Ideal Economy?

What's your view on private businesses and the government? Do you support capitalism, where means of production are almost always completely private? Communism, where everything is government owned and there is no private property? Or socialism, which is a little of both, the government controlling SOME means of production, but still has private businesses?

I support socialism, because though private business inspires people to work harder and earn more, there are some things that should simply be government owned, like, say, hospitals. No one should really have to pay just for medical stability. But what's your view?

hmmz Economy is a tough one.

But my view on that is that the Economy should be like a game, and the Govt should make rules. Like health inspection and quality rules not the kind that says you do this you make that.

Economy is something that should encourage competition to keep prices down and profit up.

I do agree that hospitals and other health organizations should be government controlled money wise, but should still be in the hands of the owner. Know what I am saying. The hospital should be owned by the builder, But the medical prices should be govt set to match the abiblity of the countries average income except lower. That should also be the same with drugs and medicines.

Normal economy like stores and malls, ect should be left to their own with rules to keep them on track.

I choose the option where nanobots do all the work, except for the work people choose to do. Screw money.

Soo, uhhh, I suppose that'd sorta be communism. Except nanobots instead of people.

-*meow*

I think it should be completely private. But, then it gets corrupt.
The government should only interfere when there are lives at stake. Any other cause and the government is interfering way too much.

The problem with nanobots running everything is some people would have more control, imbalance in power is the worst thing in the world.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

I think it should be completely private. But, then it gets corrupt.
The government should only interfere when there are lives at stake. Any other cause and the government is interfering way too much.

The problem with nanobots running everything is some people would have more control, imbalance in power is the worst thing in the world.

Then in your logic, the world should be in total anarchy? Because if there was a government, at least one person would have higher power.
And yeah, government should not interfere with most private business things, but i still believe hospitals and such should be government funded, as well as housings for the povert. Wealth may determine a person's living quality, but it most certainly should not determine a person's death.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

[...]imbalance in power is the worst thing in the world.

It can be balanced while someone has more power. Too much power, and there is an imbalance. The constitution was made to prevent imbalance. Currently, the US government has too much power: the president has the authority to have someone killed, your property can be taken away, etc.. Those are the 2 big ones, in my opinion, there are numerous others.
Fortunately, we will always have the right to petition.

i think we got a good economy here in england, which is why sterling (£) is so strong for such a small nation with no real developments in the production market for 20 years (since margret thatcher). the only thing that is not good for us is privatisation of public resources such as the underground which has faild miserabely. anyways, privatisation of everything which is not public pretty much.

First off, I realize I am resurrecting an old topic, and though I am aware of the possible consequences, I find the benefits of sharing my views and in discussing something that is actually meaninful to be far above the value of a few rep points...

Second, if I had been able to vote twice, I would have voted communist and capitalist, as I am a believer in both wholeheartedly. You wonder what I mean by this, I suppose, how this can be so... I will in the following text make my greatest attempt to enlighten you. So, get comfortable...

You see, our world is one of impure capitalism and mock-communism; neither is really in its true form. Both forms, though opposite in intention and basis, can lead to eventual success.

So, we'll start with the latter of the two:
COMMUNISM
The idea that if everyone ignores their own personal needs and focuses solely on the needs of others, all will be accommodated for. Everyone looks out for everyone else, and the absence created by denial of one's own needs is filled by the efforts of countless others roundabout. Intrinsically, correct and sensible.

However:
Men are motivated by greed. Whether we like to admit it or not, greed plays a dominant role in all societies and economies, be they communist or capitalist. This greed is the single-most detrimental factor in the foundations of communism, the real communism. For you see, men are never really able to ignore their own wants and needs, to embrace a life of complete and blissful altruism. And so, communism, in its true form, can never really exist. We are stuck with pseudo-communism, governments that attempt to blend the ideologies of communism with the absolute power of autocracy. You can't have communism when one man, or one group, makes the rules for everyone, when one man is above another, when one man is provided for yet provides for no one. Modern communism is the corruption of a terrible few who try to pass off their own avarice and hunger for power as a way to benefit the masses.

And now, on to...
CAPITALISM
The idea that if everyone ignores the needs of others and focuses only on what we would refer to as selfish desires, then everyone will be provided for. People put forth a certian amount of work and reap a reward that is equivalent to work put forth. Ironically, a capitalist government must function on premises of greed, but it makes sense that capitalism, which is in opposition with communism, would focus on those exact ideals that communism so abhors. In capitalism, economy is centered on supply and demand, and prices, availability, etc. are based entirely on the personal desires of the individual rendering the service. People pay exactly what they think a service is worth, and if they don't think the service is worth what they would have to pay, they seek service elsewhere. All in all, intrinsically logical as well.

However:
Ideal capitalism works fine for adults who are capable of providing for themselves, but children, handicapped persons, etc. don't fit well into the whole capitalist mindset. They cannot provide for their basic needs (not to mention their desires), and someone else would have to care for them. Additionally, to the detriment of capitalism, governments seek place taxes on basically everything, and they feel the necessity to monitor business. But business needs not be monitored; if a businessman, by sweat and endeavor, climbs the business ladder and earns a fortune, he has every right to that earning, to that position.


Tons more to say, but I have neither the time nor the patience to say it all. So, for now I rest. Arguments, contentions, and criticisms will be both greatly appreciated and soundly torn to pieces... :)

Your idea of communism is completely unrealistic and the equivalent to everyone suddenly throwing down their guns and holding hands to sing a song together in world peace and harmony, but indeed, in a perfect world, one man will not rule over the other, but a benevolent dictator in the form of a perfect being will rise with a communist government. But realistically, communism has no chance. Man will always want to be one step ahead of their peers, and that's just how competition is. Work less for the same pay, or work more for the same pay. It's just unfair, despite trying to be fair.

Captialism, on the other end of the extreme, is cruel and beastly. It gives the layman to much control, which is something no one wants, as it boils down to corruption and poverty. It allows people the oppurtunity for greatness, but, in turn, also allows the oppurtunity for hell. The layman is not seeking help for others, but help for themselves, and that is why capitalism will never make the public happy. Too many handicapped people with no caretakers, old people with no children, and young people with no parents to make life fair. Too many corrupt organizations, homeless people, and politicians swayed by money. Hospitals, Guns, and Political Campaigns run only on money.

It doesn't really matter if you revive topics here, Dalaran.

Communism [Erm, preferably Marxism] is nice on paper but doesn't realistically work.

Kindly note that I already know that neither is practical in modern society for the reasons I have previously stated (among others). In response to your concerns, however:

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

Your idea of communism is completely unrealistic and the equivalent to everyone suddenly throwing down their guns and holding hands to sing a song together in world peace and harmony

Well, if we're going for worldwide communism, that's exactly what it is... last time I checked, guns don't go too well with happiness and cooperation, unless of course you happen to be a member of the Italian mafia or something like that...

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

Captialism, on the other end of the extreme, is cruel and beastly. It gives the layman to much control, which is something no one wants, as it boils down to corruption and poverty. It allows people the oppurtunity for greatness, but, in turn, also allows the oppurtunity for hell. The layman is not seeking help for others, but help for themselves, and that is why capitalism will never make the public happy. Too many handicapped people with no caretakers, old people with no children, and young people with no parents to make life fair. Too many corrupt organizations, homeless people, and politicians swayed by money. Hospitals, Guns, and Political Campaigns run only on money.

Hmmm... opportunity for greatness or for hell... it seems that I have before heard this referred to as 'agency'. Isn't that what it's all about, though? You have the choice to do whatever you like, but you also have the promise that whatever effort you put in will receive a reward directly proportional to that effort? Corrupt organizations... oh, you mean greedy ones, right? But that is what capitalism is based upon, so corruption is really goodness and order, right? And concerning politics, there would be none. An economy run entirely on supply and demand.

You see, both communism and capitalism, in their unadulterated forms, call for complete anarchy. In capitalism, for a govt. to exist, it must tax, and taxing goes against the tenets of capitalism. In communism, having a govt. would imply that some people were above others, and that is of course unacceptable in the communist world.

As I have already said, neither form is practical in modern (or any) society, as to the exceedingly vague question of which is better, I answer that either route, communism or capitalism, will lead to happiness and so they are equally positive...

Respectfully yours,
-DG

Originally Posted by Dalaran_Guard

You see, both communism and capitalism, in their unadulterated forms, call for complete anarchy. In capitalism, for a govt. to exist, it must tax, and taxing goes against the tenets of capitalism. In communism, having a govt. would imply that some people were above others, and that is of course unacceptable in the communist world.

As I have already said, neither form is practical in modern (or any) society, as to the exceedingly vague question of which is better, I answer that either route, communism or capitalism, will lead to happiness and so they are equally positive...

Respectfully yours,
-DG

Capitalism is just what it is: An oppurtunity for one man to become more powerful than another. The pursuit of happiness is a right, but also a burden. Capitalism is, oddly enough, organized anarchy. The people rule their economical selves. A perfect world would stay away from capitalism and socialism.

Communism takes that right/burden away to create a perfect uniform government, but if someone wants to be lazy, but still expects to be paid the same as his harder-working peers, that's what will happen, creating an economy of laziness.

Humans are imperfect. Let's take a semi-realistic stance, say something like Deus Ex, of which there is someone who is striving to become the world's first benevolent dictator. The dictator, however, isn't mortal, nonetheless a man. It is an AI; a computer, an immortal being made for the sole purpose of organizing mankind. The unrealistic part would be that computers lack the improvisational skills that we have, and malfunctions/attacks by enemies could be more fatal than from any human dictator.

Originally Posted by Voltaire

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Only under a totalarian dictatorship rule from an unbiased and intelectually superior being can we achieve true world peace.

Socialism, on the other hand, is the best choice for our imperfect world, in my opinion. While it can vary, my socialism is, simply, socialism with communistic borders. Those extravagantly rich will be taxes equally extravagantly; those horrendously poor will still be left with oppurtunity from the government.
And no one should ever have to pay for their healthiness.

Socialism works great, yeah.

Basically a compromise ;)

Just out of curiosity, MSBB, where do you live?

---

Does anyone have an opinion on Mercantilism? I personally think it's pretty stupid -.-

Originally Posted by PurplePoot

Socialism works great, yeah.

Basically a compromise ;)

Just out of curiosity, MSBB, where do you live?

Southern California, USA.

Originally Posted by PurplePoot

Does anyone have an opinion on Mercantilism? I personally think it's pretty stupid -.-

Care to brief me on the concept?

Is cali even partially Socialist? Canada [Ontario more specifically, for me] is quite on the Socialist side.

---

Mercantilism - Basically, stockpile money [gold at the time] in your country.

Achieved mainly by exporting a lot and importing barely anything.

Commonly used in monarchies hundreds of years ago, not sure if anyone does it any more.