|
A lot of people confuse Libertarism[^] with capitalism.
A lot of people confuse communism with socialism.
When one is sooooo entrenched in his own definition of his way of life that he loose all sense of reality and more importantly judgement and rationality.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks hey! 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... Just wondering:
In China - what is there? Which system?
|
|
|
|
|
Its a kind of psuedo-capitalism, with private enterprise exitisting, but with the government playing a heavy hand into who is sucessful and who is not. A sort of central planning economy, but with a touch of privatism. Also, their free-trade zones are totally capitalist, and they are experimenting with more and more of them.
Also, my own comment about pros and cons about capitalism/communism
One of the best things about the central planning systems of communism is that the governmnet has the political will to make radical changes for the greater good when necessary. The downside is that the economies are not flexible. As there is no incentive to innovate, economies will stagnate until they are forced to innovate (wars?) This is why I think that the Soviet Union rebounded after WWII. The war forced them to innovate and got them (relatively) modern technology.
|
|
|
|
|
A rather spurious justification. There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other than Hell on Earth. A'driving force' is not a good thing in itself. Ask those in the path of a hurricane!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: There are very few that find the world we live in today to be anything other
than Hell on Earth.
However as a percentage of total population there are far more people now than at any point in history enjoying a better life.
Starvation is just one data point in that with actual starvation (percentage of population) on a steady decline and not to mention that since about 1900 starvation has been driven solely by monetary economics and not just lack of food.
|
|
|
|
|
Free enterprise promotes innovation. They aren't the same thing.
The highest quality of life is in mixed systems such as seen in Scandinavia.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system
Want to try that at home?
Capitalism only works on the large scale.
Communism only works on the small scale.
As to taxes the rest of what you ask; I dunno.
P.S. I just finished reading the first of those. I laughed a bit at
"
(Note the power of motivation centered on equity-building instead of the fear of loss of employment.)
" (regarding ESOPs)
It can still be a fear of loss of employment; perhaps even moreso because so much more can be lost.
Loss of a low-paying job is a smaller loss than loss of a high-paying job.
With so few ESOPs, can you really get a job at another? Will you need to relocate?
I worked for an employee-owned company for a few years and everyone there seemed frantic about putting every last available penny into the company and worried about what would happen if they lost their jobs. It was ridiculous.
modified 29-Sep-13 0:22am.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: Confused by (so called) "capitalism"
What's so confusing about .ToUpper()? 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just too liberal in its approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism is a political system.
They are not mutually exclusive...in the short run.
In the long run, not so much.
Communism is the ultimate end-point of socialism, if people decide they want to keep the Socialist system going. It embodies both the economic and political. (Countries are too large to effectively leave the "means of production" in the hands of the workers. On a small scale, it should work just fine.)
Yeah, this is a simplistic explanation. Lounge post, not Masters thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Capitalism is a political system.
Traditionally the word has been used to refer to transactions based on the Right of Property.
It can be (and has been) generalised into a structure of non-contradicting Rights, which guarantee freedoms of action to individuals.
The closest approach to a Capitalist state was the (constitutional) USA.
|
|
|
|
|
And Joe,
You're NOT drunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Your use of past tense for the Constitutional USA is appropriate, unfortunately.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
if(Discussion.ContainsBitwise(DiscussionTypes.Political | Disucssion.Types.Ideological)
{
Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox);
return;
}
Google CEO, Erich Schmidt: "I keep asking for a product called Serendipity. This product would have access to everything ever written or recorded, know everything the user ever worked on and saved to his or her personal hard drive, and know a whole lot about the user's tastes, friends and predilections." 2004, USA Today interview
|
|
|
|
|
Obligatory style pedantry:
MoveResult result = default(MoveResult);
if ((Discussion.Type & (DiscussionTypes.Political | DiscussionTypes.Ideological)) != 0)
{
result = Discussion.Move(CP.Forums.SoapBox);
}
return result;
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Line 4 is wrong:
return Quickly;
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: May people say (to summarize) "capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable economic system"
Let say I kind of agree with that statement.
Which is, of course, incomplete as well as incorrect. Which form of capitalism are we talking about? The anglosaxon version, the so-called Reaganomics? Or the Rheinlandic model of capitalism?
..and what did we have "before" capitalism?
Super Lloyd wrote: This "pro capitalist" people seems to think that capitalism is anarchy.
The anglo-saxon form of capitalism resembles indeed anarchy. It's the "right of the strongest", with the amount of capital determining relative strength.
Super Lloyd wrote: Speaking of which is there a name for the political system favouring the rule of law
You're mixing politics and economics. I'd say democracy might work, but only if the voters can make an informed decision (not just a vote for popularity)
Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Law itself is always just the list of rules that the ruling group defines. Paper is patient, and laws did not help prevent a financial melt-down.
The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful.
England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim.
On the other hand they do it in the US (detain people on a whim) so they have definitely left the rule of law and started to slide into (slight) dictatorship! 
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: The rule of laws as opposed to the whim of the powerful.
The laws are usually dictated by the powerfull.
Super Lloyd wrote: England is a Monarchy, yet the queen can't detain someone for no reason on a whim.
It's not exactly a monarchy any more. And I'd point to corporations being "the powerfull" these days.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Franc Morales wrote: Isn't it a fallacy to claim that small government and anarchy are the same thing?
According to Merriam-Webster online[^] anarchy is the extreme version of "small government":
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured="" plots="" but="" a="" wild="" anarchy="" of="" nature="" —="" israel="" shenker="">
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid "absence" and "small" are not synonyms.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
