Post: #1

I've been thinking about this and can't come up with an answer:

If communism/socialism doesn't work - as we've seen in the former USSR, China, and Cuba - and pure capitalism gets out of control as we see in the US with capitalists/elites/top bankers taking advantage of the population resulting in a wide gap between the 100% and the rest of the country, then which model works?

Which countries have it right? Switzerland? Sweden? Netherlands? Israel? Singapore? I don't know - I'm just naming countries that seem well off and its citizens have decent lives on average (no one living in abject poverty in ghettos, faveles, etc.)

Btw, I think the US is not totally pure capitalism as there are some hints at socialism such as food stamps, social programs in low income neighborhoods, etc.

Post: #2

You are ignoring the socialism in the US banking sector, where we privatize gains and socialize losses. The largest banks in this country would have (and should have) gone bankrupt in a capitalist society (that would also tend to limit the wealth gap as many of the richest bankers would have found that their wealth tied up in company stock is worthless). Even outside finance, the largest corporations often benefit from government handouts and favorable treatment.

The only place where we see capitalism is small and midsize businesses.

Post: #3

I wouldn't call that socialism. It's more like capitalistic robbery - the fleecing of the masses so fat-cat bankers can have their fat bonuses & politicians get fat kickbacks. It is the worse of capitalism since the politicians are getting in on the action themselves - they're being capitalistic too.

Anyway, I really don't want to get into arguments about the problems that either side has but rather get enlightened on which models work/have worked for other countries.

Post: #4

The reason you can't come up with an answer is that there is none. There is no method of large-population governance that can eliminate poverty or corruption entirely. Humans are too selfish for such a method to exist.

Post: #5

It depends on what you mean by 'having it right'. Is the goat herder in Tanzania worse off than a financial analyst in NYC that works a 100 hours a week? And then right for who? For an exceptionally gifted person, pure capitalism might be the best system. For the masses, Euro socialism like here in Austria works pretty well.

Post: #6

What do you wanna do to the American banking sector, regulate it?
The banking sector, if anything, is the more regulated part of the US economy.
Why not have the greedy bankers lose customers to more honest bankers.
No barriers to entry, no incomprehensible tax code.

Post: #7

Why not have banks lose customers to credit unions?

Actually, they are. But they're putting legislation together to protect their territory.

Post: #8

Free markets are the answer. And no, that is not necessarily the same thing as capitalism.

Post: #9

(07-23-2013 09:53 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  The reason you can't come up with an answer is that there is none. There is no method of large-population governance that can eliminate poverty or corruption entirely. Humans are too selfish for such a method to exist.

You are probably right about entirely eliminating poverty & corruption, though the five countries I mentioned above (I think) are doing a good job of keeping them both at low levels.

Post: #10

(07-23-2013 10:02 AM)Eastbound Wrote:  It depends on what you mean by 'having it right'. Is the goat herder in Tanzania worse off than a financial analyst in NYC that works a 100 hours a week? And then right for who? For an exceptionally gifted person, pure capitalism might be the best system. For the masses, Euro socialism like here in Austria works pretty well.

Makes perfect sense - capitalism benefits talented and ambitious people, while Euro socialism benefits the masses and serves as a safety net for the disabled, elderly, lazy, etc.

Is the Swiss system similar to Austria's? Is any form of capitalism frowned upon in both countries? Are there no "multi-billionaire entrepreneurs" in either?

If there is no or low poverty and one can still be a "multi-millionaire" entrepreneur that model may be just as good as it gets. There really is no need for someone in a society to have over 1 billion dollars/euros. The billionaires worth 40, 50, 60 billion are ending up just giving a good portion of that money away anyway.

Post: #11

(07-23-2013 10:10 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  Why not have the greedy bankers lose customers to more honest bankers.
No barriers to entry, no incomprehensible tax code.

This is what should happen is a properly functioning capitalistic environment and in the US it does - to some extent. Unfortunately for the masses, the bankers in the US have a lot of political power.

Quote:What do you wanna do to the American banking sector, regulate it?
The banking sector, if anything, is the more regulated part of the US economy.

Would it help to regulate or eliminate the control that banking industry giants have over the government, specifically the crooked politicians?

