Free-market capitalism or Socialism. - General

There are two very different and completely opposite opinions. [I]Is a Free market system better then a socialist system?[/I] [B][U]Free Market[/U][/B] - An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. [B][U]Socialism[/U][/B] - A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated. In a free market world: Simple things like hospitals and medical care would be exploited by the people with the capital to...... places like court rooms would no longer be a place of impartial judging..... Police would be owned and government would be privatized.... A socialist system would insure our natural needs are taken care of and would regulate key industry to insure the power stays with the masses and not passed to individual corporations to monopolies the world. If we where completely free-market would there be a social welfare system like Australia has center-link ? In a free market world the wealthy remain wealthy and the poor can never raise the capital to compete, free-market sounds good if you already are filthy rich but for most of us a socialist structure would benefit the majority more.

Free market socialism a legit thing you know.

Wow OP, I don't think you could make your bias any clearer than that. And yes, as OrDnAs has said, implementations of socialism can use the market economy, using market economy features such as price signals to assist with determining where demand is.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42186423]Wow OP, I don't think you could make your bias any clearer than that. And yes, as OrDnAs has said, implementations of socialism can use the market economy, using market economy features such as price signals to assist with determining where demand is.[/QUOTE] Well, to be fair, your bias is supposed to be clear as this is Mass Debate.

Neither extreme is good. Laissez-faire capitalism just does not work at all (capitalism is inherently unstable), and typical implementations of socialism do not get as close to achieving allocative and productive efficiencies as implementations of capitalism do. [editline]14th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zally13;42186460]Well, to be fair, your bias is supposed to be clear as this is Mass Debate.[/QUOTE] I know that, but when I see someone create a debate thread I expect them to give points for each side and then at the end of their post explain which side they align with and why, but the OP here is not providing any points at all for "free-market capitalism".

The question had nothing to do with free-market socialism and obviously such a thing could exist to a extent. Obviously you need capital to succeed in a free market it goes with out saying, its common knowledge one would assume. The initial argument still stands.

[QUOTE=consolecowboy;42186566]The question had nothing to do with free-market socialism and obviously such a thing could exist to a extent. Obviously you need capital to succeed in a free market it goes with out saying, its common knowledge one would assume. The initial argument still stands.[/QUOTE] Yes, you need capital to establish a firm in the market economy. But so what? Amazon.com was founded in a garage, as was Apple Computers. Microsoft made less than $20,000 in its first year and was founded by someone who had dropped out of university. Billabong Clothing was founded by someone who created surf clothes at home and sold them at local surf shops, and now sells all kinds of apparel all across the globe (I suppose that firm has not been going so well in recent years, I guess).

I don't see how grouping that do what they beggary to do to place makes someone "inflexible" as opposed to someone equivalent you that wants to run around doing rather nonmeaningful errands for NPC's. If you're actually into the tale of the quests, then you're probably author hardcore than any of us. If you could aid fewer about the lie, then you're truly not any divers from ppl repeatedly termination monsters. You're vindicatory doing repeating in a variant way...lengthways around from NPC to NPC You're starboard there with @Legwen on the ill rhythmicity. Seen you virtuous complain non-stop roughly this bunk. We are the safest, cheapest, most reliable [URL="http://www.ffxiv4gil.com"]Final Fantasy XIV Gil[/URL], who are interested to be supported Oh, Oh. If you don't like it, act to added MMO that has what you're perception for.....if you can experience one. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("spambot" - postal))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=consolecowboy;42186566]The question had nothing to do with free-market socialism and obviously such a thing could exist to a extent. Obviously you need capital to succeed in a free market it goes with out saying, its common knowledge one would assume. The initial argument still stands.[/QUOTE] Capital is easier to get these days than you think. We have crowdfunding, lending, bonds, stock markets, etc that somebody can use to startup a company. As mentioned earlier, companies can start from practically nothing as well. LEGO was originally a carpenters workshop in a Danish town. What determines success in the market is if people are actually wanting your product.

um... by the definitions of the OP id rather have a socialist society. also OP even here in A'merica the farming industry is very heavily regulated by the government to ensure the necessary productions and prices, and other industries like utilities are also very closely regulated to provide the necessities to everyone so ya its a good thing and even the largest bastion of capitalism is socialist by those definitions. we have the capabilities now, no man/woman/child should go hungry or live without access to water,food,electricity, and possibly the internet in this country, unfortunately there are those that do and we need to work to fix that, but why do we have to take socialist or capitalist. the best option is a mix of the two, where the market has some say in how the regulators work, instead of a top-down centralised system like what plagued the soviet union. I look to the private space industry as a model example, they are working side by side with the goverment agency that funds and controls them while they are competing against each other to lower launch barriers

