Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

There's nothing wrong with capitalism itself. It has been proven that capitalism works by many examples. It only needs to be regulated properly. When regulation fails, then you have negativities which are then used in trying to prove that capitalism is flawed in its nature.

On the oher hand communism is just plain wrong. It failed miserably wherever it was introduced. It is amazing how such incredible historical empirical evidence is stil ignored by many "idealists". Communism tries to ignore the basic qualitative differences between economic resources, particularly human resources, in a hopeless attempt to produce economic equality at the expense of free market principles which are by far the most efficient in allocation of economic resources when regulated properly.

So, everyone should just stop finally discussing whether capitalism is right or wrong and rather focus on finding, installing and maintaining regulatory mechanisms that will make it work. All other available options lead to an even worse outcome than unregulated capitalism.

Anyway, there is no such economic system that guarantees wellbeing. Each and every one eventually passes or fails on human factor. It all comes down to the collective mindset of people within it. If you have incompetent and corrupted people, they will make the most perfect idea fail. On the other hand, competent people with generally good intentions will evolve any system into a direction towards well being or, as we call it, properly regulated capitalism.
(editado)

First of all, im not defending communism, but if we speak about bad regulations then it was bad regulations that ruined communism and if we speak about Soviet Union then it basically was state capitalism.

f free market principles which are by far the most efficient in allocation of economic resources when regulated properly.
at the cost of environment ...

So, everyone should just stop finally discussing whether capitalism is right or wrong and rather focus on finding, installing and maintaining regulatory mechanisms that will make it work.
as long as someone will be "in charge" and regulate they will fu** up in this system they just have to be greedy and as you said, in the end its the human factor but i just dont believe, that the necessary changes in human mind can happen in capitalist society ... yes i have something common with anarchist ...
and where goes the free market with all the regulations? the only law that should matter is natural law ...

show me 3 people here in sokker who has high salary and deasnt bother on taxes and insurance and so :-).
I will help you, one is BlueZero, so find just 2 more :-)

or :-)

It has been proven that communism works by many examples. It only needs to be regulated properly. When regulation fails, then you have negativities which are then used in trying to prove that communism is flawed in its nature.

On the oher hand communism is just plain wrong. It failed miserably wherever it was introduced.
Why ? Did you read some study or what :-DD ?

It is amazing how such incredible historical empirical evidence is stil ignored by many "idealists".
This system is very easy to abuse, that is the problem, this system need pure and honest people at the top of government and on lower levels and this is problem, people are usually pigs not only in capitalism.

Communism tries to ignore the basic qualitative differences between economic resources, particularly human resources, in a hopeless attempt to produce economic equality at the expense of free market principles which are by far the most efficient in allocation of economic resources when regulated properly.
That is the truth, communism is not about economics growing and fast growing. Of course, is economy and fast growing really the most important goal on the world ? I think health of our planet and happiness of people is the most important and capitalism is not about this, we know and we can all see that. Capitalism win just because it is the best system for economy and power of individuals.

if we speak about bad regulations then it was bad regulations that ruined communism

No. Bad regulations cannot ruin a system. They can just make it less fair. Communism was ruined because it is unsustainable by its core principles. It failed and colapsed literally everywhere and in all of its forms.

at the cost of environment ...

We're back at the regulation issue.

as long as someone will be "in charge" and regulate they will fu** up in this system they just have to be greedy

But if you take that as a premise, then there is no system that will work. I really don't understand how someone is able to believe that the solution could be that nobody is in charge.

and where goes the free market with all the regulations? the only law that should matter is natural law

There are ways to regulate capitalism and there are people competent enough to do it. Democratic judicial systems do stem from natural law and anyway capitalism itself is not an obstacle in this sense. The point is that regulations should complement capitalism in a way that distribution of wealth becomes more fair.

There's nothing wrong with capitalism itself. It has been proven that capitalism works by many examples. It only needs to be regulated properly.

If there was nothing wrong with capitalism itself, proper regulation would not be needed. :)
Reality is, there is no perfect system. Capitalism in it's extreme form is just as undesirable as many forms of Communism.

edit typo
(editado)

Why ? Did you read some study or what :-DD ?

