This is intended as a debate over which is the most effective way to run a country. Does not have to necessarily be purely economics, but as a whole, which does the best for the country. Please include why the others not chosen dont do the job as well.
my utopian community would have combination of timocracy and meritocracy. that's how my family rolls in our own little world.
Truth is neither is better than other. The way our government is design is to be able to adjust when needed be and I continue to see people think we have a solo style of government.
yes, capitalism is the way to go. But there are 2 very different sides to capitalism itself. I myself believe in the Austrian School. which is very limited government.
I've been out of college for a long time. The Rockets lost and the OP sounds like a government instructor I had about 40 years ago, with all due respect. I think I'll pass.
The democratic socialism or social democracy of Europe has proven to be the best way to run a country for the majority. Now I realize that if you mainly are interested in providing a lot of wealth for an elite group of say 1 to 20%, with the top 1% being significantly better off than the other 19 to 20% capitalism is great. In reality relatively little trickles down to the vast majority in a realtively pure capitalist model. In Sweden the public health statistics of the top 20% are the same as the lower 20%. In the the US which despite libertarian and conservative goals is still a very weak social democracy, the disparity between the top 20% and the lower 20% is shocking.
Misleading. A few decades of history surely doesn't trump a few centuries. Europe has always been a powderkeg and always will. In contrast to the middle east, its the government that is usually sparking the wars, not the people. Socialism is the progressing middle step to communism. As stated, the pendulum does swing back and forth. Socialism states that equality is more important while capitalism states hard work and shrewdness is more important. The only real difference is which powers holds the keys; The mobsters of wallstreet or the government. Simply put, when you put the glass ceiling on everyone, overall production will go down.
I recently read a quote from John Kenneth Galbraith that I found amusing and somewhat relevant to this thread: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." Every economy is a hybrid, anyway, so there are no example of pure anything. Regardless, they are all constricted and harmed by the injection of people. I think we are screwed until we can build a morally ethical machine with unlimited power to forcibly civilize and police us into being good people and not always trying to exploit and kill each other. Obviously, the machine will grow to hate us and kill us all, anyway, but at least we will have had a few year of doing things the right way. So the answer to your question is that it cannot be answered because A.the study of economics is useless in determining anything concrete and B.th best solution is utopian fantasy.
Ask yourself this, would you rather live in United States today or would you rather live in the United States of 1909 with hardly any regulations and social protection network such as medicare, social security, etc. I would bet 8out 10 people in the United States would want to living in a system that is similar to today's United States.
well u got two things are work here 1. Political System - Democracy - Republic - Socialism - Fascism 2. Economic System - Capitalism - Socialism - Communism Democratic Republic IMO seems to be the best Political System while Socialism maybe a better Economic System Capitalism corrupts Democracy too much for my tastes Lobbyist and big money have MORE SAY than others MONEY TALKS . . .and those without it .. . are easily rendered near voiceless Rocket River
Im not eligible for medicare and I have no health insurance. I don't think for a second that SS will be around once it comes time to collect, nor do I think it will be able to sustain a decent quality of life for me. There is a huge misconception between no government and little government. Yes, there needs to be regulations. FCC, FDA, ect ... are vital. Nor do I believe that we need to herd the misfortune into poverty camps. You can't poorly/over regulate a capitalist economy, you back businesses in a corner and/or businesses will use it to their advantage and exploit every loop hole available. This is exactly what is happening.
The quick answer as others have already noted is that neither works in a pure form and attempts to make something close to a pure form of either have proven disastrous. If looking at human history the most successful forms of government has been dictatorship since the longest lasting human governments, The Roman Empire, T'ang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Pharaohic Egypt have been dictatorships. The most successful economic systems, in terms of longest lasting, has been hunter gatherer. In an age where we recognize individual rights a dictatorship wouldn't work and philosophically I am opposed to the idea but I wouldn't totally rule out that dictatorship might not end up at some point the norm for governments.
If you have competent dictators it is more efficient than the democracy. The problem with dictators is once you get someone like the morons from North Korea in charge you are screwed for decades if not longer as a country.
They all suck because people are greedy and evil. A mixed economy is necessary. I think we need police protection, and ways to offer education to the masses. Individuals need to be driven by the ability to be more successful than their neighbor, which is only possible through free enterprise. Regardless of what system we choose, it will never be fair. People aren't created equal. Who's responsibility is it to take care of those who were not born as fortunate as others? Is it ok to reward laziness in order to care for those that were dealt a bad hand?
who was it who said something along the lines of democracy isn't the best form of government, but the best we've come up with so far? Aristotle i think? anyways, i always thought in a perfect society communism/socialism is a good theory, the problem is we live in an imperfect world and people cheat, and then people get greedy, but everyone working for the greater good of the community is a good idea in theory, but never plays out in a world filled with so many different people democracy is the only reasonable way to run a government if you are trying to be fair to your citizens. a country would be easier to run under a dictatorship, just because you can bypass all the political bs and get done what needs to get done, but once again in an imperfect world dictatorships lead to corruption and often times human rights violations haha democracy is the answer imo
Would you rather live in a country where you standard of living is say one million per family in today's dollar but you have a dictator who runs the country and you cannot oppose him, or would you rather live in a country where you have 50k income per family and the country is a democratic society? Everything is relative, nothing is set in stone.
