• 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
That's not just capitalism, it's destructive capitalism. That system will eat it's citizenry alive.

If you consider the government protecting the person and property of every citizen to be destructive.
 
The vast majority of Japanese Americans vote Democrat today, so go ahead and ask them. The fact is, FDR is by far the most beloved president in U.S. history. Lincoln and FDR had more to deal with than any other presidents in U.S. history by a wide margin. Every other presidency has been a cakewalk compared to what those two men had to contend with, and aside with a few total nutjobs might claim, the are widely regarded by the public and by historians as two of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.
Actually, that isn't exactly true. A lot of historians do regard FDR well, but if you analyze further the constitution was amended specifically to prevent a presidency of over two terms specifically because of him. His "make work" programs were all temporary, and the economy did not jump start until WWII, conspiracy theorists ponder that FDR let Pearl Harbor fall to get us into the war(I do not subscribe to that theory) but really most of the social programs of that time were a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
 
...like everyone with an IRA or a 401k.

That's fine when it works, but 401k plans are disappearing because there isn't enough capital flowing downward. If you can't even work off a mortgage or a cay payment, there's no plausible way to save for retirement.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about a particular historical situation, but more in the sense of how an economc system can survive for a thousand years.
 
If you consider the government protecting the person and property of every citizen to be destructive.
It's not the government that's destructive in that raw capitalistic society you espouse. You've never gotten it and you never will. Your green glasses won't let you.
 
It's not the government that's destructive in that raw capitalistic society you espouse.

I espouse laws that protect and defend the person and property of the citizen. I'm not sure why you anticipate that this would be destructive.
 
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.

sure....whatever you say:roll:
 
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

Bull****, performance paid employees (ones that actually contribute to the bottom line) make excellent wages for little or no investment. Union people that want to get their breaks, 80% pay for down time, etc. are ones whining since they aren't even willing to be judged on what they actually contribute.
 
Bull****, performance paid employees (ones that actually contribute to the bottom line) make excellent wages for little or no investment. Union people that want to get their breaks, 80% pay for down time, etc. are ones whining since they aren't even willing to be judged on what they actually contribute.

Pure capitalism fails just like pure socialism fails. The best economy is an intelligently regulated and incentivised economy that rewards innovation and provides a strong safety net.
 
That's fine when it works, but 401k plans are disappearing because there isn't enough capital flowing downward. If you can't even work off a mortgage or a cay payment, there's no plausible way to save for retirement.

My point was that under a capitalist system any person who chooses to can hold capital, due primarily to the existence of joint stock companies. Even a person of modest means can own some capital.
 
My point was that under a capitalist system any person who chooses to can hold capital, due primarily to the existence of joint stock companies. Even a person of modest means can own some capital.

"Modest means" defines what it means to be middle class. Such people are a vanishing breed.
 
Pure capitalism fails just like pure socialism fails. The best economy is an intelligently regulated and incentivised economy that rewards innovation and provides a strong safety net.

capitalism only fails when a large portion of the population is getting paid to sit at home and do nothing
 
capitalism only fails when a large portion of the population is getting paid to sit at home and do nothing

Really? There are two pretty glaring faults with this statement.
1). Under Capitalism, people don't get paid to sit at home and do nothing.
2). Laissez-faire economics fails because unfettered capitalism destroys competition.
 
Really? There are two pretty glaring faults with this statement.
1). Under Capitalism, people don't get paid to sit at home and do nothing.
2). Laissez-faire economics fails because unfettered capitalism destroys competition.

Competition is only destroyed when Presidents like FDR set legislation like NRA that favors larger business while killing small new innovators.

99 weeks of unemployment benefits will destroy capitalism every time.
 
I espouse laws that protect and defend the person and property of the citizen. I'm not sure why you anticipate that this would be destructive.
You can dodge that all you want but it won't change the simple fact that unfettered, unrestricted capitalism is destructive to it's society.
 
My point was that under a capitalist system any person who chooses to can hold capital, due primarily to the existence of joint stock companies. Even a person of modest means can own some capital.
How naive. As usual, your statements are rife with unspoken assumptions. In this case, you're assuming the people that control the companies will share the wealth. I wouldn't count on that when insider trading and other ways of gaming the system are no longer crimes.
 
How naive. As usual, your statements are rife with unspoken assumptions. In this case, you're assuming the people that control the companies will share the wealth. I wouldn't count on that when insider trading and other ways of gaming the system are no longer crimes.

Insider trading being illegal distorts the price of stock.
 
You can dodge that all you want but it won't change the simple fact that unfettered, unrestricted capitalism is destructive to it's society.

Voluntary exchange in an environment of secure property rights is beneficial, not destructive. Free exchange bounded by property rights allows people to use their means to achieve their most desired ends. Any interference prevents this, and is destructive.
 
How naive. As usual, your statements are rife with unspoken assumptions. In this case, you're assuming the people that control the companies will share the wealth. I wouldn't count on that when insider trading and other ways of gaming the system are no longer crimes.

It's a fact. A shareholder of a joint stock company is an owner in that company, and thus owns means of production.
 
Insider trading being illegal distorts the price of stock.
And if it were legal the rich get richer - even more so than they do now.
 
Voluntary exchange in an environment of secure property rights is beneficial, not destructive. Free exchange bounded by property rights allows people to use their means to achieve their most desired ends. Any interference prevents this, and is destructive.
And the ones that get even a tiny bit ahead at the start never loose their lead, they just continue pulling away from the pack as they use their power to acquire even more money. Do you honestly believe that 20% owns 80% because it was legislated to them??? Quit being silly. Capitalism needs controls or it runs amok and destroys it's society.
 
It's a fact. A shareholder of a joint stock company is an owner in that company, and thus owns means of production.
ASSUMING they let you buy a share. Without controls they don't have to put those shares on the open market because there's no "publicly owned" corporations - that's a legal label which will no longer exist.
 
And if it were legal the rich get richer - even more so than they do now.

No, once legal the stock price will be the actual price.
 
The one that keeps the government out of the economy the most.
 
And the ones that get even a tiny bit ahead at the start never loose their lead, they just continue pulling away from the pack as they use their power to acquire even more money. Do you honestly believe that 20% owns 80% because it was legislated to them??? Quit being silly. Capitalism needs controls or it runs amok and destroys it's society.

Under capitalism the rich only continue to stay rich if they can continue to provide value to the other members of society. If they don't, their income stops and they begin their descent. Only under a government crony-capitalist system are the poor and middle class robbed in order to prop up the idle rich. This is why statism eventually runs amok and destroys its society.
 
Back
Top Bottom