Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or other..which works best?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by GeniusNProgress, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Spectrum: A house in a year I might be able to do while growing my own food and perhaps making a few clothes to wear.
    I would have trouble building my computer from scratch without buying the motherboard, CPU, et cetera. If I did manage to build the computer, I would also have to build a wind or solar powered generator for the electricity. Maybe a hand cranked generator and a battery would provide enough power for a computer. Building a car from scratch is a big job. I do not htink I woudl even try.

    BTW: I never worked a lifetime for a house. I paid mine off in about 20 years and managed to spend my salary on various other things.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    On the objective of efficiency:

    Feudalism was highly efficient in ancient times. You cannot use that argument to defend capitalism forever.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Facial: Feudalism efficient? I never heard that one before.
    I think it is an excellent argument, good forever. Many of the put downs of capitalism involve comparing early capitalism with 20th century wages & working conditions, while a comparison with feudalism would be more appropriate, since that is the system replaced by capitalism.

    Note that the US & some European countries operated under a good approximation to laissez Faire capitalism for about 150-300 years ending some time between 1890 and 1940 (there is controversy on the timing). By 1900, the average person had a standard of living and material wealth unheard of during the Feudal era.

    The improvement in the life of the average man was very much due to the activities of the so called Robber Barons maligned by the academic community and many modern politicians.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. bandwidthbandit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    55
    I think our version of Capatialism, with some Government regulation to act as a check on corporate/private power, in the US works pretty good. At least at producing wealth. Unfortunately the richest 1% own something like 90% of it. I wish we could find a better way of distributing it more evenly without the state getting involved like Communism tries but fails to do.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I basically agree with this, but note a bias in it and most posts here.

    That is, the standard for "best" seems to be how many cars in the garage etc. I.e. the "wealth index" is measured in material goods. A good one, if you are not well feed or lack medical care, etc. Then this is the appropriate yard stick to measure your progress by, but once a reasonable level of material convenience is achieved, we move into a system of values and frame of mind that begins to buy $16,000 shower curtains, etc. to show how successful we are. This is nonsense.

    At that point the index of success should change to one that values the world we leave to our grand children, and how well we offer them their education.

    With this standard, the US is a third rate country, at best. US does not care to join in Koyoto agreement , or worry about its rape of the Earth to drive SUVs, grossly under funds public transit and makes education opportunities depend upon accident of birth, yet wants rest of world to do as it says, etc.

    Not much to admire in current US attitudes or hold up to our grandchildren as a “success“, when they will not be able to pay the debt we are placing on them to enjoy these foolish “essentials.”

    PS, by edit: Too bad the "pale faces" had the guns and the "red skins" had mainly bow and arrows. The "red skins," with some technological progress, imported if need be, would have instilled a better culture that respected the Earth etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2005
  9. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    How the hell can someone have too much material wealth? I can understand that you can make do in relative comfort after reaching some minimum of wealth but more never hurts. Ideally I would be living in a castle carved out of solid marble and encircled by a half mile of labrynth and enclosed gardens, easily accessable only by a single causeway. Its just not going to happen, but thats the ideal.

    The reason we haven't agreed to the Kyoto accord is that our leaders are afraid that the restrictions will make everyone suffer. Higher gas prices, higher electricity prices, more expensive consumer goods, and overall increased economic friction. The gears of progress would keep turning but they would have less grease helping them along.
     
  10. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Too much of a good thing. Too much sugar rots your teeth. Too much fat and you become overweight. Too much money and you lose your soul.
     
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    If you are not just spouting stupid nonsense, please explain how:

    (1) Reducing the use of petroleum (lower demand for it) results in "higher gas prices."

    (2) Improved end-use efficiency (especially in electric motors) which can reduce fossil energy consumption (and the associated CO2 emmission) by 10 times the energy saved in the motor when loses in transformers, distribution system, generators (both steam and electric), conversion of heat energy to electric energy, and the combustion of the fossil (stack heat losses, incomplete burning, ash removal trucks, etc.) are considered* can result in "higher electricity prices."

    (3) Why the many large corporations, which have already save billions* of dollars by increased energy efficiency would lose money by doing more of the same and need to rase prices of "consumer goods."

    (4) How the above results in "increased economic friction." (Except for lower profits of the oil industry and its ex-CEOs, like George Bush, who run the country on oil for their benefit, not the people's etc.)
    ____________________________________
    *See September Scientific American Amory Lovings and several other articles for more detail on these savings (both dollars and energy) cited above. Also see my posts here that show you could run your car on alcohol more cheaply than on gas from oil with a reduction in atmosphereic CO2 as all in the alcohol came from the air but only a small fraction goes back when the alcohol is used as fuel (much of the sugar cane is used a cattle food.) Again following Koyto can save both dollars and the environment with a net increase in jobs.

    YOUR POST IS PURE IGNORANCE with no factual support.
     
  12. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    1) Reducing the use of petroleum will almost always involve tariffs and an increase of other sorts of taxation for the substance to make it less desireable for the consumer. Its the same thing they did for cigarettes over here in America and already did for gasoline in Europe.

    2)I think you are being too optimistic in the results. Hybrid cars are more expensive to manufacture and any savings in gas money would take longer than the expected life of the car to accumulate. Pureblood electric cars are still notoriously short ranged and tempermental. Hell, we haven't even found an economical way to contain hydrogen yet. Running a car on booze might work fine, after all the first car did the same. But the cost in changing over the entire nation's infrastructure would be staggering. It will probably happen eventually all on its own given time... and probably a lot less painfully.

    This is also going to effect power plants, factories, and half the other things in America.

