Topic: Socialism vs capitalism ,which one is good for us ?? - page 3. (Read 749 times)

Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposed to economic thought. The central argument in the debate of socialism vs. capitalism is about economic equality and the role of government. Socialists believe that economic inequality is not good for society, and governments are responsible for reducing it through poor profitable programs such as free public education, subsidized or free health services, social security for the elderly, higher taxes for the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that governments do not use economic resources efficiently as private entrepreneurs do, and hence society is better off with free markets determining winners and losers economically.

Between socialism and capitalism I would choose capitalism any day of the week. Socialism offers no incentive to do anything other than pick up your check. To many people would refuse to do anything any no advances would be made and to society would stagnant and eventually die.

In essence socialism is an equal distribution of wealth. Capitalism on the other hand is a form of a merit system. Not imagine yourself in a socialist society. Now you're working hard and busting your ass off and you actually made alot of money. Now your neighbor on the other hand are lazy slobs who spends their days laying around. Now the money you earned will be distributed to them and you have nothing you say about it. In a capitalistic society if you work hard then you can have that. If your neighbor is lazy that person will not be you neighbor after a few months. I say capitalism is better.

All of the countries you listed are either fascist dressed up as socialist or being torn apart by America economically.

Lets have a look at the worlds best countries to live in. All of them are a socialist/capitalist mixed economy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/2016-worlds-happiest-countries/

   I personally prefer capitalism, yes it creates social segregation but people are not equal by their nature and obtained social skills. It seems to be fair for smart and strong to get success he deserves.
   Socialism limits people much, it takes away motivation to improve selfefficiency because strict rules reduce a space which good skills may be implemented to. Only successful socialism state I know is China, but who wants to be not allowed to use Google or Facebook and get internet access by ID card?

None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist.
All of them are democracies, and most important capitalist countries with a free market and economy.
You're mistaken social security and welfare and socialism.

And if you still don't believe that, here is the prime minister of Denmark telling Bernie that Denmark in not a socialist country.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9650030/denmark-prime-minister-bernie-sanders


The only true socialist countries are those where hunger and poverty rule.

Socialist countries are succesful Have you noticed that the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) are almost always in the top 10 best nations. They have a high standard of living, high education system, free health care, and low crime rates.

yea the fact is, socialist make us to be just "ordinary people". and it will end young generation creativity, but for some people the walfare will be well distributed all over the class. or i can said that you work hard for the welfare of all citizen. for example china is very developed although he follows the socialist ideology. so it will depends on the citizen of that country itself 

I always love socialism v capitalism debates on the internet which is a product of socialism.

Anyway this graph shows the historica UK debt. In 1945 the UK moved to a socialist/capitalist mixed economy. Check the effect on the debt.

From 1979 onwards it has been moving to a capitalist one. Check how the debt has changed.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_nationl_debt.php

True. In a socialistic frame. No matter how hard you work, you will not get richer. No matter how talented you are you will not move foreward. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get ahead. So you will tend to be lazy like everyone else. Socialism is shared wealth, whereby everyone will pull in their funds and divide it equally. But what if i don't have funds to give? Socialism will work well if everybody actually works well for a single goal. We humans haven't worked for a single goal in our history.

From my experience, I'd rather go with capitalism. Socialism is a failed strategy, as evident from history. None of the countries that have adopted socialism has succeeded, and the list includes North Korea, Bolivia, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Venezuela.

Under socialism, there is a weak motivation for work and self-improvement. It does not matter whether I'm smart, or stupid - my income doesn't change significantly.
As for capitalism - everything depends on you. Everyone can achieve anything if he makes every effort

since socialism and capitalism is a ideology of the country, it's no single answer that can answer which is better. different people have different point of view, but let me say this as an netral person. all have the pros and the cons, for example in socialism:
There is no market in a socialism economy and therefore, there is no competition. The quantity of products produced and distributed is regulated, including the price that the consumer will pay for the products. While, the capitalism is an economic and political system that is based on the principle of individual rights. It believes that it is inequality that will drive the people to be more innovative and productive.

see the difference?to conclude, i think both is good and always have pros and cons in every sector. but which is the best is depends on the citizen , the way of thinking, and the condition of the country who use that idelogy.

Both must be successive, both are chain that keep on related. In certain situation we must use one of it,

Capitalism to jack up economy, capitalism look as inflict the people because with this system, private companies rise the price so high for more profit. Where people sometimes not friendly in half of them. In this case, intervention of government make for as little as can to interfere the economic. Government only use profit without interfere.