[QUOTE=consolecowboy;42186039]There are two very different and completely opposite opinions. [I]Is a Free market system better then a socialist system?[/I] [B][U]Free Market[/U][/B] - An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. [B][U]Socialism[/U][/B] - A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated. In a free market world: Simple things like hospitals and medical care would be exploited by the people with the capital to...... places like court rooms would no longer be a place of impartial judging..... Police would be owned and government would be privatized.... A socialist system would insure our natural needs are taken care of and would regulate key industry to insure the power stays with the masses and not passed to individual corporations to monopolies the world. If we where completely free-market would there be a social welfare system like Australia has center-link ? In a free market world the wealthy remain wealthy and the poor can never raise the capital to compete, free-market sounds good if you already are filthy rich but for most of us a socialist structure would benefit the majority more.[/QUOTE] holy shit you got both the definition of free market and socialism wrong good job dude. free market: the price of goods are determined by supply and demand socialism: an economic system where production is controlled by the workers there is absolutely no contradiction between free market and socialism. and yea socialism is preferable to capitalism. workers shouldn't be alienated from their work or exploited.

You guys are watering down the definitions to both with only ten word sentences when in reality there are several branches and types of each, some get along, some don't. Capitalism and socialism are far more complex than what you guys are trying to simplify them to.

I'd infinitely prefer to live in a socialist system. Capitalism certainly isn't working for the vast majority of us, and we've seen that attempts to reform it are eventually overturned by the capitalist class. My definition of socialism probably differs from what a lot of people on FP (and IRL) think though. Rather than taking it to mean state-administered industry plus welfare state, I take it to mean a post-capitalist, classless society where the means of production is controlled solely by the workers.

[QUOTE=lil timmy;42204880]Capitalism certainly isn't working for the vast majority of us[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42205040]How?[/QUOTE] if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] If you live in the USA or Europe you could equally argue the same thing. Capitalism fucks [I]all[/I] workers, some more equally than others, if you'll pardon the allusion to Animal Farm. Considering that we as the working class produce everything and provide all services, we have a pretty rubbish deal in comparison to how hard we work. Without us, nothing could possibly be done - yet billions live in poverty and starvation. We produce more than enough food to sustain [U]everyone[/U] on earth - yet food is routinely destroyed to keep prices high - to prop up the profit margins of the capitalist class. And all this even [I]before[/I] you take in to account the erosion of worker benefits and rights and the stagnation of wages in the face of rising inflation.

This just in: Producers destroy their own goods to keep prices high! What the hell are you smoking? [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] If you live in China I'd probably say that you are far, far better off now than before the economic reforms of the 70's.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42207318]This just in: Producers destroy their own goods to keep prices high! What the hell are you smoking? [/QUOTE] Ever heard of a "crisis of overproduction"? The produce isn't always destroyed - often it's held in reserve until it's economical to release it again (assuming it's non-perishable) - but the point still stands, in a world where billions of people do not have enough to eat, food is destroyed or kept out of the market [I]simply so someone can make a fatter profit on it.[/I] [URL="http://www.aic.ca/sustainable/pdf/Food_Scarcity_A_Myth.pdf"]We grow enough food to feed the planet[/URL] and probably have done for some time - yet we are prevented from feeding people thanks to a system that demands profit at all costs. Also to the point, did you know that many farmers in the developed world are subsidised to leave some of their land fallow? Again, this is a measure to avoid overproduction and uneconomically low food prices, and it appears in the form of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Farm_Payment"]SFP[/URL] in Europe and [URL="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/09/usda-gives-millions-to-farmers-who-arent-actually-farming/"]USDA subsidies[/URL] in the USA.