How about a law that prevents politicians from having "conflicts of interest" with banking? Hank Paulson would be a perfect example. He was head of Goldman Sachs then became the US Treasurer. His ties to GS was a conflict of interest.

Then comes TARP. Did US taxpayers have any say over TARP? Was it put up for discussion or vote? Instead, it was framed as "these banks are too big to fail" and then shoved down the taxpayers' throats. I may not know all the "minute" issues regarding that, this is just my view from reading the news accounts.

Post: #12

We have never had either system pure for any prolong period of time. Both "Capitalism" and "Socialism" in their dominant times were corrupted. Capitalism today is nothing more than a Corporatocratist-hybrid-Socialist system masquerading as Capitalism; while classic USSR Socialism was a Despot-State-Monopoly, nothing more. All centrally suck and leech off the economy at the expense of greater society.

USA has pretty much been Anti-Free market for a long ass time it seems. Its colluded to maintain advantages in trade, ditching its currency when it was politically convenient, to manipulating its interest rates all that stuff is against "free market" rules. The USA colluded with industry to grant them exceptions if they could benefit the Government, this is essentially how the Corporation was born and it gave preferences to the largest players as they reaped the most rewards from it regardless if ethically they served a good for society as a whole. If that Corporation grew to large and started to compete with the Government, it then came in and broke it up.

Its always been smoke and mirrors show.

Capitalism is a dream because nobody has never lived it, same with Socialism -- all utopian prophecies that will never see the light of day.

Everybody will have different views of what they view is best. Nobody can agree on one style but collectively I feel people can all agree one one system. I prefer a system in which you have a Capitalist system with a strong public competent with both areas being shaped and shifted from the bottom up. No top down shit; technocrats and Government always fuck it up and, and pure industry is self-destructing when its left alone, both corrupt things always.

Post: #13

Quote:Then comes TARP. Did US taxpayers have any say over TARP? Was it put up for discussion or vote? Instead, it was framed as "these banks are too big to fail" and then shoved down the taxpayers' throats. I may not know all the "minute" issues regarding that, this is just my view from reading the news accounts.

Iceland pretty much handled it in the opposite fashion. When the govermnet tried to pass off their version of TARP, the people protested outaide the presidents home to get it vetoed, which the president eventually did. They did end up passing a smaller bailout, but at least the people put up a fight.

Post: #14

(07-23-2013 01:42 PM)nmmoooreland20 Wrote:  

Quote:Then comes TARP. Did US taxpayers have any say over TARP? Was it put up for discussion or vote? Instead, it was framed as "these banks are too big to fail" and then shoved down the taxpayers' throats. I may not know all the "minute" issues regarding that, this is just my view from reading the news accounts.

Iceland pretty much handled it in the opposite fashion. When the govermnet tried to pass off their version of TARP, the people protested outaide the presidents home to get it vetoed, which the president eventually did. They did end up passing a smaller bailout, but at least the people put up a fight.

Iceland returned to growth much faster after a few painful years of negative performance -- Ireland did the exact opposite at nearly the same point and is still in the shitter.

Iceland to this day is s till getting a hard time but they are the only nation that actually put to trial and threw in jail the corrupt cronies whom got them in the mess in the first place. Greece has been having power struggles recently it seems to go the Iceland route but its probably to little to late now.

Post: #15

(07-23-2013 01:42 PM)nmmoooreland20 Wrote:  

Quote:Then comes TARP. Did US taxpayers have any say over TARP? Was it put up for discussion or vote? Instead, it was framed as "these banks are too big to fail" and then shoved down the taxpayers' throats. I may not know all the "minute" issues regarding that, this is just my view from reading the news accounts.

Iceland pretty much handled it in the opposite fashion. When the govermnet tried to pass off their version of TARP, the people protested outaide the presidents home to get it vetoed, which the president eventually did. They did end up passing a smaller bailout, but at least the people put up a fight.

If you tried that in America you'd probably be beaten down by riot police...

Post: #16

Israel seems far from well off, even financially. The people of Israel aren't as well off as you may think. It's mad expensive and not easy to make the type of money you need to survive.