|
|
Post by jordankimbo on Jan 15, 2016 5:41:06 GMT
During lectures and the debate, I heard a lot of people say that the reason our society uses Capitalism is because humans are inherently geared to improving their lot through their own means. And many people condone Socialism, or Communism, because they say that humans could never adapt to this idea of wealth shared around. But isn't human nature also to collaborate and form together as a group to pool resources (Social)? And humans usually work a lot better and can improve more when we share among others. So I guess the problem is, neither Capitalism or Socialism is really the solution for poverty. Neither one has the best interest of both the rich and poor in mind. I'm wondering if there is some kind of economic system right in the middle, where people are given ample opportunities to rise, but where we are able to function cohesively, because wealth is spread about, but not to the point where everyone stops trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew y8s on Jan 15, 2016 5:47:45 GMT
I think that may be sort of what we have now. While, in my opinion, we do live in more of a capitalist than socialist country, we are certainly a mix of both. The government doesn't directly control a lot of things, but there is regulation against monopolies, which would definitely be prominent had we been living in a purely capitalist society. The government has outlawed horizontal immigration in an effort to stop monopolies, as monopolies were one of the major issues in the time period we are studying right now. While the government does have some regulation in the corporate world, I wouldn't say that it is socialistic either, since the majority of companies are privately owned and anyone can start a company if they want to.
On the whole, i do think that we live in an economic system between the two, and i think that a lot of the discussion is on which side we should be moving towards in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by colegillespie on Jan 15, 2016 6:12:17 GMT
It is hard to tell what the "perfect balance" is between capitalism and socialism. As we have mentioned, socialism lacks incentives and without incentives people have no aspirations and nothing gets done. In addition, it is important to have some government control so that the wealthy few do not take advantage of the poor, but too much control can lead to a lack of freedom or corruption. As we progress, I believe that we will start to home in on a better balance. In this "perfect balance," the government would promote competition, yet still provide for the less fortunate who are unable to compete due to disadvantaged backgrounds. Too much competition creates a hostile feeling between companies over customers which can lead to issues of supply and demand wile too little competition gives the monopolies almost unlimited power and no motivation to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by davosp on Jan 15, 2016 6:34:41 GMT
Human nature is a strange thing to work economics around.
People want themselves and those close to them to succeed, and tend to do whatever it takes to get at least themselves higher up.
It's easy for a government official to look on the outside and say "wow, that guy's cornered the market. He's making too much money" while a successful businessman may even say "Wow, I built this for myself. And this is proof."
To take away what people rightfully earned is harder, but taking from "evil organizations and thoughtless corporations" is a good thing. Where does humanity start and where does it stop? That's where I'd start.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthamcgee on Jan 15, 2016 8:26:04 GMT
I agree that we do have a certain balance somewhere between socialism and capitalism currently. The system is definitely more capitalist but does have some socialist flavor to it as there are many aspects of life that are regulated by the government and implemented in order to in some way attempt to balance and make universal at least the basic necessities of most citizens. However, I do believe there are countries that do a great job of this even though they lie somewhere else in the spectrum of socialism to free market capitalism. Germany, for example, has for a long time had universally mandated healthcare, higher taxes, and other mandated regulations. However, in turn the citizens of the country receive many more services from the government and can rely on the government to help them in times of need. It is evident that there are many ways to approach this spectrum and that each yields a slightly different result and society.
|
|
