• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which economic system is the best to you?

Which system is best?

  • Total voters
    47
cpgrad08 said:
Which Economic system to you is the best for a society?
Click to expand...

I favor a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, favoring the Capitalism side more. I don't think either system really works great on its own as a 'pure' system. They're both too easily abusable.
 
scatt said:
A spill means pure, unregulated, capitalism?
Click to expand...

You are obviously ignorant of the environmental record of companies operating in nations without environmental protections / enforcement. That was one of thousands of spills like that in Nigeria. The same companies make every attempt to avoid spills here are the same companies that leave environmental destruction in their wake in countries that lack environmental enforcement. The same companies that adhere to labor laws here are many times the same companies that operate sweatshops in countries that lack labor laws. If you don't see the need for market regulation, some labor laws, and environmental protections in a market economy then you are ignorant of the history of unregulated capitalism.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
You are obviously ignorant of the environmental record of companies operating in nations without environmental protections / enforcement. That was one of thousands of spills like that in Nigeria. The same companies make every attempt to avoid spills here are the same companies that leave environmental destruction in their wake in countries that lack environmental enforcement. The same companies that adhere to labor laws here are many times the same companies that operate sweatshops in countries that lack labor laws. If you don't see the need for market regulation, some labor laws, and environmental protections in a market economy then you are ignorant of the history of unregulated capitalism.
Click to expand...

To believe that the company prefers spills is to say you are ignorant of everything. This if course is a moot point since Nigerians literally create those spills themselves quite often. State intervention, which Nigeria has, is not capitalism.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Lincoln killed no one.
Click to expand...

That is what starting and maintaining a civil war is.
 
scatt said:
To believe that the company prefers spills is to say you are ignorant of everything. This if course is a moot point since Nigerians literally create those spills themselves quite often. State intervention, which Nigeria has, is not capitalism.
Click to expand...

If it is less expensive for a company to not implement a pollution control or other environmental protection measures, then absent a regulation requiring them to do so, they won't do it. There are no shareholder revolts demanding worker protections or environmental protections. Frankly, I can't even see how you would argue that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If it is less expensive for a company to not implement a pollution control or other environmental protection measure, then absent a regulation requiring them to do so, they won't do it. There are no shareholder revolts demanding worker protections or environmental protections. Frankly, I can't even see how you would argue that.
Click to expand...

Except that "pollution control" (pipeline guarding since the Nigerians cause the spills themselves quite often) is not actually pollution control.
 
scatt said:
Except that "pollution control" (pipeline guarding since the Nigerians cause the spills themselves quite often) is not actually pollution control.
Click to expand...

I am talking about in general. If you don't like my rhetorical example, then fine. In general do you agree or disagree with this statement:

If it is less expensive for a company to not implement a pollution control or other environmental protection measure, then absent a regulation requiring them to do so, they won't do it. There are no shareholder revolts demanding worker protections or environmental protections.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am talking about in general. If you don't like my rhetorical example, then fine. In general do you agree or disagree with this statement:

If it is less expensive for a company to not implement a pollution control or other environmental protection measure, then absent a regulation requiring them to do so, they won't do it. There are no shareholder revolts demanding worker protections or environmental protections.
Click to expand...

Secure property means thinking far ahead, unsecure property means thinking very shortly ahead.
 
A system in which:
  • All means of production are privately owned.
  • All transfers of property titles (except as noted below regarding taxes) are voluntary and consensual.
  • The government's ONLY legitimate function is protecting person, property, and individual liberty.
  • Government intervention in the economy consist ONLY of resolving disputes between individuals over violations of person, property, and individual liberty.
  • The government may tax (transfer ownership of goods to itself) in order to fulfill this duty only.
  • Taxes are forbidden to be collected for any other purpose.
 
Regulated capitalism with wealth distribution
 
Mixed - regulated capitalism and socialism.
 
NoC_T said:
No, not 'fully. At all. Ever. We had Socialism for the briefest flicker of time. That's as close as anyone ever got.

It comes down, as per usual, to throwing around definitions with no knowledge of the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Why do communist always say that Communism has never happen in the world before?
 
cpgrad08 said:
Why do communist always say that Communism has never happen in the world before?
Click to expand...
Do you find it inconvenient?