Common, don't be silly. You don't have to go further from the 2 Germanies. That was practically a 50 years of socio-economic experiment in almost laboratory conditions.

This system is very easy to abuse, that is the problem, this system need pure and honest people at the top of government and on lower levels and this is problem, people are usually pigs not only in capitalism.

Every system needs pure and honest people so this is actually no argument. Capitalism is at least honest in this sense and accepts that it is up to the individual people's choice whether they will act humane or not. Under such conditions, people tend to be more humane than when we all pretend that it is possible to have system that will take care of this neverending necessity.

That is the truth, communism is not about economics growing and fast growing. Of course, is economy and fast growing really the most important goal on the world ? I think health of our planet and happiness of people is the most important and capitalism is not about this, we know and we can all see that. Capitalism win just because it is the best system for economy and power of individuals.

No, capitalism wins because it's true to the human nature. If people are greedy, they will make greedy capitalism. If they are altruistic, their capitalism will be altruistic. In communism we all pretend that the system takes care of our altruism by itself and then we tend to forget that there actually is "no free meal" in the economy. Simple as that.

here you are the other 2, but not in sokker:

H. Ford

W. Buffet (see also this)


I'll wait someone that call them comunists..

[mitch69] damn leftwing commies!! [/mitch69]

No, capitalism wins because it's true to the human nature. If people are greedy, they will make greedy capitalism. If they are altruistic, their capitalism will be altruistic. In communism we all pretend that the system takes care of our altruism by itself and then we tend to forget that there actually is "no free meal" in the economy. Simple as that.

I think you're wrong!
the best way to understand the winning of capitalism is studing history..
who wins wars?
who live longer?
who has better life conditions, powerful technologies, more and healtly food, great availability of resources!

Capitalism bring those thing better than other systems, so it's a winning system in a competitive wordl.
And this has very little to so with human being or human nature..

BTW: things change and the word "competitive" is not something that can' t be changed!

The nytimes column with Buffet is just brilliant. And how can such absurd fiscal policy be the problem of capitalism? This is precisely what I am talking about when I say that capitalism should just be regulated properly. I mean, in the USA the legislators are not even able to make a system that at least mildly progressively takes more taxes from the richer!? What does that got to do anything with capitalism itself? That's just plain stupid and greedy!

I think you're wrong!
the best way to understand the winning of capitalism is studing history..
who wins wars?
who live longer?
who has better life conditions, powerful technologies, more and healtly food, great availability of resources!

Capitalism bring those thing better than other systems, so it's a winning system in a competitive wordl.
And this has very little to so with human being or human nature..

BTW: things change and the word "competitive" is not something that can' t be changed!

I didn't understand what you wanted to say here. And I really don't understand why do you consider competitiveness to be bad for the economy? People can be competitive without being greedy. These are not synonyms.

It can also be reasoned out of some sort of motivation, rather than greed. If you have somebody who is really talented in something lower taxes (or at least no higher taxes) at a higher salary level provide an incentive to produce more of his talent.

Nevertheless, I am in favor of a progressive system as well. :)
(editado)

the problem with actual capitalism is that the money doesn't represent anything but themselves.

so financial powers use their influence to have the better profict conditions, and this led us to an emptying from inside of democracy.
Actual democracy has not weapon to fight against this cancer is killing it.

I agree with you that is a problem of rules to be done (and not only in US..), but I think the point we risk to miss is:
does financial system must be oriented to profit?

I'll do an example (with it's limit of example) to express it better:
medical care: it can be public or private, free or payable anyway you like but..
none can think at it as something without rules..
Why? because the objective it goes to match can't be only the profict, but it must be first healt of people!
The same with financial powers:
it's getting obvious they need to be regulated to guarantee FIRST financial health of entire planet economies.. then profict!

I didn't understand what you wanted to say here. And I really don't understand why do you consider competitiveness to be bad for the economy? People can be competitive without being greedy. These are not synonyms.

my bad english,
I do not not consider competitivness negative for economy. I consider a competitive world something that is now, but can be changed.


edit:
I want to say the winning of capitalism is due to the strenght of states that use it, in front of weakness of other system's countries!
(editado)