Socialism, Laissez Faire
Rapier7
Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
in Discussions
Laissez Faire:
Pros:
1. Rapid economic development.
Corporations given largely a free hand in their own affairs will expand the quickest. Most notably they try to create industries that people will need in the future (Microsoft, US Steel, Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil), look at Carnegie Steel (later turned into US Steel by Morgan), Standard Oil, the railroads, spearheaded by the Captains of Industry, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and of course, Rockefeller.
2. Low taxes.
Low government interference mandates low taxes. Again, look at the Gilded Age of America. As the Federal Government (of the US) became increasingly meddlesome (please do not note its negative connotation) in the affairs of state and business, we had to have additional taxes. Indeed, the 16th amendment (Federal right to tax income) passed due to this.
3. Minimal Government Involvement
When people argue about privatizing various parts of economic sectors today, they look at it with a capitalist ideology, that the businessman can budget more appropriately than the Congressman. In many cases this is true, some, not so true.
4. Overall higher standard of living.
In America's age of economic expansion, while the corporate Northeastern elite (damn I love that phrase) held virtually all the power in the country (Morgan lent 65 million to the Federal government, which was paid back 110% the year later), standards of living rose, wages eventually rose due to the incredible advances that Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt spearheaded.
5. Unforgiving to losers.
You lose? You lose. If you win, you win big. I mean, really big. Everybody wants to be rich. Creates incentive to work.
Cons
1. Minimal Government Involvement
Monopolies are a definite possibility (anybody else see the irony in that?) within a Laissez Faire policy. This leads to bad business practice, such as underpaying your employees, overcharging for your products. The Robber Barons of the age (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, most notably) exploited their workers and the necessity of their industries (steel, oil, and transportation are indispensible).
2. Merciless to losers.
Did your business venture fail? Too bad. Don't have a job, can't feed your family? Too bad. You lose, you really lose.
3. Low taxes.
But you have to pay for just about everything. Nothing's subsidized. You want to see a doctor? You pay for it.
Socialism
Pros:
1. Government standards.
Minimum wage, standard work hours, legal work ages, business regulation, etc, prevents corporations from going overboard and exploiting the masses.
2. Necessities are cheap or free.
Free (or damn near it) health care, education, transportation (to an extent).
3. Merciful to losers.
You lose? Not quite. The government will subsidize your business, give you money if you're unemployed, and render you financial assistance should things go south.
Cons.
1. Merciful to losers.
Prone to frequent exploitation by society's deadbeats, possibly could create a huge financial liability. Creates a standard of mediocrity, if left unchecked.
2. Necessities are not up to par.
Compared to capitalistic ventures, when governments subsidize your sector of the economy, it removes an incentive of excellence, to a degree.
It seems that with both governments, their very strengths are their weaknesses. But which is the better of the two? Of course, there is never a black and white area, you can be a socialist country with capitalist tendencies (China) or you can be a capitalist country with socialist tendencies (US).
So far, with the current model, I think that the US's version of capitalism works the best. You get an incentive to work, work hard? Get rich, most of the times. But if you fail, you'll still have some assistance, but not enough so that you could potentially leech the system without doing anything else.
My understanding is that for a period, a growing nation will be based on capitalism, have large growth, until liberal progressive elements will eventually cry foul due to corporate exploitation of the working class. Then you change to a socialist government. But why can't you have laissez faire forever? I mean, technology is always improving, and there will always be a need for an invisible hand, but if you're stuck in socialism, you get a stagnant economy.
I'm trying to be fair with both my pros and cons of both laissez faire (if you haven't guessed or known by now, capitalism) and socialism. But I just can't understand why so many people advocate socialism and scorn capitalism.
Pros:
1. Rapid economic development.
Corporations given largely a free hand in their own affairs will expand the quickest. Most notably they try to create industries that people will need in the future (Microsoft, US Steel, Carnegie Steel, Standard Oil), look at Carnegie Steel (later turned into US Steel by Morgan), Standard Oil, the railroads, spearheaded by the Captains of Industry, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and of course, Rockefeller.
