14 replies to this topic

[Ives]

For or against?

Of course, I'm a libertarian, so I'm for. But I do agree with the ideas of Milton Friedman and monetarism when it comes to the government keeping inflation and spending steady. I'm not anarcho-capitalist, but I do laissez-faire is probably the best system to have. People criticise it citing the Depression, but the Depression seemed to be more of negligence of the Federal Reserve to do their job when the market crash and prevent it from escalating to what it did.

[Melchoire]

Meh, it works so I guess I'm for it. And I agree with the depression bit: with the way economy was going about after the war it was bound to happen.

[Waser Lave]

Meh, it works so I guess I'm for it. And I agree with the depression bit: with the way economy was going about after the war it was bound to happen.

Works for who?

Capitalism is inherently flawed with severe inequality, corruption, monopolisation and it's prone to booms and crashes, but at the moment I can't see any reasonable alternative to it. I disagree with free trade because of these problems with capitalism so a regulated capitalist economy is the only one which makes sense for me at the moment to at least make some attempt to address the issues. Fair trade > Free trade imo.

And DOWN WITH THE WTO!

[Akira]

Meh...I know very little about economics, but I do know that good ideas don't always equate to good overall. For example, Communism is considered the best form of government, but ever since Hitler...well, Communism isn't really smiled at.

Even if something works, government tends to be corrupt, or in most cases, stupid when it comes down to money. So, even if a good system is developed, it will probably be utterly ruined by some asshole up at the top wanting a new car. I would think that the only real way to be successful would be to prevent the government from interfering with the economy, no matter what, and if they try to get their money-grubbing hands on it, we shoot 'em. Simple as that.

[Melchoire]

Works for who?

Capitalism is inherently flawed with severe inequality, corruption, monopolisation and it's prone to booms and crashes, but at the moment I can't see any reasonable alternative to it. I disagree with free trade because of these problems with capitalism so a regulated capitalist economy is the only one which makes sense for me at the moment to at least make some attempt to address the issues. Fair trade > Free trade imo.

And DOWN WITH THE WTO!

I didn't say it was perfect but some of the most advanced nations are capitalist (USA, Canada, France, Germany, England etc..)Considering the problems that arise from other forms of economies I'd capitalism is the best one; in the sense that the other ones cannot be handled properly and are prone to corruption. A communist nation may be promising but they rely on the common man and a leader to control them. If corruption takes place in a communist nation it's consequences are more dire and more widespread then corruption that takes place in a capitalist nation.

[Waser Lave]

I didn't say it was perfect but some of the most advanced nations are capitalist (USA, Canada, France, Germany, England etc..)Considering the problems that arise from other forms of economies I'd capitalism is the best one; in the sense that the other ones cannot be handled properly and are prone to corruption. A communist nation may be promising but they rely on the common man and a leader to control them. If corruption takes place in a communist nation it's consequences are more dire and more widespread then corruption that takes place in a capitalist nation.

But most of the richest countries (including USA and the UK) didn't actually use the current capitalist system which they promote to get rich. In the UK and USA this form of capitalism was only introduced in the 1980s under the Reagan and Thatcher regimes. So is it fair to force developing nations to use this 'free trade' economic model (which is what the IMF does under the guise of loans) when the world's richest countries didn't use it? Or are they just forced to do it to free up their borders for multinational corporations (the vast majority of which are based in the US, EU and Japan) to move in and take advantage of their resources?

[Sasha]

For example, Communism is considered the best form of government, but ever since Hitler...well, Communism isn't really smiled at.

That was Nazism. There are differences between nazism and communism. When communism appeared, it claimed to free the world from nazism.

Anyway, I'm for capitalism. Of course it's got its flaws, but people have got to stop thinking of "perfect" social systems. That has only led to disasters.

[Akira]

That was Nazism. There are differences between nazism and communism. When communism appeared, it claimed to free the world from nazism.

Anyway, I'm for capitalism. Of course it's got its flaws, but people have got to stop thinking of "perfect" social systems. That has only led to disasters.

True that it was Nazism, but Communism became demonized after WWII, and the Soviet didn't help out too much with that, either. Just like how capitalism is demonized because of the depression.

Everyone wants that perfect system, but sadly, nothing can ever be perfect, so long as someone wants to get something that they can't have.

