Economic System

You know what to do =D

Not sure why Traditionalism is a variant, unless you want to go full feudalism

Anarcho-Communist for me.

However it pains me to admit it, out of the choices available, capitalism is the choice closest to my actual beliefs.

Economically I consider myself a social democrat, believing in some mix of socialist and capitalist policies, but my belief in market forces (as opposed to a planned economy) and private ownership (as opposed to public/state ownership) means that I lean considerably closer to capitalism than socialism.

EDIT: I had to point this out, but fascism isn't an economic system. Fascist states such as Germany under the NSDAP used a variant of capitalism, with an extremely strong focus on mercantilism and support of the unfortunate. A social democrat (such as myself) and a national socialist can probably talk economics just fine without disagreeing on anything fundamental.

Hardcore Laissez-Faire(Could be termed Anarcho-Capitalism, I guess?)

Fascism and Communism are not economic systems, but social. Economic system in Communist states was called 'Collectivism' but everyone link Communism to it although they do not necessarily follow each other. Israeli kibutz is collectivist but Israel is not communist.

In your question you ask for prefered economic system, so i have to answer 'other' (Collectivism). Because i believe economy is only means to achieve decent standard of living and nothing more. I believe some things are not for trade and profiteering, like water, healthcare and weapons.

But Collectivism is hard to achieve, or develop, and/or maintain as shown in the USSR, Poland and North Korea because humans aren't perfect and corruption is spread easily. Therefore i choose Capitalism for my country (Russia) as it leaves everyone (you can read 'leave' as 'give freedom') to do business on their own and decide alone (read 'freely') what he want to do with the money, profit, stock, resources, material, goods. No (more) collective planning but everyone for himself (in the economy).

Напишано од Skanderbeg, 08.03.2016 at 09:47

Fascism and Communism are not economic systems, but social. Economic system in Communist states was called 'Collectivism' but everyone link Communism to it although they do not necessarily follow each other. Israeli kibutz is collectivist but Israel is not communist.

Can't believe I'm saying this but Tito is right

How about heavily regulated capitalism? Also Anarcho-capitalism please.. that term is a joke, a meaningfull word highjacked for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. dont be that guy..

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 08.03.2016 at 15:28

How about heavily regulated capitalism? Also Anarcho-capitalism please.. that term is a joke, a meaningfull word highjacked for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. dont be that guy..

Terms are for what they are supposed to mean- anarcho-capitalism included. As for heavy regulations, I would rather go back and add in a mixed system option (mixture of capitalism/socialism. Free market system with some regulation to allow business to flourish along with a social safety net to keep people from simply dying)

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

Terms are for what they are supposed to mean- anarcho-capitalism included.

No,no,no and NO! Anarcho-capitalism is a fake ideology created by rich white North Americans and laughed at by virtually everybody else on the planet, except actual anarchists who are pissed and rightly so, since the very term is an oxymoron. Anarchism is not simply "no state", its actually focused on "no authority" and central values are those of freedom, justice, peace (usualish) cooperation, equality, solidarity, voluntary work, mutual help and others. Also it rejects capitalism and more importantly private ownership. So called anarcho-capitalists simply want to replace the state with themselves and exert their dominance on the population, going against every single belief and idea, anarchism stands for. Its a joke.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

As for heavy regulations, I would rather go back and add in a mixed system option (mixture of capitalism/socialism. Free market system with some regulation to allow business to flourish along with a social safety net to keep people from simply dying)

Mixed would be a good one But only for a social net to keep people from dying?Are you kidding lol. No, by heavy regulation we mean keeping a tight leash on the corporations, taxing the rich, regulating enviromental like a motherfucker, minimise lobbying, party fundings, corruption, tax evading by large corpos, targetting monopolies, lowering income gap and others..

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 08.03.2016 at 17:42

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

Terms are for what they are supposed to mean- anarcho-capitalism included.

No,no,no and NO! Anarcho-capitalism is a fake ideology created by rich white North Americans and laughed at by virtually everybody else on the planet, except actual anarchists who are pissed and rightly so, since the very term is an oxymoron. Anarchism is not simply "no state", its actually focused on "no authority" and central values are those of freedom, justice, peace (usualish) cooperation, equality, solidarity, voluntary work, mutual help and others. Also it rejects capitalism and more importantly private ownership. So called anarcho-capitalists simply want to replace the state with themselves and exert their dominance on the population, going against every single belief and idea, anarchism stands for. Its a joke.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

As for heavy regulations, I would rather go back and add in a mixed system option (mixture of capitalism/socialism. Free market system with some regulation to allow business to flourish along with a social safety net to keep people from simply dying)

Mixed would be a good one But only for a social net to keep people from dying?Are you kidding lol. No, by heavy regulation we mean keeping a tight leash on the corporations, taxing the rich, regulating enviromental like a motherfucker, minimise lobbying, party fundings, corruption, tax evading by large corpos, targetting monopolies, lowering income gap and others..