    3) The Kyoto accord is about literally forcing companies to take such measures, should they be feasable for them or not. You can be damned sure that every company that stands to make money by enacting such measures already has. Kyoto would therefore be mainly affecting those who would stand to make a loss. And this, of course, means that they will be passing the costs onto people like us.

    4) More taxation and mandated construction projects means higher prices for consumers and less money goes out to the workforce. Products shipped to other manufacturers or even retailers will be of inflated price and they will be bleeding from that too. Everyone tightens their belts, less money switches hands, and overall economic growth falls through the roof.

    And, as to your Bush comment, screw you.

    I would be a lot less hesitant with the Kyoto accord if it didn't seem designed to put us at an unequal footing with developing powers. It seems designed to put a much bigger crimp in our economy than, lets say, China.
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    True it can be done by making gasoline more expensive, but I am not suggesting that, I suggest switching to a cheaper fuel, like alcohol imported (instead of oil) from tropical countries. US tariffs and quotas are currently preventing this so a few politically well-connected can profit by making you pay more to drive, taxes to support the subsides, etc.
    Alcohol comes from sugar. US growers are inefficient (especially in frozen Iowa) mainly with corn and beets but these growers contribute "big time" to campaigns that keep the oil industry ex-CEOs elected so you get to pay higher taxes to support their "farm subsidies" and to pay more to drive your car on gas. Vote again to keep the oil company's men in office, keep your tariff walls, pay taxes for inefficient producers of sugar and alcohol only as a gas additive, drive at higher cost per mile, etc. - I.e. show how intelligent you are.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here in Brazil the cost of alcohol has gone up a little - it is now about 55% of that of gasoline and we have 30years of experience with alcohol power cars.

    I said nothing about this. I strongly oppose hydrogen as it is a negative net fuel source and really would cost a lot to convert to.
    No "might" about - it has for 30 years. New motors are made all the time (68% of the new cars in Brazil sold last month have the new "flex fuel" motor that can burn any ratio/ mix of alcohol and gas.) Last time I looked, these cars also had four wheels, brakes, doors, etc. -just like your car. The motors even look exactly the same as in gas only cars. I do not know what is different except there is a fuel-mix sensor and think the computer controlling the fuel injectors may have a modified program that uses this fuel sensor information - big deal! I.e. not much different to "cost a lot to convert to." All the major car companies know how to make alcohol cars, so no development costs. Only political costs for those oil CEOs now in power, so I guess you are right - It will take many years.

    Wrong again. It is up to each government to decide how to met the targets, perhaps even by buying carbon credits or planting trees etc. Not one company is "forced" by Koyoto agreement. Each society determines how best to reduce CO2 and several other pollution sources.

    What are you talking about? I said nothing like this. Read the Scientific American Sept05 issue and you will understand that everyone will benefit, but as you seem to like to pay higher taxes to have the privilege of paying more to drive your car, perhaps you will also fail to understand that those now in control are you problem, not Koyoto accord.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2005
  14. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I object to unsupported statements like the following.
    I have known of and encountered wealthy people who were far more admirable than some poor pius religious types who allegedly still have their souls.

    Why do some people think it is evil to be rich?
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I certainly do not. I want to be "rich & good" and also "good & rich". Who are you quoting? Was it a post in this thread?
     
  16. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Billy T: It was Roman, about 6-8 posts back (Part bolded by me).
    I suspect that jealousy motivates those who put down the rich just for being rich.

    Many years ago I had a colleague who was a member of Mensa. He invited me to a meeting, suggesting that I take an IQ test and join. Perhaps other chapters of that organizaiton are different, but I wanted no part of that particular Mensa group. I never joined any group and have often wondered if I would have qualified.

    All were intelligent as you would expect. 45% of the conversation was complaints or musings about why they were not rich. 45% was about why the rich were no good rotten bastards. 10% was interesting conversation.

    Jealousy & envy are sorry character traits. About 15 years after graduation, one of my classmates made the cover of Time Magazine for winning two Tony awards. On Alumni day, I was enthused about his success. Most of my classmates made remarkds like:
    I would rather have somebody I know make it big than a stranger, but I guess others think exactly the opposite way.
     
  17. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    You would think that they would be smart enough to argue about how to get rich.
     
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Eh? Capitalism laissez-faire? Where?


    Eeeeeeeeehhhh?!!?!!??!?!?!?!???

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    :bugeye:

    Oh! Wow! Let's beg the question, shall we?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Ahhh... yeeeeah. Take a look at the top countries. They have minimal poverty and maximum wellness. Sounds like a pretty good measure to me. :bugeye:

    Yaba Daba! :m:
     
  20. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Getting rich is very easy!

    First of all, you break all international laws and invade a country full of oil.
    Second, you make excuses and pretend that you are doing it for "national security" reasons.

    Pretty simple.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    ...
    :bugeye:
    .
    .
    .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Two out of three ain't bad, but you did forget rule three:
    Three: Make sure your daddy is in a position to get you a deferment or position that assures you don't need to do any of the dangerous invading. :bugeye:
     
  22. okayillgonow Productive-Industrialist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    The reasons I advocate Socialism are because Socialism grants ownership of the means of production to workers. As a result, unlike capitalism, labor, not capital, needs to accumulate for the size of an economy to grow. I am also an advocate of socialism because, when every worker's an owner of the means of production, Socialism becomes genuine free enterprise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    THOU
    SHALT
    NOT
    COMMITETH
    THREAD
    NECROMANCY!!!

    Thus Sayeth the Prince!!!​
     

Share This Page