It is said that cappitalism has may flaws that devide the rich and the poor.

Feudalism has many of the same problems but is more orderd. other reasons exist too.

Communism failed, but that was not commpleatly initiated.

An other plan might be good, but nobody knows what it is.

What do you think?

None of the above. Recent history has shown that a mixed economy is the best economic structure. This is basically a doctrine which states that the government stick to doing what it does efficiently (providing 'public goods' like national defence, education, police, etc all of which would be underprovided by the private sector) and let the rest of the economy be handled by the private sector, with some government supervision to prevent actions which go against the public interest (eg, grossly uncompeditive behavior and deliberate misslabeling of goods).

BTW, what's the case in favour of feudalism?

"BTW, what's the case in favour of feudalism?"
If you're the rich... :evil:

None of the above. Recent history has shown that a mixed economy is the best economic structure.
A mixed economy is a capitalist economy. There is no such thing as a pure capitalist or free market economy there are just varying degrees.
It is said that cappitalism has may flaws that devide the rich and the poor.
Capitalism doesn't divide the rich and the poor. Money does that.

Originally posted by MrPresident

Capitalism doesn't divide the rich and the poor. Money does that.
first capitalism recuires money, second under our current economy alows people to get money without hard work- this devides the rich and poor. If you think however we can have a captalist economy without this please vote thus.

Originally posted by Souron
It is said that cappitalism has may flaws that devide the rich and the poor.

There are no rich nor poor people in Communism? I guess feudalims is worst in this regard.

I agree with Case.

Socialism in combination with capitalism seems quite good. On the one hand, by providing a public education system everyone gets a fair chance, and on the other hand by providing insurance systems few people are left out in the rain. The capitalist side is, that by building on the socialist factors everyone can be successfull.

I know that western countries with those systems have not been exactly financially successfull, but I think that is mostly due to corruption and mismanagement, and not inherent in the system. And both could be avoided.

Communism is an absurd idea to begin with. It pays no attention whatsoever to human nature. Socialism (usually called Communism as well) isn't much better. Because people aren't usually rewarded for working hard, as in Capitalism, so there is no reason for someone to do so. It also tends to require a good deal of government intervention in people's daily lives.
Capitalism rewards the creative. How many inventors and businessmen have gone on to make fortunes? A lot more than in Socialist societies. It also ensures that people don't get lazy, because if they do, they won't get a job. Though some government intervention is required, it should be kept to a minimum.

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
Communism is an absurd idea to begin with. It pays no attention whatsoever to human nature. Socialism (usually called Communism as well) isn't much better. Because people aren't usually rewarded for working hard, as in Capitalism, so there is no reason for someone to do so. It also tends to require a good deal of government intervention in people's daily lives.
Capitalism rewards the creative. How many inventors and businessmen have gone on to make fortunes? A lot more than in Socialist societies. It also ensures that people don't get lazy, because if they do, they won't get a job. Though some government intervention is required, it should be kept to a minimum.

You're mixing up "Socialism" with "Communism". Most Western European countries have a socialist system, or social democracy, still they are not communist. Eg: Sweden, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, etc.

It depends on your definition, but Socialism is some sort of mild government intervention, in a basically capitalist system. The interventions do not only consist of controll funktion, but also of providing a basic standard of living with health services and low price housing programmes.

It depends on your definition, but Socialism is some sort of mild government intervention, in a basically capitalist system. The interventions do not only consist of controll funktion, but also of providing a basic standard of living with health services and low price housing programmes. It does depend on your definition. However socialism is the stage before communism in Maxist theory. So it is often assumed to be lots of government intervention (i.e. nationalised industries) which is a perfectly fair definition. Social democracy is different to socialism and involves a lot less government intervention. So I would say that a free market economy would be America and to a lesser extent the UK. A social democracy would be Western Europe. An example of a socialist country would be Cuba. With China, Russia etc being Communist.

It depends on your definition, but Socialism is some sort of mild government intervention, in a basically capitalist system. The interventions do not only consist of controll funktion, but also of providing a basic standard of living with health services and low price housing programmes. It does depend on your definition. However socialism is the stage before communism in Maxist theory. So it is often assumed to be lots of government intervention (i.e. nationalised industries) which is a perfectly fair definition. Social democracy is different to socialism and involves a lot less government intervention. So I would say that a free market economy would be America and to a lesser extent the UK. A social democracy would be Western Europe. An example of a socialist country would be Cuba. With China, Russia etc being Communist.

You're right MrPresident, I also put socialism and social democracy in the same box. Limiting Free Market Economy to the US is, IMO, not correct. All European countries and also a lot of east Asian countries got a free market economy.

Social democracy does maybe concern more the common standard of living and having some government-owned enterprises, even if they are partially in private hands (enterprises with 50% government ownership, like a lot of energy producers).

US has perhaps less government involvment, other than controll funktion, but still there is some. Just think of the influence the US had lately by buying large quantities of oil.

