Tell me unbiasedly what's good and bad about capitalism, communism, socialism and fascism.

I find it sad but fascinating how many people seem to genuinely think that we would be better off with a pure Laissez-faire Capitalist system, when history has proven time and time again how badly it ends for all but a handful of the super rich.

Capitalism is very important if you want a functional, fair economy. This is a fact. However it is also a fact that complete lack of economic regulation will benefit a small minority of society at the expense of the majority.

The idea that we would all be better off if the government stepped out of the economy altogether is propaganda championed by the very few who would benefit in such a scenario.

[quote]Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Everybody has different ideas of what they'd like in a government. By objective standards like measures of happiness, education, median wealth, level of crime, and social mobility the most successful countries are the social democracies of northern Europe. These are combinations of capitalist economies, strong voter and union participation, and large welfare states. I'll leave talk about good and evil to the, uh, philosophers!

Actually, the biggest reason that Scandinavian-style social democracies work is because they went a long time without war, thus the capital that would normally be destroyed by war is accumulated over that time. Once all of that capital runs out, watch out.

As opposed to now, where regulation has narrowed the gap between the rich and poor? Where we live in an egalitarian utopia? Regulation simply allows the mega-rich to lobby the government for loopholes that their competition can't afford to access. How many people were prosecuted for that 2008 mess again? Contrary to what we are often told, we've never had a laissez faire system in the U.S.

Well it's been 70 years or so-- how long does it take for capital to run out?

Ancap wrote:

[quote]Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Everybody has different ideas of what they'd like in a government. By objective standards like measures of happiness, education, median wealth, level of crime, and social mobility the most successful countries are the social democracies of northern Europe. These are combinations of capitalist economies, strong voter and union participation, and large welfare states. I'll leave talk about good and evil to the, uh, philosophers!

Actually, the biggest reason that Scandinavian-style social democracies work is because they went a long time without war, thus the capital that would normally be destroyed by war is accumulated over that time. Once all of that capital runs out, watch out.

The 50s were amazing for Americans because we had no international competition. The USA was the only major manufacturing power that didn't get destroyed in WWII. It had nothing to do with tax rates and union membership.

Taxes and union membership were big reasons why the bulk of Americans shared in the booming post war economy. I can say that with confidence, because in the first two decades of 20th century those were not in place and inequality was very high. Like someone else said, it's not that complicated: if you have a free market without anything in place to prevent severe inequality you get severe inequality. The fewer protections you have in place for the majority of the population, the more unequal wealth becomes. It would be great if that weren't the case, but unfortunately it is.

TAA wrote:

The 50s were amazing for Americans because we had no international competition. The USA was the only major manufacturing power that didn't get destroyed in WWII. It had nothing to do with tax rates and union membership.

It's just been the wrong kind of regulation. If we want to make it better, there are good examples out there.

Ancap wrote:

As opposed to now, where regulation has narrowed the gap between the rich and poor? Where we live in an egalitarian utopia? Regulation simply allows the mega-rich to lobby the government for loopholes that their competition can't afford to access. How many people were prosecuted for that 2008 mess again? Contrary to what we are often told, we've never had a laissez faire system in the U.S.

Well said!

The Mask of Portlandtillado wrote:

I find it sad but fascinating how many people seem to genuinely think that we would be better off with a pure Laissez-faire Capitalist system, when history has proven time and time again how badly it ends for all but a handful of the super rich.

Capitalism is very important if you want a functional, fair economy. This is a fact. However it is also a fact that complete lack of economic regulation will benefit a small minority of society at the expense of the majority.

The idea that we would all be better off if the government stepped out of the economy altogether is propaganda championed by the very few who would benefit in such a scenario.

Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Taxes and union membership were big reasons why the bulk of Americans shared in the booming post war economy. I can say that with confidence, because in the first two decades of 20th century those were not in place and inequality was very high. Like someone else said, it's not that complicated: if you have a free market without anything in place to prevent severe inequality you get severe inequality. The fewer protections you have in place for the majority of the population, the more unequal wealth becomes. It would be great if that weren't the case, but unfortunately it is.

TAA wrote:

The 50s were amazing for Americans because we had no international competition. The USA was the only major manufacturing power that didn't get destroyed in WWII. It had nothing to do with tax rates and union membership.