[Nick]

Considering the majority of people on this forum are from countries run via capitalism there really should be no one saying they are against it. I'm sure most of you go out every day and purchase grocies, eat at restaurants, buy shoes, clothes. Also, with capitalism we are able to control the market so that there isn't one company monopolizing a certain good. If there was only one distributer of vegetables then they'd have complete control over the pricing and supply. Would you really want that?

And if not capitalism, what? Communism? Well, we've all seen how that turns out. Honestly, I think that the people arguing against capitalism need to stop trying to be rebels against society and wake up to the reality that capitalism is beneficial and necessary to the lifestyle they've developed.

[Melchoire]

But most of the richest countries (including USA and the UK) didn't actually use the current capitalist system which they promote to get rich. In the UK and USA this form of capitalism was only introduced in the 1980s under the Reagan and Thatcher regimes. So is it fair to force developing nations to use this 'free trade' economic model (which is what the IMF does under the guise of loans) when the world's richest countries didn't use it? Or are they just forced to do it to free up their borders for multinational corporations (the vast majority of which are based in the US, EU and Japan) to move in and take advantage of their resources?

Even if they only introduced this form of capitalism in the 80's it hasn't stopped working has it? The nations are still thriving. As for the developing countries; I also don't think it's fair to force them to use it. The nations are already ravaged by debts and poverty so capitalism wouldn't be the best choice. But that doesn't rule out capitalism for developing nations entirely. Take Botswana for examples, it's located in Southern Africa and surrounded by developing countries but it's capitalist economy is growing at 9% per year. It used to be one of the poorest countries in the world and now it's a middle income nation. There are several factors that seperate it from other undeveloped countries (diamonds) but it is largely due to it's form of economy.

Edited by FlashGM, 27 August 2007 - 01:49 PM.

[Ives]

The greatest example of non-interventionist capitalism working today is Hong Kong. Hong Kong was extremely poor, one of the poorest in East Asia during the 20s, 30s, and 40s. However, once they did install a capitalist system the country has gone from being one of the lowest in per capita to the sixth highest. And its still growing steadily today. One of the main reasons for this is economic freedom. You can start a business there in a day, which is great for workers. While people will point to Sweden and other countries that take to social democracy as being extremely successful, the key lies in the population. The less people, the more collective goals you have (which is why Iceland is perhaps the only country which has worked in borderline anarchy), and the more cooperative the people are to work for the system. With a free market, however, theres all the more incentive and people are more than willing to pitch in. It also results in far more technology advancements because of the fact theres far more incentive to do things if money is involved. In regards to other countries, its the reason why I'm a libertarian and not a conservative. Forcing countries to conform to any sort of democracy is against the idea of democracy itself. While it is one thing to intervene in the case of genocide (which, in my opinion, is a human crisis and should be prevented), its another to intervene somewhere to force democracy or capitalism. Freedom is more likely to come if you can make an example of it through success. Obviously sometimes it wont happen (for example, Venezuela), but anecdote is pretty much all that is needed, although Socialism and other systems CAN work in small populations, moderation, and more of a Lenin approach to it.

Edited by Athean, 27 August 2007 - 03:28 PM.

[Akira]

True, I mean, look at how well off China is now! Now they can put lead in our toys and poison in our food! Honestly, I think that 'well off' shouldn't be defined by how much crap you can pawn off at cheap prices. I think a country is doing good when they don't have to rip off their friends in order to make money.

[Ives]

China seems to lean towards leninist authoritarian ideas with a hint of growing opposition to communism, but capitalism cant thrive in an authoritarian environment.

[redlion]

China seems to lean towards leninist authoritarian ideas with a hint of growing opposition to communism, but capitalism cant thrive in an authoritarian environment.

They're pretty much looking the other way while capitalism takes over. They just got private property rights this past year, and their private companies have been doing extremely well (thanks in part to the impossibly low value of the yuan), almost to the point that I'd look for a recession soon.

[Ives]

Private property rights kinda make it uncommist though. XD

Still, big government = big breach. India is in a better position right now, but I do know that if China DOES let hong kong stay the way it is 40 years from now, it will probably vert to laissez-faire. Right now its leaning towards social democracy or democratic socialism.