Why do you put Cuba in a Socialist category and China in a communist one? (Aren't both basically communist?) And Russia is, IIRC, no longer communist.

Limiting Free Market Economy to the US is, IMO, not correct. All European countries and also a lot of east Asian countries got a free market economy.
No one has a true free market economy but America is by far and away the closer thing to it. European countries and East Asian countries have a lot more government intervention in the economy with America. So much so I think they are in a different economic catagory. The UK is an interesting case though since it is not as free market as America but far more free market than Europe.
Why do you put Cuba in a Socialist category and China in a communist one?
China is much more of a planned economy than Cuba. Though I admit in a few years time this probably won't be the case.
And Russia is, IIRC, no longer communist.
I meant the old Soviet Union.

I've never understood why people would call the capatalist system a bad system. It is not a perfect system but it is a proven system that works at high levels. I do admit that the gap between the very rich and the very poor is larger than in other systems however this is not the fault of the system. Also the poor are not getting poorer and the poverty rate actually declines dramatically when a country adopts such a system.

Yes, the freedom of the market is different in every country. An extremely free market does not have to be the better system (I'm not trying to start a Europe vs. US discussion here). It depends on the policies a govt pursues.


Originally posted by wtiberon
I've never understood why people would call the capatalist system a bad system. It is not a perfect system but it is a proven system that works at high levels. I do admit that the gap between the very rich and the very poor is larger than in other systems however this is not the fault of the system. Also the poor are not getting poorer and the poverty rate actually declines dramatically when a country adopts such a system.

It depends on what system the country had before. If you look at the former communist countries, like Russia etc, the situation of the people has not improved a lot. Until now it has mostly improved for criminals and foreign investors.

And this is the fault of the system. Because it relies on some controll mechanisms, it wont work, if those mechanisms still are corruptable. But right now I cannot think of a country, where the transition to free market happened without some crimials getting richer and a decline of poverty rate.

The virtue and vice of capitalism is far superior to the converse.

Socialism, as it has demonstrated, is the raping and pillaging of the will of people to succeed.

Churchill time:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I think that sums it up nicely.

I don't want to defend socialism/communism, but there are not only negative effects of government regulated market. Eg, the Californian energy crisis, which occured only several years ago, where a basic good got rare, because the free market was not regulated. I also think that in most countries water and transport are governmental.

Positive example would off course be Brazil, where the private roads are in much better shape than public ones, negative example is the British railway debacle, where privatization of the railway system led to collapse.

Regulation has to be done to some extent, and just like pure communism proved to be a failure, pure capitalism/free market has to be called a failure.

Lets see how far towards capitalism China is going.

negative example is the British railway debacle, where privatization of the railway system led to collapse. It didn't actually. The problems with the British railway system are far more to do with massive underinvestment by British Rail than the recent privatisation.

There is rich and poor and all societies no matter what system of government instilled.

The difference with Capitalism is that the "poor" in society are (to a degree) more wealthy than the "rich" in some societies and a hell of alot better off than the poor in all other societies.

I voted "other" - each has its strenght and weakness.

Naked capitalism is all power to the ruthless rich. Just look at the US today.

Communism was a total failure in implementation, but a collective may work on a human scale (where you know the people that are affected by your decisions).

Feudalism has the virtue that drastic improvements can be made by enlightened leadershup, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

Free flow of information reduces corruption, but there is still a need for benevolent oversight (no good solution - courts, government, ???).

Economic rules must be enforced to contain the excesses of unscrupulous buisnessmen.

Naked capitalism is all power to the ruthless rich. Just look at the US today.
America isn't naked capitalism and considering it is the single greatest economic success in the history of the world I don't see how looking at it will prove your argument.
Economic rules must be enforced to contain the excesses of unscrupulous buisnessmen.
What about the excesses of unscrupulous consumers?

Originally posted by MrPresident

America isn't naked capitalism and considering it is the single greatest economic success in the history of the world I don't see how looking at it will prove your argument.

I guess naked capitalism means lack of social services.

As for "single greatest economic success" due to capitalism and entrepreneurship: Hong Kong. Japan.

Please give an example for "excesses of uscrupulous consumers" (can't imagine what that means)

@alamo: does that mean, you think that communism works if you give it a different name?

As for "single greatest economic success" due to capitalism and entrepreneurship: Hong Kong. Japan.
They are very short-term successes and considering the recent economic performance of both of them I hardly think they can still be called a success.
Please give an example for "excesses of uscrupulous consumers"
Buying goods made by child labour etc.
you think that communism works if you give it a different name?
Brand spanking new Communism with added equality. The one ism that you should never be without. Now available in all-new ocean grey as well as the traditional military grey. Order now as supply is very limited.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Capitalism doesn't divide the rich and the poor. Money does that.

Capital-ism.

Capitalism, sufficently regulated to ensure it's worst excesses don't overcome society utterly, btw.

DP.