Just because you're confident doesn't mean you're correct. You completely ignored my reasoning for why they weren't. The economy boomed because there wasn't any global competition. Why wouldn't that have been the main reason?

There were a number of capitalist economies in the US and Europe around the time of the industrial revolution where there were few protections for workers. Whether they were booming or not, they all had one thing in common: a few very rich, and a lot of very poor. That's where Marx and Engels ideas came from; they figured all a capitalist society could do is lead to such oppression that there was eventually a revolt. Since then, many capitalist economies have avoided increasing inequality through progressive taxes, union participation, and a large public sector. As far as we've seen so far in history, that's the only way to do it.

TAA wrote:

The 50s were amazing for Americans because we had no international competition. The USA was the only major manufacturing power that didn't get destroyed in WWII. It had nothing to do with tax rates and union membership.

[/quote]

Just because you're confident doesn't mean you're correct. You completely ignored my reasoning for why they weren't. The economy boomed because there wasn't any global competition. Why wouldn't that have been the main reason?[/quote]

Until a couple years ago as I remember, conservatives mostly said of course unregulated capitalism increases inequality, but still everyone benefits so it doesn't matter. Now as inequality is starting to be a more obvious problem, conservatives have been forced to change their tune, and argue (disingenuously, it seems to me) that in fact unregulated capitalism will decrease inequality. That stance seems to have no support throughout history.

Just because you're confident doesn't mean you're correct. You completely ignored my reasoning for why they weren't. The economy boomed because there wasn't any global competition. Why wouldn't that have been the main reason?[/quote][/quote]

Ancap wrote:

As opposed to now, where regulation has narrowed the gap between the rich and poor? Where we live in an egalitarian utopia? Regulation simply allows the mega-rich to lobby the government for loopholes that their competition can't afford to access. How many people were prosecuted for that 2008 mess again? Contrary to what we are often told, we've never had a laissez faire system in the U.S.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Preventing the mega-rich from lobbying the government is an example of something that should be done with regulations. Granted, the actual regulations in place have the opposite effect, but that does not mean this has to be the case.

Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Until a couple years ago as I remember, conservatives mostly said of course unregulated capitalism increases inequality, but still everyone benefits so it doesn't matter. Now as inequality is starting to be a more obvious problem, conservatives have been forced to change their tune, and argue (disingenuously, it seems to me) that in fact unregulated capitalism will decrease inequality. That stance seems to have no support throughout history.

You're all over the place, but there's one theme to your argument that's important to focus on and its this:

Without government intervention in free market capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

You state that repeatedly as if it were a law of physics, but I'm not buying it, at least not without some solid evidence.

We should be looking to answer this question: During the early years of the industrial revolution when the rich got very rich, did the poor get poorer? Or did the standard of living rise for everyone during that period?

The answer is not so easily found, but life expectancy rose from 38.3 in 1850 to 47.8 in 1900. If the "robber baron era" was truly creating a massive underclass of starving people, then why were they living longer?

Something that most people forget is that before the age of the "robber baron" almost everyone was a farmer. That work was difficult, dangerous, and uncertain. There's a reason people flocked to the city to work in the mills and factories, and it wasn't because they were forced to. They did it because it was better than all the other options, which were few at the time.

We need to know whether the standard of living was rising for the bottom 20% during that period. I'm pretty sure it did, but I won't state it as fact until I can find better evidence.

I'm all over the place? A page ago you were citing 200 year old French philosophers! Maybe some Aristotle would strengthen my arguments.

Anyone who has answered this in less than 10,000 words is biased out doesn't know what they are talking about.

... no, but really-- I'm hardly all over the place. I've said the exact same thing like thirty different times! Examples of some of the most pure capitalist economies have given us the settings for "The Jungle," "gangs of New York," and "David Copperfield." Being working class was horrible. The level of inequality meant workers had no political voice and no one to go to with any type of grievance. Whether they were materially better or worse off than American pioneers is pretty unimportant; the bottom line is their lives sucked, and today we have many good examples of economies that can both improve their material standing, but also increase their access to power and social mobility.

Why does nobody mention the influence of our military?

Many of the richest nations in history had tremendous military power. Was it a case or effect?

People say we are the most successful primarily because of capitalism. But there are other capitalist countries. How many have a military force even close to ours? NONE!

Military spending has driven our economy for many fruitful periods in our country. That is government directing money to companies. How is that capitalist?

Whatever econ geeks