[QUOTE=lil timmy;42208100]Ever heard of a "crisis of overproduction"?[/quote] You mean gluts? This has been a problem inherent to capitalism. Took until the Keynesians for them to figure out how to solve that. [quote]The produce isn't always destroyed - often it's held in reserve until it's economical to release it again (assuming it's non-perishable)[/quote] This doesn't make any sense. If you are overproducing, you scale back production. You don't just hold stuff in reserve because you think you can sell it off later. [quote]but the point still stands, in a world where billions of people do not have enough to eat, food is destroyed or kept out of the market [I]simply so someone can make a fatter profit on it.[/I][/quote] There's actually more obese people in the world than malnourished. [quote][URL="http://www.aic.ca/sustainable/pdf/Food_Scarcity_A_Myth.pdf"]We grow enough food to feed the planet[/URL] and probably have done for some time - yet we are prevented from feeding people thanks to a system that demands profit at all costs.[/quote] How would you distribute food to people? [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lil timmy;42206828]If you live in the USA or Europe you could equally argue the same thing. Capitalism fucks [I]all[/I] workers, some more equally than others, if you'll pardon the allusion to Animal Farm.[/quote] It was a good book, but you shouldn't be using it as a basis for an argument about economic policy. [quote]Considering that we as the working class produce everything and provide all services[/quote] We? What about working class people who don't want to be communists? [quote]we have a pretty rubbish deal in comparison to how hard we work.[/quote] Actually its due to the magical world of supply and demand. Jobs in high demand pay good wages. A massive supply of labour for easier jobs will naturally have lower wages because more people are competing for them. [quote]Without us, nothing could possibly be done - yet billions live in poverty and starvation. We produce more than enough food to sustain [U]everyone[/U] on earth - yet food is routinely destroyed to keep prices high - to prop up the profit margins of the capitalist class. And all this even [I]before[/I] you take in to account the erosion of worker benefits and rights and the stagnation of wages in the face of rising inflation.[/QUOTE] What? Since when did producers destroy their own products? [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] I'd prefer to live in them under capitalism than under communism.

[QUOTE=lil timmy;42208100]Ever heard of a "crisis of overproduction"? The produce isn't always destroyed - often it's held in reserve until it's economical to release it again (assuming it's non-perishable) - but the point still stands, in a world where billions of people do not have enough to eat, food is destroyed or kept out of the market [I]simply so someone can make a fatter profit on it.[/I] [URL="http://www.aic.ca/sustainable/pdf/Food_Scarcity_A_Myth.pdf"]We grow enough food to feed the planet[/URL] and probably have done for some time - yet we are prevented from feeding people thanks to a system that demands profit at all costs. Also to the point, did you know that many farmers in the developed world are subsidised to leave some of their land fallow? Again, this is a measure to avoid overproduction and uneconomically low food prices, and it appears in the form of the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Farm_Payment"]SFP[/URL] in Europe and [URL="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/09/usda-gives-millions-to-farmers-who-arent-actually-farming/"]USDA subsidies[/URL] in the USA.[/QUOTE] Several points: - Most products (including foods) are elastic in demand. That is, there is an inverse relationship between the price of a good and the quantity demanded. Considering food stuffs, if there is an increase in the price of apples, consumers may choose to eat something like bananas instead. The producer does not profit at all from increasing the price of a good that is elastic in demand. - We may grow enough food to feed the planet, but where does that go? Stuffed into the faces of the overweight and obese here in the first world. It's not that producers want to perform dirty tactics to maximise profit, it's that there is a high demand for food in the first world and they are only satisfying that demand like any business should. Don't blame the supplier, blame the consumer. Also there are issues of logistics, perishable goods such as fruit and vegetables produced here in the first world may not last long enough to be shipped across the world (where most starvation occurs). I'm not actually sure of this, but logistics is an issue nonetheless. - I looked at the links you've posted as well, only 0.15% of farms in the US that are subsidised are fallow, while yes 26% of subsidised farms received subsidies for certain crops while they were growing other crops. That is still an overwhelming majority of subsidised farms that are producing what they are being subsidised for, and if anything this is an issue of bureaucracy. Your argument has no base, and you obviously did not read your own links as you attempted to use them as arguments for your point of view.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42208152]We? What about working class people who don't want to be communists?[/QUOTE] False consciousness resulting from superstructural impositions by the bourgeoisie to the proletariats. Basically 'marxists-know-best'.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42208644]False consciousness resulting from superstructural impositions by the bourgeoisie to the proletariats. Basically 'marxists-know-best'.[/QUOTE] Sounds like the Marxist version of "people only reject Christianity because they want to sin." The ridiculous notion that the worker is actually an individual person is heavily frowned upon.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42208703]Sounds like the Marxist version of "people only reject Christianity because they want to sin." The ridiculous notion that the worker is actually an individual person is heavily frowned upon.[/QUOTE] It'd be more "people only reject Christianity because they are unaware of it" than what you propose. It leaves a lot to be desired though, you can factor individual agency into Marxism but it still suffers the same totalizing issues that any grand theory does. Defining everything through the social relations of production has a tendency to lump large swathes of people into collective bodies based upon one way of looking at society. Hence 'Marxists-know-best', it's paternalistic.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42208644]False consciousness resulting from superstructural impositions by the bourgeoisie to the proletariats. Basically 'marxists-know-best'.[/QUOTE] Oh jesus, I hate that. Could write pages about how pretentious they are. No wonder they fail so hard and their ideas can never be applied: they are not congruent (ironically) with reality [QUOTE]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you [/QUOTE] Could not have been more wrong... Africa-east asia, maybe, but LATAM? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42208152] If you are overproducing, you scale back production. You don't just hold stuff in reserve because you think you can sell it off later.[/QUOTE] Scaling back production is true, but holding reserves to distort the market is also true. [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] Nah. It's the other way around if you are East Asian, you are fucking the Western free-traders so good.

