Different Economic models and results

[AntiochusIII]

I hate to say it, but Finland, and to a lesser degree Sweden, have socialism down pat. It works for them. It's not an easy system to use, as you can see by the failing French Economy.

Capitalisms advantages lay in its being the "natural" system. It's what people are inclined to do when the state is not enforcing some other kind of system, therefore it is just self-perpetuating economic goodness when done right.

That leads to a dangerous road in which Capitalism as it was meant to be once dominated America from around 1870s-1900s: the one which was accompanied by the social Darwinism idea and, as a result, made lives for millions of Americans horrible, put the nation in several minor crisis (and a major one around the early 1890s), allowed police brutality against American citizens, fostered the "unconcerned" and individualistic climate of American opinions, and, in conclusion, wasn't very nice. Only the moralistic, "superior" Progressive movement managed to began change, and only the sweeping New Deal era and FDR's leadership closed away much of the old wounds. According to the classical theism tradition, and Hobbes and a bunch of others in the Enlightenment tradition, humans are naturally inclined to be evil. By their conclusion, a completely free economy is really not different from an anarchy.

Adam Smith's work isn't flawless. Marx noticed that, quite clearly, even if his own theories aren't any better.

For me, my opinion on the economic system has yet to be formalized. Being raised in capitalistic economies only, even if one of them was utterly, thoroughly corrupted and oligarchic while the other (America) is not really that impressively successful, I could not vouch blindly for capitalism. Having not lived in socialist (referring only to the economy) economies before, I could not vouch blindly for socialism either.

[mystic brew]

but the socialism of the scandies have, according to the report, created "a highly motivated and skilled labour force"... so it isn't necessary to have the naked free market to create a motivated work force.

There's more than one way to skin a cat!

[Proletariat]

editted out lame joke that might be misunderstood

[Papewaio]

Hence I said "Done right." Capitalism works, even if it has no limits. It just means some people wound up exploited for the betterment of others. Capitalism "Done right." does away with a reasonable amount of exploitation, but does not coddle. As opposed to socialism, which is all about coddling.

Capitalism works at the risk of exploitation. Socialism can work at the risk of stagnancy. As with most americans, I believe that a strong work-ethic is what makes someone worthy of living in my country, and that is my fundamental disagreement with socialism.

Capitalism works because of its benefits not its pitfalls. It is a flexible system that shortens the time between demand and supply. It is responsive. Being exploitive is not any good in capitalism... poor workers make crap consumers.

And Socialism done right is not about coddling but enhancing the citizens. If the aim of Socialism is to raise up the abilities of people and help make them individuals who are highly educated and motivated that is Socialism done right.

And with Socialism and Capitalism you can actually mix the two models under a Democratic model.

[Papewaio]

While cheerfully ignoring that the top ten countries:

Finland (1), Sweden (3), Denmark (4), Iceland (7) and Norway (9) are all 'socialistic' economies.

Australia (10) is as well.

Singapore (6) is in a strange way a socialistic country (at least with respect to housing, schooling and public transport).

BTW Kagemusha the link you list states Taiwan as number 5 and Singapore 6... or am I looking at the wrong year?

[Kagemusha]

Yup Pape you are right sorry.my mistake.I will correct the original post

[Kanamori]

Or need we go look at that thread about the French students whining about the possibility of *gasp* being fired?

I don't know that anybody is upset by the fact that they can be fired at all, or even w/o restriction. It is the fact that it makes an exception for a certain group and not another. It is exactly the same as what the Jim Crow laws did, but not with race and with something much more tangible. To treat two individuals differently under the law is patently unjust and discriminatory.