, would initiate currency adjustments and maintain the exchange rates among national currencies within defined limits. The Bank of International Settlements would then function as a "central bank" to the world.

The International Monetary Fund was to be a lender to the central bank of countries which were experiencing a deficit in the balance of payments. By lending money to that country's central bank, the IMF provided currency, allowing the underdeveloped country to continue in business, building up is export base until it achieved a positive balance of payments. Then, that nation's central bank could repay the money borrowed from the lMF, with a small amount of interest and continue on its own as an economically viable nation. If the country experienced an economic contraction, the IMF would be standing ready to make another loan to carry it through.

From the minutes of the convention it is clear (to me at least) that Keynes' desire was to get weak economies to stregthen so that they could trade equally with other strong economies.

I appreciate that I may well have misinterpreted his views on this matter - and would appreiciate a clear definition of Keynes' specific thoughts and methods with regards to creating weak economies dependnecy on strong economies.

The Free Democratic States of Hogany
Yes.

The Free Democratic States of Hogany

Here's another question to chew on: If socialism offers sevices only to select individuals (e.g. welfare), is that fair to the other taxpayers?

Well then that's no longer socialism. Socialism is only a means to an end, that end being communism and a classless society. By making the poor dependant on welfare from the state as opposed to everyone being dependant on welfare from the state, socialism can never accomplish its goals.

With regards to terminology - in Europe, Socialism (as a term) can be attributed to the Marxist / Communist ideology.

However, Socialism is also used to describe the progressive attitude of some democratic states - whereby a socialist model of 'the state providing for the people', is adopted by the democratic state within a capitalist economic frame.

Many governments throughout the world have adopted such socialism - whilst never attempting to achive a classless communist society.

Post WW2 Britain saw the very socialist Labour Party, further (the already established) Welfare State, by introducing many measures such as free public healthcare, pension schemes, housing and dole for the poor / unemployed, tax benefits for families... etc.

It is my understanding that this form of socialism didn't descriminate as to who benefited from free healthcare, and the like. Gradualy things did change though.

When governments restrict welfare, to only the poor, it can be seen as unfair towards other tax payers - but that comes down to a balance... to keep taxes low, welfare should only be available to those who need it. If welfare was to be made available to everyone - then taxes would have to rise considerably to pay for it.

Many countries have adopted a progressive tax system... where by the richer you are the more tax you pay. The other way of looking at this is: the poorer you are the less tax you pay - because you just can't afford to. Either way tax collectors treat people differently based on their income - which can be seen as unfair if (for example) you feel that the individual should owe nothing to society at large. An alternative view is that the poor should be taxed less to provide them with the opportunity to progress.

Finally, if you are concerned that only a select few benefit from welfare, even though the majority pay for it - try looking at the where all the rest of our taxes go. Large chunks end up being spent in ways which benefit only one section of the population at a time (with some examples of Government spending that benefits none of the tax payers who raised that money)... so Welfarism isn't really that much of a special case.

Pure socialism serves the purpose of eventually leading to anarcho-communism, as seen therough the Russian revolution. However watered-down socialism, liek the system used in the US today, serves the poor in the name of fairness.

Imagine that, fairness

This isn't an economics post per se, but a lot of stores out there make most of their profit during the Christmas season and actually lose money the rest of the year. This kind of annoys me the amount of consumerism that's infected Christmas. "Yes, Jesus who was later nailed to a cross for our sins was born on this day. Now go open your presents, drink your egg nog and eat your candy, kids." This is suppposed to be the season of peace and giving, yet people are killing eachother over Firbie and Tickle Me Elmo. Industries rely way too heavily on Christmas for profit, however it's not the industry's fault; it's society's falut. We the people buy into everything. We're the ones fighting over Playstation 2 and Power Rangers. I hate Christmas.

No it is the industry's fault.

We didn't consumerize it, they did.

Note the word (is it a word? I dunno) "consumerize", root being "consumer". Industries can't make money off of Christmas without - guess - CONSUMERS. Therefore the problem is not simply rooted in industry, it is an attitude well-grown throughout society, politics, and even religion, because those things are what is made up of consumers.

Yet somebody had to plant the idea in the head of consumers, they didn't do it by themselves.