[QUOTE=redhaven;42211892]Scaling back production is true, but holding reserves to distort the market is also true.[/QUOTE] Yes, but it's difficult to hold reserves of many types of goods. Electronic goods and perishable foods are clear examples. Many models of computers, televisions, and mobile phones become obsolete quite quickly, so holding them in reserve will have you risking them becoming obsolete. As for foodstuffs, they eventually rot, or require storage in warehouses using costly refrigeration. Land is valuable as well, along with transport, so the idea that capitalists hold goods in reserve and deliberately mess with the markets is untrue, simply because it wouldn't make economic sense. Businessmen want money. [QUOTE=redhaven;42211892]Nah. It's the other way around if you are East Asian, you are fucking the Western free-traders so good.[/quote] We are doing good from the deal as well. We get cheap products, and we can engage in service industries a lot more now. There are more hairdressers, entertainers, writers, musicians, computer programmers, games designers, etc than ever before.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] And socialism has fucked Venezuela, which is *GASP* in Latin America Pure socialism doesn't works. Capitalism mixed with socialist ideas (Social programs, mostly) is a better choice than pure capitalism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42205807]if you live in africa, latin america, or east asia, capitalism has basically fucked you[/QUOTE] these undeveloped regions actually tend to have much more rapidly growing economies than developed countries because they can copy technology.

[QUOTE=fork in brain;42227673]these undeveloped regions actually tend to have much more rapidly growing economies than developed countries because they can copy technology.[/QUOTE] No. Because they had a lot of unused labour which is now being used, as capitals move from developed countries -where labour is costlier- to less developed countries -where labour is cheaper-. And because the things they produce and sell are in great demand. China is now the world's workshop (for cheap and basic stuff) and LATAM is the world's granary. We have been able to sustain our protectionism and state plans thanks in part of the soja, at 500U$S a ton. Chinese technology is light years away from american or european. The only advantage they are having so far is, as I have previously said, a lot of unused labour. As they catch up and start having more of the population employed, capitals will either try to maximize benefits/gains by either implementing new technology or laying off people. Then they will either seek for a new place or keep their business there. I do believe Africa is the next big workshop of the world, once states are consolidated and civil wars/tribe wars end once and for all, they will start seeing an influx of capitals. China got them also because the strong presence of the state meant their interests would be safeguarded. If you had to choose between building your factory in a place where a random group can come and ransack the shit out of you and kill everyone or building it in a place where you will have armed guards, tanks, and police protecting it....where would you choose?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42229196]No. Because they had a lot of unused labour which is now being used, as capitals move from developed countries -where labour is costlier- to less developed countries -where labour is cheaper-. And because the things they produce and sell are in great demand. China is now the world's workshop (for cheap and basic stuff) and LATAM is the world's granary. We have been able to sustain our protectionism and state plans thanks in part of the soja, at 500U$S a ton. Chinese technology is light years away from american or european. The only advantage they are having so far is, as I have previously said, a lot of unused labour. As they catch up and start having more of the population employed, capitals will either try to maximize benefits/gains by either implementing new technology or laying off people. Then they will either seek for a new place or keep their business there. I do believe Africa is the next big workshop of the world, once states are consolidated and civil wars/tribe wars end once and for all, they will start seeing an influx of capitals. China got them also because the strong presence of the state meant their interests would be safeguarded. If you had to choose between building your factory in a place where a random group can come and ransack the shit out of you and kill everyone or building it in a place where you will have armed guards, tanks, and police protecting it....where would you choose?[/QUOTE] Wasn't referring to just china most undeveloped countries have GDP growth rates of over at least 3% on average as long as they have government stability whereas the typical developed country has around 3% GDP growth or less. Wages in China are already getting to the point where the chinese are outsourcing jobs.