2. Low taxes.
Low government interference mandates low taxes. Again, look at the Gilded Age of America. As the Federal Government (of the US) became increasingly meddlesome (please do not note its negative connotation) in the affairs of state and business, we had to have additional taxes. Indeed, the 16th amendment (Federal right to tax income) passed due to this.
3. Minimal Government Involvement
When people argue about privatizing various parts of economic sectors today, they look at it with a capitalist ideology, that the businessman can budget more appropriately than the Congressman. In many cases this is true, some, not so true.
4. Overall higher standard of living.
In America's age of economic expansion, while the corporate Northeastern elite (damn I love that phrase) held virtually all the power in the country (Morgan lent 65 million to the Federal government, which was paid back 110% the year later), standards of living rose, wages eventually rose due to the incredible advances that Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt spearheaded.
5. Unforgiving to losers.
You lose? You lose. If you win, you win big. I mean, really big. Everybody wants to be rich. Creates incentive to work.
Cons
1. Minimal Government Involvement
Monopolies are a definite possibility (anybody else see the irony in that?) within a Laissez Faire policy. This leads to bad business practice, such as underpaying your employees, overcharging for your products. The Robber Barons of the age (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, most notably) exploited their workers and the necessity of their industries (steel, oil, and transportation are indispensible).
2. Merciless to losers.
Did your business venture fail? Too bad. Don't have a job, can't feed your family? Too bad. You lose, you really lose.
3. Low taxes.
But you have to pay for just about everything. Nothing's subsidized. You want to see a doctor? You pay for it.
Socialism
Pros:
1. Government standards.
Minimum wage, standard work hours, legal work ages, business regulation, etc, prevents corporations from going overboard and exploiting the masses.
2. Necessities are cheap or free.
Free (or damn near it) health care, education, transportation (to an extent).
3. Merciful to losers.
You lose? Not quite. The government will subsidize your business, give you money if you're unemployed, and render you financial assistance should things go south.
Cons.
1. Merciful to losers.
Prone to frequent exploitation by society's deadbeats, possibly could create a huge financial liability. Creates a standard of mediocrity, if left unchecked.
2. Necessities are not up to par.
Compared to capitalistic ventures, when governments subsidize your sector of the economy, it removes an incentive of excellence, to a degree.
It seems that with both governments, their very strengths are their weaknesses. But which is the better of the two? Of course, there is never a black and white area, you can be a socialist country with capitalist tendencies (China) or you can be a capitalist country with socialist tendencies (US).
So far, with the current model, I think that the US's version of capitalism works the best. You get an incentive to work, work hard? Get rich, most of the times. But if you fail, you'll still have some assistance, but not enough so that you could potentially leech the system without doing anything else.
My understanding is that for a period, a growing nation will be based on capitalism, have large growth, until liberal progressive elements will eventually cry foul due to corporate exploitation of the working class. Then you change to a socialist government. But why can't you have laissez faire forever? I mean, technology is always improving, and there will always be a need for an invisible hand, but if you're stuck in socialism, you get a stagnant economy.
I'm trying to be fair with both my pros and cons of both laissez faire (if you haven't guessed or known by now, capitalism) and socialism. But I just can't understand why so many people advocate socialism and scorn capitalism.
Comments
Money will perhaps begin to downgrade as priority, besides extreme luxury, money isnt everything. But I'm with you on most <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because people don't understand how Socialism works, OR they're just incredible optomists.
I think Socialism is great, but you either have to use it in a very small community or you have to have a ruthless government who sends the deadbeats to labor camps where they can live out the rest of their lives with 3 square meals, a roof over their head, a warm bed and all the rock smashing/hole digging they could ever with for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So far, with the current model, I think that the US's version of capitalism works the best. You get an incentive to work, work hard? Get rich, most of the times. But if you fail, you'll still have some assistance, but not enough so that you could potentially leech the system without doing anything else.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I feel the same way, although I think that if the government was even a little stricter with where tax dollars went we could afford to provide free healthcare. I mean, it's not like the medical system is exactly open to <i>major</i> exploitation. Sure you can get injuries fixed up anytime, but if you're living on welfare, you're not exactly living the American dream.