Anarcho-capitalism to me sounds like "true" laizze faire economics (no government- just a "free" market)


As for a safety net, a mixed system ranges from minimal to extreme. when I said "with a social safety net to keep people simply from dying", I understand now the "simply" may be misconstrued as "only"- my mistake. What I intended to say was the existence of at least a minimal social safety net- in mixed economics this ranges.



Considering most countries are mixed economies, I did try to stay away from it. I support a mixed system but lean more toward capitalism. You (correct me if I'm wrong) support a mixed system but lean more toward socialism. This poll was to try and account for those variations by putting people into their respective ideological economic views.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

Terms are for what they are supposed to mean- anarcho-capitalism included. As for heavy regulations, I would rather go back and add in a mixed system option (mixture of capitalism/socialism. Free market system with some regulation to allow business to flourish along with a social safety net to keep people from simply dying)

I think your prefered system is called 'Social Market Economy'. Germans invented it and using for 60 years. Learster talked about it.

Basically SME is softer version of Norwegian (other name 'nordic') system which is mixture of capitalist and collectivist systems. For example, 30% of Norwegian economy is state-owned with monopoly over oil and heavy regulations on many imported goods.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I agree with del boy

Напишано од Skanderbeg, 09.03.2016 at 06:09

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 08.03.2016 at 16:53

Terms are for what they are supposed to mean- anarcho-capitalism included. As for heavy regulations, I would rather go back and add in a mixed system option (mixture of capitalism/socialism. Free market system with some regulation to allow business to flourish along with a social safety net to keep people from simply dying)

I think your prefered system is called 'Social Market Economy'. Germans invented it and using for 60 years. Learster talked about it.

Basically SME is softer version of Norwegian (other name 'nordic') system which is mixture of capitalist and collectivist systems. For example, 30% of Norwegian economy is state-owned with monopoly over oil and heavy regulations on many imported goods.

Hm, I'm not sure how I feel about State owned companies. I much prefer people running companies than the government simply having a monopoly or parastatal. I don't like the idea of government competing with it's citizens. I cna understand having regulations but much prefer free market competition. I don't judge how other governments do this (if they are successful), this is just my view relating to America.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 17:17

Hm, I'm not sure how I feel about State owned companies. I much prefer people running companies than the government simply having a monopoly or parastatal. I don't like the idea of government competing with it's citizens. I cna understand having regulations but much prefer free market competition. I don't judge how other governments do this (if they are successful), this is just my view relating to America.

gg

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 17:17

I don't like the idea of government competing with it's citizens.

Such wisdom... aren't citizens the ones in charge in democracy? Doesn't that make governments part of the citizens?

Напишано од Columna Durruti, 09.03.2016 at 18:05

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 17:17

Hm, I'm not sure how I feel about State owned companies. I much prefer people running companies than the government simply having a monopoly or parastatal. I don't like the idea of government competing with it's citizens. I cna understand having regulations but much prefer free market competition. I don't judge how other governments do this (if they are successful), this is just my view relating to America.

gg

>references monopoly
>references company that engaged in illegal practices
>assumes all companies are deviant entities?

Напишано од RaulPB, 09.03.2016 at 19:01

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 17:17

I don't like the idea of government competing with it's citizens.

Such wisdom... aren't citizens the ones in charge in democracy? Doesn't that make governments part of the citizens?

>citizens in charge f democracy

America is a Republic- voters vote for individuals to represent them. Due to gerrymandering and other reasons, government is not always responsible to all citizens. I am not understanding the purpose of your message- how is a government owned company putting a private owned company out of business a good thing?

The government should regulate corporations, and it should actively shut down those corporations that do not benefit the average citizen. The Government should function as a Union for the workers of its country.

Also, how can businesses compete with the government when the governments has access to many more assets than the companies?

Напишано од For Antioch, 09.03.2016 at 21:09

No.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 21:15

America is a Republic- voters vote for individuals to represent them. Due to gerrymandering and other reasons, government is not always responsible to all citizens. I am not understanding the purpose of your message- how is a government owned company putting a private owned company out of business a good thing?