Gift-giving's been a Christmas tradition for a very long time, dear... I do not believe for a second that corperations invented the idea. Now then, no one's contesting that the industry has, through the years, made it exponentially easier to buy more during the season, as well as add pressure to purchase through the mass media, but to remove all blame from the spender would be ludicrous. No one can make people spend billions of dollars in trinkets for everyone from their dog-walker's grandmother to the mailman's kids - the choice always lies within the hands of the consumer.

Yet were there (would there rather) have been christmas lights 100 years ago in such an obscene manner. Gift giving was not as we know it today. It was far less consumery.

100 years ago, religion and society were a lot different, tolerance-wise. Technology-wise. The mass production of such products, as well as the ability to purchase the products, was much, much less.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I did not say that corporations are completely without their role - indeed, they have influence, and through the years, they have been a catalyst for the societal value shift that causes the Christmas Commericalism effect that we now experience. I never said that this was not true.

HOWEVER, I do find it ridiculous to place the blame on those corporations. Although it is easily argued that are/were not a positive influence on the societal value shift, unless one agrees that humanity is incapable of making rational decisions, one CANNOT blame the corperations for the commericalism. By definition, consumers must choose to consume for consumerism to occur. Unless you are arguing that human beings are powerless in the face of advertising, consumers still have a choice whether to consume or not.

My question to you is, then, why aren't the consumers to blame for their own decisions?

Oh, trust me they are.

But someone started to social conditioning, and that is the commercial west. Not necessarily corporations, but definetly the commercial west.

Well now...

This has all the hall marks of being a Chicken and Egg question...

I think that the gradual increase in consumer oriented capitalism is in part to blame for the comercialisation of religion...

I feel that industry is also to blame (maybe not for kick starting the problem - but certainly exaserbating it with very agressive advertising campaigns)

The reality is that both consumer and provider are equally responsible...

However, I have a question:

Does the consumer get what the consumer wants... or

Does the consumer want what the consumer gets?

I look at it like this:

John and Jane Q. Consumer are members of Someplaceland's society. The society (meaning the masses) of Someplaceland put heavy emphasis on the the Happy Day holiday season (which started roughly 2000 years ago). People want to buy gifts for everyone and their brother so they go to StoreMart to buy presents for everyone on Happy Day. John P. Industryman of Thingee Industries wants to make money off this market, so he supplies extra Thingees around Happy Day. John O. Businessman, president of StoreMart also wants to make a profit, so he stocks extra Thingees, Gadgets and Widgets around Happy Day. People buy the hell out of these products just in time for Happy Day and Mr. Businessman and Mr. Industyman collect their profits.

You can't blame businesses and industries for wanting to make a profit. Profit and capital are what drive capitalism and make societies have money.

Do you find that exploitation of religious beleifs a good thing?

There is more to life than making money, looks like Mr. Industry and Mr. Businessman lost their hearts.

I don't think that anyone is thinking that "exploitation" is a good thing, Max, but it is true that a store's purpose is to sell goods, and by associating oneself with Christmas, a store can sell more goods. Technically it is an excellent marketing strategy; unfortunately it also makes commericialism possible. Note that I say possible - consumers still have to decide to buy for it to happen.

I don't see how the "hearts" of industry and businessmen come into this at all - yes, they're people trying to make money, and although for some people the pursuit of such wealth makes one "heartless" that is not true for all people.

Wow, I'm an agnostic and I'm, championing the true spirit of Christmas.

First of all I find capitalists with too much power to be morally reprehensible, as they often times exploit the lesser people so they can buy their extra Mercedes. I'm talking about the Rockafeller capitalists, not blue collar Joe Sixpack (even though he is more likely to have a beer belly, 67% of America is overweight).

Whether they want to admit it or not, rich store owners are exploiting the beleifs of people, that of MUST BUY GIFTS.

I hear all too often passionate conservatives saying we need to rekindle old values lost, like honesty, decency, hard working responsibility, and family orientation. And whether we want to admit it or not, our society is dying, we are all becoming too individualistic, focusing on material wealth to provide hapiness, as opposed to happiness from within.

It brings me great pain to see this is what man has become, and it is partly the fault of Mr. Industry.

I detest it.