"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Minionman]

This still results in the replacement of capitalism with socialism.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

you were arguing over a word usage:

1) "socialism" is an economic system where means of production are either owned or run by the government, and decisions regarding the economy are largely (or entirely) run by the same

And in fact in these economies most of the decisions are made and econimic property is owned by the actual buyers and sellers, with the government having some control. capitalism was said to be market forces only, so according to these definitions, some systems are mixtures. And if we're going to use these words to describe things, better to use "mixed economy" and/or "some socialism" to get the point across gets it across much clearer than just saying "socialism" or "capitalism" and hoping the rest of the writing is clear enough for people to get how far in either direction.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

Works great in theory, except history seems to suggest that monopolies and unions, for example, naturally form as people realize that they can get advantages from grouping up (see 1800's U.S. for example). To keep other forces under control, the government gets brought in to keep other forces under control, and there's some regulation. And of course there are other issues like pollution that have to do with economic growth that market forces don't really deal with, so some regulation comes in for that.

[Chaerophon]

I'm sure the Canadiens are quite thrilled about it; unfortunately, that does not answer the question of whether Canada's economy has in fact performed well, especially in comparison to it's more market-oriented peers. Perhaps every bit of economic data I've ever read is wrong, but Canada's economy is positively anemic compared to say, the US, Japan, South Korea, et al.

Link: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._41/ai_53449475

Actually, we're quite comparable given our overall reliance on resource exports.

It is obvious that in order for capitalism (or should I say, market-oriented capitalism) to function properly, the market must be as free from manipulation by any group (be it the government, monopolies, and even unions) as possible; it's part and parcel of the meaning of the word.

Well, first of all, I would like to hear your definition of the 'purpose' of capitalism and its primary 'function'. The only way in which your little thesis actually works is if you consider its "function" to be the concentration of capital. If "functioning properly" actually refers to production numbers and general social welfare, one may, through statistics alone, paint an entirely different picture. Things only become more complicated and less 'black or white' when one considers the protection of socio-cultural/socio-economic preferences and norms as factors of human importance. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than the tired old mythological economic formulation. In fact, the same link, and a million others like it, should tear that little piece of mythology to pieces.

EDIT: Here's an abstract from another, quite groundbreaking article on the subject. Unfortunately, one needs a subscription to view the whole thing online, but rest assured, the article itself is pure data analysis, plain and simple. http://www.ingenta.com/isis/searching/Expa...0000003&index=2

[Occhidiangela]

Would be a good enough ref as the author, but yes, nit scored a hit.

Ouchies

Old Rogue

Edited due to old age

[Jester]

"In re: "those were totalitarian nations with enormous class and wealth disparity prior to their revolutions..." does not answer why conditions worsened so drastically when socialists dictated how the economy was to be run."

It would be a hard question to answer, since it presupposes something that doesn't seem to be true. Material conditions (for the vast majority) in both Soviet Russia and Communist China improved dramatically. The cost was enormous, but nobody can fault those systems in terms of improving things like education, health care, food, shelter, etc... for the average person. Tsarist Russia wasn't exactly a happy place to live, and China had been in the Kuomintang toilet for long enough that the peasants loved the communists.

Now, I'm not saying that totalitarian absolutism is a good way to run an economy. Far from it. But these were not prosperous countries prior to communism, except for the very priveleged few, who gave the impression of prosperity through ostentatious displays of wealth (or of opression, depending on how you look at it.)

The Soviet economy took enormous leaps forward during the Stalin era. The model of development in one generation was untenable in the long run (people can't eat steel), but it transformed Russia from being a minor economic player into the second most powerful nation in the world, with technology mostly on par with the US, and in some limited cases more advanced. Quite a jump from where they started, yes? And before you talk about the costs, yes, they were enormous, and unacceptably so. But if you're imagining that socialism ruined previously prosperous economies, you're imagining wrong.

"I am also curious to how you square away the claim of "whose governments have always been despotic, whether devotedly capitalist, communist, or otherwise?" in regards to Korea; the only despots prior to the division post WW2 were the Japanese."

Well, I must say I know far less about Korean history than Russian or Chinese. But, a quick glance at the History of Korea article doesn't give me any impression they had anything but despotic governments between the dawn of time and WWII. Isolationist monarchists, it looks like. Am I missing something?

"I guess you missed that whole time during the 90's when Sweden's economy was in the tank, which was not resolved until government restrictions were lessened and the government took great measures to cap spending on social services."

Okay, so a nation that has been socialist-democratic for nearly a century suffers a recession (as if capitalist countries don't have those...) after 70 years of nearly uninterrupted prosperity (the "swedish miracle", the "third way"), and all of a sudden it's lumped in with North Korea and Stalinist Russia as "the inevitable result of implementing socialism." Could you find a more exaggerated argument to put forth? Socialism isn't infalliable. Neither is capitalism. No system succeeds maximally 100% of the time. Sweden exercised its democratic mechanism to make adjustments to their economy, resulting in a newer equilibrium.

"It also doesn't deal with the fact that the USSR (the only one of the three to both remain socialist and lose it's tyrants) continued to fail, miserably, even after Stalin's death."

Uh... well, let's see. First, Russia has been officially tyrant-free for 13 years. Now, they have a heavily censored press, enormous corruption, crippling debt, a war they can't win, and an economy that regularly teeters on the brink of collapse. Freedoms are being restricted, and their leader stays in power through displays of machismo and dirty politics. Sounds remarkably like the old Tsarist system. So, yes, they got rid of their tyrants. Maybe they'll be back, maybe they won't. But this has not been an overwhelming success.

The Soviet economy only really ground down near the end of Khruschev's term, and even then mostly because the model was unsuited to make a conversion from heavy industry to quality-of-life improvements. However, they still managed to be the first into space, to feed the people, to achieve a literacy rate higher than the US', and to compete with the mightiest nation on earth for military supremacy. They brought roads, rails and electricity to a nation of oxen carts in less than half a century. That doesn't sound like a miserable failure, in purely economic terms. Their failures were due to the human cost, which was unacceptable any way you slice it. Nobody could live under the Stalinist system; people were made into subhuman labourers. But, as Sweden (and most European nations, at one point or another) has demonstrated, that is a historical feature of Stalinism, not an essential feature of socialism generally.

Jester