Politicians should work for the citizens, not against them.
America is a democratic republic as far as I know, or else there wouldn't be elections.
Government is always responsible to what happens to its citizens, unless they are some sort of traitors to those who voted them.
It's not that way. Public companies are a mere competition to private owned companies but totally transparent, employee friendly and it would always acomplish with laws.

Напишано од Pheonixking929, 09.03.2016 at 21:14

>references monopoly
>references company that engaged in illegal practices
>assumes all companies are deviant entities?

References also to strategic markets in which a state monopoly (or tighter state control) is fundamental and free competiton (or private companies) no necessaryly lead to efficient results.
Other examples in this line could be: Empresas Públicas de Medellín, a state owned company that provides basic services (electricity, water, gas and telecommunicatio) to the city of Medellín in Colombia, considered by many as one of the most sustainable (economic, social and environmental) companies in the Americas. Or even the ICE (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), a state owned company in Costa Rica, dedicated to electricity and telecommunication supply. It's utilities are either reinvested for better services and/or to sustain the universal health care in Costa Rica.

What I'm trying to say is that there are strategic sectors/markets, like lectricity, water, sanitation, gas, telecommunication.... etc. that are so strategic for a country, that they should not be owned by privates, but rather by the State. And don't forget, that the State is a representative of the interests of a majority... in many cases hijacked by elites and their corrupt servants.

Please make a difference betwenn Government and State. They are completely different "things".

Напишано од For Antioch, 10.03.2016 at 10:06

How can a game be fair if one of the players is also the referee?

The government is a law making entity. It creates rules, regulates companies, and enforces the laws. It needs to stay objective to properly do its job. Once the government creates a gov. corporation, it now has a market interest in the success of its corp. Any time a regulating body has an interest in the success of what it is regulating, it leads to corruption. The government can create laws that favor the gov. corp. or regulators can unfairly target competitors of the gov. corp.

How can you compare a government to a single referee...? Dude... this isn't a game, it's real life and a goverment isn't a single person or chosen arbitrarily XD

The government won't be subjective just cause it has its own companies. Their companies would be the ones that actually follow the laws more strictly since the government is the one personally supervising everything. Meanwhile... corrupt and thief private companies not giving a shit about anyone else... cause they seek their own benefit. So corruption isn't an argument on your side. If goverments worked as they are supposed to work, they shouldn't have this problem. But since Private Companies buy the goverments and this retards value more the money than their peoples, such thing has happened. Happy about it?

Anyway, what gives if the goverment created laws that favoured a product over another? Such things already happen on a daily basis and I don't see you complaining about them.... come on...

Well,biggest companies today started and profited in Nazi Germany(Siemens,Volksvagen,Hugo Bos,IBM.Ford.Bajer,BMW,Nestle(maggi),Kodak)

Напишано од Oleg, 10.03.2016 at 12:14

Well,biggest companies today started and profited in Nazi Germany(Siemens,Volksvagen,Hugo Bos,IBM.Ford.Bajer,BMW,Nestle(maggi),Kodak)

Don't forget Coca Cola Company that started the Fanta in Nazi Germany ^_^

Напишано од Dereny, 10.03.2016 at 04:56

Also, how can businesses compete with the government when the governments has access to many more assets than the companies?

Attract workers with high wages, more benefits, less working hours, build cafeteria/pool/lounge, longer maternity leave, or paid paternity leave. Possibilities are endless.

Напишано од Skanderbeg, 12.03.2016 at 13:29

Напишано од Dereny, 10.03.2016 at 04:56

Also, how can businesses compete with the government when the governments has access to many more assets than the companies?

Attract workers with high wages, more benefits, less working hours, build cafeteria/pool/lounge, longer maternity leave, or paid paternity leave. Possibilities are endless.

Oh yes because the government can't be competitive with billions of dollars in revenue

Напишано од Dereny, 12.03.2016 at 13:33

Oh yes because the government can't be competitive with billions of dollars in revenue

Yeah but the revenue must be divided into many many different tasks..... just in case you didn't remember that little, tiny, insignificant fact!
Meanwhile, multinational business have more available revenue to invest in their own workers... but guess where that money goes to... not the employees, that for sure.

Напишано од Khal.eesi, 08.03.2016 at 15:28

How about heavily regulated capitalism? Also Anarcho-capitalism please.. that term is a joke, a meaningfull word highjacked for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. dont be that guy..

I refuse to associate anarchism with the left, therefore anarcho-capitalism because it is clear we as a society cannot function without an exchange medium with a fixed market value, AKA gold standard currency.(Without the fixed market value stuff works but the bankers can control the nation through that)