In socialism, government is do the meddle, with the interfere of the government, it's for the price to be more easy on people. And in this side, it's not fully success yet because private companies sometimes use the moment here.

Good nor bad in this system just like how their comprehension in their heads.

About merit, I see tons of ppl yealling that you have to have your own merit so that you could be in good terms with all th things you have - that you have battled for everything in your life.

Buuuut, for example if Im a very rich doctor and my son, as a new doctor, received from me a full instaled clinic just for him, is it his merit? For a loooot of ppl he doesent deverved it. For me there is no problem in my merits being used by my son in this case. Buidilng everything was my merit and I can give its fruits to whoever I want and my son should not be critisiced for that.

There is a predominant way of seen thing that if you didint suffer before getting things it was 'easy' for you.

My son getting a full clinic does nothing to do with every personal battles that ppl need in their lifes.

I wouldn't mind discussing examples commonly utilized in an effort to compare capitalism versus socialism. 

Pundits often look at healthcare in an effort to gauge capitalism vs socialism. They cite universal healthcare in europe and canada as being superior to capitalist healthcare in the united states. Its a flawed comparison. Both universal healthcare and american healthcare are monopolies and both are in dire circumstances being underfunded, extremely expensive while providing subpar care to patients. American healthcare is composed of a system of state based monopolies with it being illegal for consumers to venture out of state for coverage. Universal healthcare is a monopoly as the government is the sold provider and has no competition to incentivize industry wide innovation, lower prices or progress. They're essentially the same thing. Comparing healthcare in this manner is a flawed comparison and a poor choice for comparing socialism vs capitalism.

Pundits also often compare capitalist USA with its population of 300+ million with socialist nations like norway which only have a population of around 5 million with a population density 2-3 times lower than america. The differences in wealth distribution, health and other factors are better attributed to differences in climate, population density and overall population size than they are either capitalism or socialism. The disparity between "socialist" norway and "capitalist" america is like comparing crime rates between a rural town and a big city like new york. Its yet another flawed comparison biased in favor of promoting socialism.

A better example of socialism is NASA's Ares I rocket versus Elon Musk and Space X's Falcon Heavy rocket. NASA spent upwards of $60 billion dollars developing the Ares I and still don't have a working prototype. Space X spent $150 million to develop the Falcon Heavy. What we have here is an example of capitalism and the private sector developing the same thing socialism and NASA tried to develop at 100 times lower cost. This is the type of counter argument to socialism which should be standard in schools but for whatever reason its ignored in favor of pro socialist perspectives which never pan out.

There aren't any right or wrong answers in here, as both ideologies have their own flaws and uses. Socialism promotes a good wealth distribution while capitalism focuses on the people who have the means to create new products for the people in order to make more money. I for one believe that wealth distribution is good, but equal wealth distribution? That will only exist in a distant, Utopian future (if we haven't incinerate this planet into ashes by then) and is not ideal since the economy would go stale and no one would want to work anymore. There is also a high chance of the officials going berserk and corrupt. Capitalism, on the other hand, utilizes resources in order to create services or new products, which then employs manpower that works for them. Due to this, economies get stimulated, new products are created and a wider competition in the market is created, thus favoring the poor in the ultimate end.

Socialism describes a centralized paradigm where the state owns and controls everything. This tends to be a bad arrangement as it gives governments a monopoly which leads to greater fraud, abuse and inefficiency than free markets which are incentivized by competition to be more efficient, less wasteful and more fair to consumers and the public.

Capitalism describes a decentralized paradigm where ownership and power is shared between a state and its people. Many of the advantages people have witnessed from bitcoin becoming more decentralized over time apply to capitalism. As samsung, nvidia, intel, russia and others enter the ASIC market, this application of free markets has a high potential to reduce the price of ASICs while providing far greater performance as well as other benefits. This example applies to capitalism where the competition between corporations like "intel vs AMD" or "coke vs pepsi" has a great potential to offer better terms to consumers and the public than heavily centralized abstracts like socialism where there is no competition to incentivize progress. With socialism stagnation, waste and abuse become the norms as there are no alternatives to compare centralized state ownership/management to.

Capitalism is still way better than socialism. IMO unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth is what we need to keep citizens working hard on jobs, by doing so economy.also improves. Society is more organized too when it follows capitalism, since the wealthy is the one who provides jobs, and there are also enough people to take the job.

After researching for a few days and with the help of you fine humans, I'm liking socialism very much. It seems to be the exact opposite of what I have always thought it was.

I'm currently baffled that it has been demonized so much in the US. And also a bit ashamed that I didn't figure this out earlier.