I'm not a Communist, btw.
 
NoC_T said:
Do you find it inconvenient?

I'm not a Communist, btw.
Click to expand...

No I find it silly that they deny so that don't have to accept the fact the communist is doomed to fail.
 
cpgrad08 said:
What is your version of wealth distribution?
Click to expand...

government lead, like we have now. but if were up to me, there would be many more restrictions on how its used so it wouldn't be a way of life. If people were on welfare in my world, they would be working for it.
 
Capitalism offers everyone a piece of the pie if they are willing to make an effort
 
cpgrad08 said:
Why do communist always say that Communism has never happen in the world before?
Click to expand...
At a country scale it never has. Many tribes are communist (small 'c') except for outside dealings.


The words Communism and Communist (capitalized) generally refers to various types of socialism that have been tried, the USSR and China, for example. They were/are not communist.
 
scatt said:
That is what starting and maintaining a civil war is.
Click to expand...

No, actually it isn't. Firstly, Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. Assuming he did would be historical revisionism. Secondly, there were MANY who had a hand in the the deaths of Americans in the Civil War... including many on BOTH sides of the war. Again, any assumption contrary to that is historical revisionism.
 
Why only 2 choices? I say 2 because economically, socialism and communism are the same. The primary difference between the two is social/government structure, not economics.

There are also:

Closed Market Capitalism
Corporatism
Regulated Capitalism

Probably quite a few others.

Personally, I prefer competitive, lightly regulated, open-market capitalism.
 
Rocketman said:
Capitalism offers everyone a piece of the pie if they are willing to make an effort
Click to expand...
Yup. Enough effort to win and set the rules. Or is there someone, e.g. a referee, that sets the rules. I can make Capitalism work for me if I get to set the rules. Otherwise, I'll keep what I've got.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yup. Enough effort to win and set the rules. Or is there someone, e.g. a referee, that sets the rules. I can make Capitalism work for me if I get to set the rules. Otherwise, I'll keep what I've got.
Click to expand...

The rules of capitalism are fixed:

  • The means of production are privately owned.
  • Transfers of property titles are voluntary.
  • The government's function is protecting the person property and individual liberty of every citizen.

Those are the rules. If anyone makes up other rules, then it isn't capitalism; it's something else.
 
Federalist said:
The rules of capitalism are fixed:

  • The means of production are privately owned.
  • Transfers of property titles are voluntary.
  • The government's function is protecting the person property and individual liberty of every citizen.

Those are the rules. If anyone makes up other rules, then it isn't capitalism; it's something else.
Click to expand...
That's not just capitalism, it's destructive capitalism. That system will eat it's citizenry alive.
 
2 other communists? where are you brothers! allow me to share my potato :lol:

But on a serious note I was completely unaware there are any other communists since it's rather uncommon I was raised as a communist and I adore the system and think my former country vietnam is doing really well for itself could I ask how you guys found and now follow it?
 
Rocketman said:
Capitalism offers everyone a piece of the pie if they are willing to make an effort
Click to expand...

Rewards in capitalism are determined by the ones who hold capital. They don't like sharing the pie, which is why capitalism in history trends more and more toward the welfare state, to "indulge" this unwillingness to share the pie by compensating for its deficits.

scatt said:
Secure property means thinking far ahead, unsecure property means thinking very shortly ahead.
Click to expand...

There are lots of ways to think ahead. Armed guards, for example.

Besides that, although it is undeniably better for corporations to take short term losses to guard long term viability, by their nature they are incapable of doing that. Not consistently, or for any sustainable period of time. For every 99/100 that agree, 1 will not. That 1 will take every shortcut it can in order to acquire a larger market share. Eventually, the others have to act similarly to continue existing at all, forget about the distant future. Regulatory agreements that arise freely mean nothing among competitors who always stand to gain something by breaking the regulations their rivals are adhering to.

The only thing that can stop that -- who force the 1 to concur with the 99 -- is regulatory body that makes any attempt at opportunistic economic expansion far, far worse for the perpetrator than the potential gains of flouting the 99.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom