I think most of y'all might have already in depth discussed this topic, possibly before I joined this forum or had gone on a long hiatus. That's why I included a plebiscite to spare y'all the pain of responding again to this recurrent topic. Sorry.

FREE MARKET

Pros:-
1) Reduces poverty due to high economic growth.
2) Tends to be more efficient & effective. Merit & innovation matters.
3) People free to set their own businesses & have greater flexibility in governing their own lives.
4) More interdependent world, globalization.

Cons:-
1) Leads to economic crisis due to over-ambitious bankers & companies
2) Environmental degradation
3) Results in a money-driven world resulting in intense competition for survival & little regard for social matters.
4) Brings about homogeneity & destroys cultural diversity.
5) Hegemony
6) Unfair to the poor

How to overcome the disadvantages:-
1) Follow set guidelines to prevent crisis.
2) Compulsory use of green technology.
3) Government could provide all people irrespective of their income levels, equal opportunity to good education & a social security net.

SOCIALISM

Pros:-
1) Equal spread & distribution of resources
2) No greedy/selfish market entrepreneurs always on the look out for monetary gains.
3) Equity rules-more representation of people from backward sections of society.
4) Regulated banks & institutions offer stability & are usually risk-free.

Cons:-
1) Bureaucracy is choking and represents a Pandora's box.
2) Plagued by corruption. Leads to substandard services.
3) No choice for people. No competition.
4) Leads to populist governments
5) Unfair to the rich.
6) Socialism has failed world over.

How to overcome the disadvantages:-
1) Use of technology could overcome the stifling morass.
2) Ensure guidelines for more transparency & provision for better services.
3) People could be given a choice as to how the government should allocate the resources/funds & where exactly to spend them. This would lead to better choices & ensure priority is given to social sectors.

I spent some time thinking about all this & would welcome feedback's (even if it is not exactly pertaining to the topic).

A couple of things - your corrections to capitalism are basically socialist, and the reduction of poverty thing isn't accurate without socialist policies (i.e. social welfare) - in a pure capitalist society, the rich get richer off the backs of the poor, who remain so.
Take, for example, the relative fortunes of different wealth groups in America over the last couple of decades. There's a post on fivethirtyeight.com a while back which has the actual stats, but the conclusion was, under Republican governments, the rich certainly got richer, but the poor got *poorer*. Under Clinton (while he's not exactly socialist, his policies were certainly quite far left by American standards) everybody got richer.

One thing that's bugging me is that you seem to be saying that it's either straight captalism or straight communism. I don't think either system taken to it's extremes is a good thing. I'm more socalist-leaning myself, capitalism seems to favour only a small group of people who usually abuse the system.

Keeping in mind that I don't understand much about economics, most've what I know comes from the book The Shock Doctrine.

Oh, I really like both your posts. My corrections to capitalism really sound socialist-I felt that too. But take the first 2 points. Eventually, everyone has to go green as soon there will be a big shortage of non-renewable resources. And set guidelines are somewhat already in place, only it needs to be strengthened. I don't think it makes it really socialist. The third point, I agree does. But are not there companies which groom young children (provide them with quality education & good facilities) so that when they grow up, they can join the company? Even the private sector has realized the importance of good education & social security & to rope in future employees, they are willing to provide it all.
Initially, extreme capitalism & socialism won't work either. Ideally (I think) it is best when a nascent nation first follows a mixed economy. The government should look after the 'social' aspect & the market (under some regulation) should look to provide people with better job opportunities. Once you reach a level where nearly everyone has a good income & could look after their own needs (meaning afford all basic amenities), you could take an extreme approach (I was asking what step to follow at this juncture). I don't know if it's very feasible though.

I don't have time right now, but I'll craft a finely-worded but verbose reply later. Generally , I agree with FuzzyLob.

Well, the mixed economy thing she suggested is the best (esp.if the positives of capitalism & communism are taken & implemented). But I am trying to get a consensus on only one of the two i.e. either capitalism or socialism. Don't ask me what stand I am taking. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Edit-I see there are 3 votes for socialism. But it's never worked anywhere on earth, yet y'all support it?

It's a good idea, just hasn't been implemented right :P

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Well, the mixed economy thing she suggested is the best (esp.if the positives of capitalism & communism are taken & implemented). But I am trying to get a consensus on only one of the two i.e. either capitalism or socialism. Don't ask me what stand I am taking. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Edit-I see there are 3 votes for socialism. But it's never worked anywhere on earth, yet y'all support it?

Real-world implementations of extreme socialism have all involved extreme authoritarianism too, and I'd argue it's that that's lead to its downfall, rather than the economic model itself - the authoritarianism leads to widespread corruption, lack of incentives to actually work, and the like, and this is what causes to economic collapses observed in these nations.
While they're obviously nowhere near the extremes of socialist policy, Scandinavian nations like Sweden and Norway implement fairly dramatic socialism coupled with a tend towards social liberalism, and consistently rank extraordinarily high on quality of life scales.

Laissez-faire.
All I have to say.
:)

Dansariki wrote:Laissez-faire.
All I have to say.
:)

And here was me hoping for a well-reasoned post from the board's resident capitalist.
You never fail to underwhelm...

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Well, the mixed economy thing she suggested is the best (esp.if the positives of capitalism & communism are taken & implemented). But I am trying to get a consensus on only one of the two i.e. either capitalism or socialism. Don't ask me what stand I am taking. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Edit-I see there are 3 votes for socialism. But it's never worked anywhere on earth, yet y'all support it?

Real-world implementations of extreme socialism have all involved extreme authoritarianism too, and I'd argue it's that that's lead to its downfall, rather than the economic model itself - the authoritarianism leads to widespread corruption, lack of incentives to actually work, and the like, and this is what causes to economic collapses observed in these nations.
While they're obviously nowhere near the extremes of socialist policy, Scandinavian nations like Sweden and Norway implement fairly dramatic socialism coupled with a tend towards social liberalism, and consistently rank extraordinarily high on quality of life scales.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-da ... clip165123

For Canadians ^

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-a ... rome-pt--1

Americans ^

I'm afraid I've yet to find a link for other nationalities to view.

And I must mention I've finished reading V for Vendetta....

Sentynel wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:Well, the mixed economy thing she suggested is the best (esp.if the positives of capitalism & communism are taken & implemented). But I am trying to get a consensus on only one of the two i.e. either capitalism or socialism. Don't ask me what stand I am taking. Just playing the devil's advocate.

Edit-I see there are 3 votes for socialism. But it's never worked anywhere on earth, yet y'all support it?

Real-world implementations of extreme socialism have all involved extreme authoritarianism too, and I'd argue it's that that's lead to its downfall, rather than the economic model itself - the authoritarianism leads to widespread corruption, lack of incentives to actually work, and the like, and this is what causes to economic collapses observed in these nations.
While they're obviously nowhere near the extremes of socialist policy, Scandinavian nations like Sweden and Norway implement fairly dramatic socialism coupled with a tend towards social liberalism, and consistently rank extraordinarily high on quality of life scales.

India practised extreme socialism for 45 years. And it didn't involve authoritarianism at all. Ok, only for a period of 18 months when Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency (& it didn't have anything to do with economics-but with the growing influence of her opponents). But for over 43yrs the country was very democratic-far more democratic than it is today (we had much better leaders then). Yet, it failed so badly. The country nearly suffered a complete financial disaster before the economy was thrown open. And though corruption was a problem, it surely didn't lead to the economic collapse. There were a host of reasons for it, but the regulated economy was the main culprit.
There could quite possibly be other nations too which initially followed socialism, but gave up on it due to financial reasons rather than authoritarian ones.

Edit- Sweden ranks very high on economic freedom too.

Of course, socialism doesn't imply economic prosperity any more than capitalism does. The economic freedom indexes you linked are poorly correlated with actual economic growth. Even a theoretically brilliant system can and will fail if it's poorly managed, and you only have to look at the accuracy of today's economists at predicting what's actually going to happen to see how hard running an economy is going to be. While widespread socialist government would arguably have prevented the current banking screwup, the variety and inaccuracy of economic predictions it's highlighted will apply however you run the system; the economy is a mind-bogglingly complex system.

I should point out that nationalising all businesses is a very extreme form of socialism, and one that I do not support. Handing control of all or even the majority of a nation's industry to a single point of failure, i.e. the government, is never going to be a good idea.

The link was meant to show that despite the socialist agenda of the Swedish government, its economy was very open. But I do think capitalism has brought more income mobility & prosperity to people than socialism has. It's had a trickle down effect, but the poorest of the poor have definitely not benefitted. You need the government to contribute here & it does. Even *capitalist* America follows a mixed economy (or neo capitalism).

... Most economies are hybrids these days. The real showdown is the between the American - European and Russian - Chinese models, Free Market vs Checks and Balances.

I think it's fine for rich countries to be more capitalist than others & poor countries to be more socialist. It's just the extent of capitalism & socialism.