Originally Posted By tiggertoo I was doing a bit of reading today in The Economist and some other online periodicals, and grew frustrated with some of the patently ignorant remarks about capitalism vs. socialism, and the role of govt regulation. They seem to think that the laissez faire capitalism and radical socialism relationship as the two extremes of a linear continuum. I don't believe it is. Rather, it's effectively a loop with a common result: a command economy. The only difference is who is doing the commanding. I'm not about to presume to know where the proper balance b/t the two lie. I do know that we should equally wary of one as we are the other. Nevertheless, the myth that one is categorically, unquestionably superior to the other persists. Why? Why are many people afraid of govt moderating hyper-corporatism?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Interesting perspective, and no matter what terms you use the struggle is as old as politics itself. Do the rich and powerful control everything through business, or do the powerful control everything through the government? It feels like the wealthy in today's world have found out that they can make more money through capitalism. At the time of the revolution, the wealthy made more money through controlling the government and property. The American Revolution was about who got to control the fruits of labor - the aristocracy in England, or the landed gentlemen in the colonies. I'm just riffing here - this isn't something I've thought about a lot. But it seems like the argument between socialism and capitalism is really about who controls the money, as you said. At least when the government controls the money in a republic the people have some form of redress. But capitalism and democracy are antithetical, as we are discovering as the gap between the wealthy and the poor get wider. You've given me something to think about. It's an interesting thesis.
Originally Posted By schoolsinger I would say that the best balance would be to have very little government restriction on most businesses. The main exception would be banks. I would say most economic evil that exist revolves around the banking system.
Originally Posted By Labuda "I would say that the best balance would be to have very little government restriction on most businesses." So factories should be able to pump their waste into the nearest river? Or have loads of pollutants enter the air from their locations' smokestacks?
Originally Posted By EdisYoda As much as it pains me to say this (as my opinion has changed over the last 10 years due to personal experience)...I think the government needs to regulate most businesses to a degree. What that degree is should probably depend upon the industry. I am also not suggesting full regulations, but things like labor practices, product safety, environmental concerns, etc. I also would like to see government out of our personal lives...again to a degree. This would include things such as public safety, healthcare, education, etc.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I heard one guy say that our economy is in the tank because we are trying to do 5 year plans like the Soviets did. We aren't even close to a command economy. Some industries are regulated more than others, but we don't have widespread control of output as they did during the 5 year plans. Last I checked, Apple could make as many iPods as they want. You would never see iPods in the Soviet economy if it continued. There would be one pod and it would be anything but "i." Ending the Bush tax cuts won't transform us into Marxists, that I'm sure of.
Originally Posted By schoolsinger If a business is doing something that harms other people or has serious negative environmental impact, then the government should step in and stop it. Basically my view is businesses should be able to do what they want as long as they "play nice".
Originally Posted By Labuda ^^ that would be all well and good if they'd do that on their own, but we already know from history that they don't/won't.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Basically my view is businesses should be able to do what they want as long as they "play nice".<< I have the same view. And here's a list of major industries that "play nice" enough that we don't need to regulate them:
Originally Posted By Oldschool Disney Captialism and socialism together in some form is probably what works best.
Originally Posted By schoolsinger One of the reasons why I don't want there too be much government regulation is because EXCESSIVE REGULATION HURTS SMALL BUSINESS. It is relatively easy for a large corporation to deal with regulatory compliance because they can afford to have teams of legal experts. But excessive regulation puts a major burden on the small business. It is hard to start a business and jump through a lot of legal hurdles at the same time. The large corporations know that, and they cause there friends in the government to pass a bunch of regulation to make it harder for the little guys to compete.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones In a fully socialist economy, you can have your choice of any shoe you want, as long as you want a brown shoe. In a fully capitalist economy, you can have your choice of any shoe you want, but before you take your shoe home please fill out this loan application. Your variable APR starts at 29%. Have a wonderful day and thank you for shopping with us
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>The large corporations know that, and they cause there friends in the government to pass a bunch of regulation to make it harder for the little guys to compete.<< What you're describing is 'corporatism' and not socialism.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>Captialism and socialism together in some form is probably what works best.<<< Like in Europe. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, socialism can really help business - funding research, giving public funded grants to start up businesses, creating training programmes for young people and retraining those that need it (something VERY few companies are willing to invest in), social medicine allows workers to decide where they want to work rather than being tied to a job or company they hate for fear of losing their medical insurance. Then add in how social models help maintain fledgling businesses. If socialism was not so important to the French film industry, there would be little of quality. Also, ask yourself this, why are BBC productions of such a high quality? It is not really for commercial reasons. If it were, they would do more game shows and reality tv like the commercial stations. Affordable transport for all helps people be mobile for work and play, and also creates jobs. The two working together is the best of both worlds. And it is why I have chosen to raise my children in Europe (as well as the lack of gun crime and exposure to history and cultures). Capitalism on it's own will not work. It is how we end up with lower quality products, lack of national loyalty to a workforce (they will outsource where it is cheapest) and there are many unscrupulous practices. Socialism in an extreme is not good either, it creates bureaucracy, can reduce choice, and create decisions by committee, lacking vision. But the right balance can create amazing things - the New Deal, the French film industry, the Space Programme, Education for all, Care for the Elderly. All I ask is people do not hide behind the rhetoric and thing about each policy element and what it can mean, and critique it on those merits. But ask yourself this? Which do you have more faith in, a company that really is answerable to no one (as long as they make money) or a politician that is answerable to an electorate? Having worked in local, regional, national and international politics, and having been an exec at a FTSE 100 company, and now as a small business owner, I know that if it were a decision between the two, I have more faith in socialism (remember we are not talking about communism, that is a whole different kettle of fish), ironic as I cannot vote as an immigrant. Lol. Also, think about change. How long does real change take to achieve? 5 year plans are not bad, they are there to ensure a vision is seen through. Heck, even capitalist companies tend to have 3 - 5 year plans.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>One of the reasons why I don't want there too be much government regulation is because EXCESSIVE REGULATION HURTS SMALL BUSINESS. It is relatively easy for a large corporation to deal with regulatory compliance because they can afford to have teams of legal experts.<<< Depends how it is implemented. One of the bills I managed a couple of years and the policies and implementation guidelines that accompanied it had built in mechanisms for the scale of the business (e.g. grants for smaller businesses to become compliant with the changes we brought in). There are fair ways to do it. Sometimes that regulation can also favour small businesses who can be more agile in implementing change.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dave, would you please stop bringing your common sense and actual real-world experience to these discussions? Real Amuricans know that anything remotely socialist is BAD, and makes Jesus cry. (Actually, it's rather closer to what He preached than pure capitalism, but there I go again... see what you made me do?)
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I know, they seem to advocate selling in the temple when Jesus did not.
