btw I'm a Socialist (slightly), since I enjoy socialist practices like free health care.
interesting debate encouraged. shitposting discouraged.

god bless.

Having studied Economics I'm more into Capitalism. Privatisation is beneficial to the economy; the problem lies that in a fully competitive market, the economy can be very volatile. Smaller firms can be pushed out of business by larger firms so the argument that privatisation creates more jobs can be denied as firms get pushed out of the market. Because of that, mixed economies are more beneficial; certain things just cannot be privatised and must be supplied by the government instead. Other markets such as transport markets like buses and railways which have inelastic PED are best off being run by the government rather than being privatised.

The whole western world is run by capitalism.

You can't really go one way or the other entirely, but ideally you want to cycle between the two so you go in a cycle of splurging and biding to adapt to the ever-changing market. There'll be times when one is more effective than the other, though mixed economies will always be more prevalent.

Ideally, you ALWAYS want Communism over Capitalism, BUT since humans are humans and are NEVER going to be equal, no matter what, I vote for Capitalism over anything. Communism can't be achieved, like I said, and Socialism is not fair in the least, since someone who worked their ass off should NEVER have as much as a lazy mongrel.

Serbia went through Socialism, and look at what happened. My family, which honestly worked for generations to achieve a high both social and financial status got utterly devastated by the Socialist regime and ended up having the SAME as families and individuals who didn't work for shit to get what they got.

I like the opportunistic reality of Capitalism, where each and every individual gets a chance at becoming something, and if they fail, well, tough luck mate.

Meritocracy is how it should always be. It really pisses me off when I hear some places pay women more than men, because they find that men generally earn more, therefore the only explanation of this gap must be sexism and patriarchy.

in a perfect world i would vote for socialism. unfortunately we dont live in a perfect world so it's just not going to work.

I should've added a 'Mixed' option.
Can a moderator do that for me? Thanks

B1rd wrote:

Meritocracy is how it should always be. It really pisses me off when I hear some places pay women more than men, because they find that men generally earn more, therefore the only explanation of this gap must be sexism and patriarchy.

Ok fedora boi, how is the gender gap or gender at all related to the topic of economic theory?
I really, really just wanted a topic purely on economics thanks.

Yo I'm the only one who voted for capitalism wtf; Aurani where you at?

I didn't see the poll, lel.

But yeah, let's rape those Socialist dreamers!
As a student of business economy: fuck ye boys

Aurani wrote:

But yeah, let's rape those Socialist dreamers!
As a student of business economy: fuck ye boys

Yeeeeee boooiiiiz; no one gives a fuck about others well being. Get money, get rich.

They're both bad. Capitalism encourages oligarchies, a large gap between poor and rich, unsustainable use of natural resources and the environment etc. Socialism restricts personal freedom, and isn't an effective way to run an economy. There's a reason why first world countries are capitalist.

Yes, both still end up feeding off the poor citizens, BUT, Capitalism suits the nature of man more.

There is a reason every nation in Eastern Europe failed at building Communism - it's simply not possible, and Socialism, as a step towards Communism, is downright sickening with its restrictions.

One thing that DID come out as an immediate consequence of Socialism is the attitude in people. Call me biased, but I prefer much more down-to-earth women, rather than gold-diggers. Most women from Eastern Europe stem from poor families, and look more for love and companionship, than money.

You will find those kind of women in West, too, but not even in CLOSE numbers. They are simply not modest and are so obsessed with living with a good financial status, that they'd mostly cast love aside to save their asses.

That's ONE thing I'll give to Socialism - it attempts to remove the material possession temptation, albeit by force, so people who end up with nothing as a result lead much simpler and honest lives, compared to people living in Capitalism.

HOWEVER, I still vote for Capitalism, as it suits the vile nature of man more, even if just a bit, than Socialism does, and it's not even fair to compare those two economically.
As someone who got to live in both Socialism AND Capitalism (though mostly transit), I can safely say that Capitalism, while completely full of efficiency holes, is STILL light years more advanced than Socialism, that it's b-not even funny.

There, I gave my opinion on both the psychological and economic effect those two have.

That is a nice insight on the benefits of socialism. I will also add that a socialist economy cannot be achieved without first having a successful capitalist economy. Take Africa for example; they can't satisfy the needs of their people because they're too poor and have too much poverty. All LDCs strive for capitalsim; the fact that we're in a global recession I would say is due to the fact that the Western developed countries are moving slightly onto socialism by trying to aid these LDCs. Economic-wise, capitalism far outclasses socialism.

Im with Aurani here, sorta.
I do think that in a ideal world socialism, if not even communism would be preffered, everyone working equally as much, working for the general betterment of everyone and in turn reciving the best possible as does everyone else. However this wont happen, we're not in a ideal world, egoism is a thing and people work for their own betterment first before the betterment of everyone.
Either has its advantages and disadvantages, capitalism as example has a driving force of doing better than others, if you can offer superior service/products you'll prosper and florish, a incentive to work hard and be innovative. Which i belive ultimatively helps with advancement of technology and such. Socialism has no such incentive, you'll always recive the same as everyone else, unless you actually make a groundbreaking discovery in which case everyones live improves a bit.
Socialisms advantage is of course, with everyone reciving the same threatment nobody will have to suffer unfairly, im mainly reffering to the weak and disabled here. Under capitalism these people have the short end of the stick, being unable to compete as much (if at all even) with only a few people caring for them.

Overall, i belive a mixed system is best, certain things such as infrastructure, mobility and healthcare or education as example should be on equal grounds and free for everyone ensuring that everyone, irregardless of any possible aliments has a chance of learning and becoming successful in a field of their choice. To provide a example, someone born a cripple, from a poor family wont be able to contribute or compete much under a purely capitalist system. They need education which needs money. Money comes from work of course, but being unable to afford the high level education for non labor jobs (which they cant do thanks to nonfunctional limbs) they cant get a job they can efficently do, nor are they able to afford transportation to the workplace.
I belive the right mix of socialism and capitalism can stop these cases by giving these people access to certain things, resulting in more people being able to work efficently while keeping most of capitalisms advantages due its competive nature.

I agree with that.

On a deeper level, I think not because socialism and capitalism are flawed, but the way they are implemented. The Western world is considerably biased on consuming products, while the eastern side (where I hail from; #immigrantstatus) depends mostly on the production of goods to live. IMO I would say the West is wracked with consumerism, and the rest of the world patiently tugs along. Yes innovation also happens in these First World countries, but R&D consumes more materials than the rest of the world could keep up with, if not simply just wasting away.

On a more down-to-earth level, has anyone seen transportation services compete before? I have, and it was horrid. Traffic jams in the Philippines are freakishly hectic when buses, jeepneys (humvees converted for civilian use) and tricycles (motorbikes with side cars) compete for the same road, much less taxis and rail transport. I appreciate having the TTC and GO services here in Toronto, despite being shitty and all, as at least they're integrated into the city infrastructure rather than competing for customers.

If anyone wants the worst case scenario for capitalism, go to the Philippines. Everyone literally competes there to the point that each house has its own convenience store.

I like the NHS

An interesting take on capitalism: