Socialism and Capitalism suffer from one specific problem which leads to a meltdown

I use free energy to pick fruit...
I use free energy to eat the fruit...

I use free energy to compel my spirit to sticking around this hell-hole...

Why?

Oh yeah! Because I'm gonna be rich someday!

Socialism is Capitalisms' opposite;
Socialism is more than one guy looking out for the entire group,
Capitalism is one guy looking out for himself- regarding others around him as a burden.

Vote for me...so I can feed my family while you starve yours!

I use free energy to pick fruit...
I use free energy to eat the fruit...

I use free energy to compel my spirit to sticking around this hell-hole...

Why?

Oh yeah! Because I'm gonna be rich someday!

Socialism is Capitalisms' opposite;
Socialism is more than one guy looking out for the entire group,
Capitalism is one guy looking out for himself- regarding others around him as a burden.

Vote for me...so I can feed my family while you starve yours!

So people are talking about incentivized growth but here is the problem with that whole notion, THE INCENTIVE TYPICALLY BECOMES CORRUPT AS SOON AS A FREE MARKETS PARTICIPATOR GETS VERY GREEDY.

I mean seriously for what ever reason free market, capitalist, etc ALWAYS IGNORE THIS!!!!.

They act and preach their typical free market philosophy and AVOID THIS OBVIOUS FLAW.

You are seriously kidding yourself if you honestly believe the chance of capitalism turning into an oligarchy doesnt have an EXTREME CHANCE OF HAPPENING. IMO its inevitable CONSIDERING CURRENT HUMAN BEHAVIOR.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Sweden is almost lost. I read areport somewhere that the Sweden will become a third world economic country in 15 years if they keep implementing socilaist policies and country killer immigration policies.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: aiolosmartine

In college, I learned that Socialism is the highest form of government and that Capitalism is eventually doomed to fail because it requires infinite growth even though we live in a finite system of resources. Since both systems each has their faults, I think a combination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best for everyone. We can call it Socio-cap.

Those are fighting words on these forums, very few people have that point of view, and the ones that do are largely silenced by those that don't.

That said, the biggest problem with capitalism is that it's extremely wasteful. Most of the people who push capitalism point to the theory of perfect competition, but that relies on the idea that everyone has free access to all of the relevant information in order to choose the best products. In reality we don't have that, not only is information obfuscated through marketing, but humans are primarily emotional creatures rather than logical which makes us prone to impulse buys and confirmation bias of products. This leads to a situation where the most competitive product is the most successful rather than the best product. There's a good documentary on youtube about this called the lightbulb conspiracy but essentially what happens is the product that costs $1 but needs to be replaced every year is going to result in a much stronger company than the one who sells a $5 product filling the same need that lasts a lifetime.

The problem with socialism is a little less wordy. It's essentially a prisoners dilemma problem played out among the entire population. Everyone gets the maximum benefit if each person puts society first and themselves second, but the biggest share goes to the lone person who goes against this plan and puts themselves first. Then the next person who does so gets a large but slightly less share, and it degenerates from there as the winning move for each person becomes putting themselves first. This results in a complete collapse of societal benefit, and then a complete economic collapse.

Capitalism fails when government intervenes.

Socialism fails because it depends on failed governments.

a reply to: Aazadan

The biggest problem with capitalism is one thing economic science cannot completely explain.

Entrepreneurism. The entrepreneur is source of all new ways of production and service. Entrepreneurs, as new business creators, turn saved money into investments that pay high returns and speed up the rate of technological invention and evolution.

=================

Socialism makes planning more complicated for everyone by obliterating the price system. The price of a product tells every one how scarce or plentiful that product is. The price is the source of honest information about the entire market. Socialism has no way to know the real economic price of anything and so all economic decisions by everyone in the economy are guesses. Sooner or later, mistakes about scarcity accumulate and lead to a plague of bad investments by businesses throughout the economy. After that the market crashes. Contrary to popular belief, booms and busts are not inherent to capitalism. Booms and busts are from central planning blind spots. (and from easy fiat money credit, different subject)

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Entrepreneurism. The entrepreneur is source of all new ways of production and service. Entrepreneurs, as new business creators, turn saved money into investments that pay high returns and speed up the rate technological invention and evolution.

This generates some value, but again lets use lightbulbs. The original light bulbs had a very long life span, in fact there are still some in use today from the year 1901 and they have burned daily since then. That is far too long a time to make a profit on so another entrepreneur went about creating a rating agency to ensure those who produced light bulbs would stick to an agreement of x% life span. It was a suppression of the free market, but that's capitalism at work.

The price of a product tells every one how scarce or plentiful that product is.

I have a 3d model for sale right now, complete with textures and animations. It sells at a set price. That price has nothing to do with the scarcity of the product because it's just data, it can be copied and used by others infinite times. There are no material costs involved. We could flip this around with another object, diamonds are very plentiful but over 99% of them are kept out of the market in order to raise the price. Then they are promoted heavily as the traditional gem in wedding/engagement rings to create a demand that otherwise wouldn't exist. And when you get right down to it, we can synthetically create the things in great quality. This is all marketing, and nothing else.

Oddly enough, Capitalism if it performed optimally as the theories state would be communism. In perfect competition no firms gain or lose share on each other, and each firm is equally competitive by producing products to meet demand. Then the consumer is well informed enough to find the perfect product for them. That isn't how capitalism works in practice though.

a reply to: Aazadan

You might be describing "Progressive Capitalism".

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

You might be describing "Progressive Capitalism".

I've given my thoughts on it before, it's in the Above Politics forum though so you'll have to behave in it. Essentially, I think that you can solve the issue of capitalism and of socialism without levying any additional taxes by using a dual currency system (one currency is all digital), with a fixed amount of it per capita in circulation at any given them (the second currency to be used on luxuries). This results in the poor always having an asset to trade for basic housing and food while not having to use a government funded welfare system. It also encourages work, since you can keep anything you make, and it's completely market based.

I even have theories on a second system, for these low employment times where a persons economic worth lies not in how much they produce, but in how much they consume. Money aside, the person who seeks 8 hours of work from others per day is doing more to drive the economy than the person who only seeks 2 hours of work from others but that theory isn't completely worked out yet.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Entrepreneurism. The entrepreneur is source of all new ways of production and service. Entrepreneurs, as new business creators, turn saved money into investments that pay high returns and speed up the rate technological invention and evolution.

This generates some value, but again lets use lightbulbs. The original light bulbs had a very long life span, in fact there are still some in use today from the year 1901 and they have burned daily since then. That is far too long a time to make a profit on so another entrepreneur went about creating a rating agency to ensure those who produced light bulbs would stick to an agreement of x% life span. It was a suppression of the free market, but that's capitalism at work.

The price of a product tells every one how scarce or plentiful that product is.

I have a 3d model for sale right now, complete with textures and animations. It sells at a set price. That price has nothing to do with the scarcity of the product because it's just data, it can be copied and used by others infinite times. There are no material costs involved. We could flip this around with another object, diamonds are very plentiful but over 99% of them are kept out of the market in order to raise the price. Then they are promoted heavily as the traditional gem in wedding/engagement rings to create a demand that otherwise wouldn't exist. And when you get right down to it, we can synthetically create the things in great quality. This is all marketing, and nothing else.

Oddly enough, Capitalism if it performed optimally as the theories state would be communism. In perfect competition no firms gain or lose share on each other, and each firm is equally competitive by producing products to meet demand. Then the consumer is well informed enough to find the perfect product for them. That isn't how capitalism works in practice though.

The first light bulbs were made for rich people because direct current couldn't be sent long distances and most electrified houses had their own generator. That is why they lasted so long. Those bulbs were never meant for general consumption.

A rating agency can't insure that anyone will stick to an agreement. Only the government can do that. Which is why cartels need big government. Restriction of trade is not possible in capitalism because somebody can always make more money by breaking the agreement and selling cheaper or better bulbs.

Capitalism motivated Thomas Edison to find a filament cheap enough to sell to the masses. In a socialist country Edison would have been stuck as a railroad clerk.

++++++++++++

The scarce thing is your time and effort. You weren't doing anything else while you were making your program. Your time was a non-renewable resource put into it. That plus the cost of the hardware and software you used, and the electricity and what not is your cost of production. The price reflects the average cost of production incurred by your competition to write the program and make it available for sale.

The price of diamonds reflects the demand for making a gesture that pleases a loved one. The higher price is performing a service. No other reason to pay that much.

Only socialistic economists assume "perfect competition". Competition makes the price lower asymptotically. The more competition the closer the price will get to some small profit point. When profit gets too small, businesses are motivated to change to a different industry. Conversely, if a monopoly is charging too much, new competitors can move in, sell at a lower price than the monopoly and still make a profit. That is why a single producer in one market or industry is not automatically a bad monopoly. The single producer must keep fair prices in order to prevent new companies from entering the single producer's market and taking away customers.

The "capitalism leads to monopolies" meme is a myth.

Like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. However, I do know that whichever economic model is adopted, as long as it is still managed over a distance by a centralized mediator, it will eventually fail. In socialism, the citizen relies on government to enforce the equal share and the resulting problem of the absence of personal motivation has been highlighted before. In capitalism, the competition often results in power consolidation into the hands of large corporations whose products we will buy as long as they're cheaper, regardless of value of product or method of price-reduction.

So I feel that the debate will rage on between all warring parties, socialism vs. capitalism, left vs. right, etc...because most of the fault underlying each of these system's performances in history...their centralized methodology...doesn't receive appropriate attention. It is this failure to focus on centralization as the culprit that allows the debate to continue because both sides theoretically have merit.

The local exchange of goods and services will always be the most resilient. The lofty ideals of socialism materialize more naturally when members of local communities engage with one another and the common goal vision is easier to hold up. The entrepreneurial element of capitalism is also supported when these same individuals are exchanging ideas and perfecting their crafts so the whole local system runs better. You can see this displayed by intentional communities trying to exit our current system, they are highly and individually motivated and, simultaneously they are also delighting in the pursuit of perfection through the exchange of ideas/inventions. Capitalism and socialism.

I agree with most posters that all of these ingenious systems ultimately have their failure in human frailty, but we have all witnessed how consolidation of power attracts the worst, most predatory members of our larger community and we need to close this niche in as many was as possible by engaging with our local community and providing for each other's needs. The other side to this discussion is how energy is efficiently managed and if everything I typed above is wrong, local exchange of energy/material will still always be more sustainable/efficient.

a reply to: aiolosmartine

as I always say... the solution is only one:

FORBID TO ACCUMULATE MONEY... JUST EACH PERSON CAN'T EARN MORE THAN, LET'S SAY, 100.000 €/$ ???

NO CORPORATIONS, NO BANKS, NO BIG INVESTMENT FUNDS, SIMPLY JUST PEOPLE WORKING EVERYBODY....

every big work or infrastructure will be organized and paid by states/region/city and no one can bribe or being bribed, just because you can't havo more than "tot" money....

To RICH PEOPLE:
I'm sorry (really I'm not) this is the only way

To PEOPLES WHO WANT OR BELIEVE IS POSSIBLE TO BECOME RICH:

you are the world's worst problem, with my solution end of problem...

a reply to: aiolosmartine
In todays Russia as opposed to socialist Russia the level of corruption and bribery encreased shockingly. If in the 70s - early 80s there was not privite enterprise at all - all the people were 'state employees', now 'de jure' you may do what you want, but 'de facto' small business owners are slaves to new Burocracy. The quantity of small enterprises decreases from year to year due to high taxes, restrictions of all kind, Burocracy abuse of authority. In Russian province as soon as your income achieves ridiculous level of 100.000 roubles per month ($ 1.500), your business automatically gets under control of a province governer. And from this time on your fate could be discribed in two ways: or you will 'ajust' yourself to the governor's interests or he'll make a beggar of you.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The first light bulbs were made for rich people because direct current couldn't be sent long distances and most electrified houses had their own generator. That is why they lasted so long. Those bulbs were never meant for general consumption.

The bulbs still in use today from 1901 function on AC not DC. Their filaments were quite inexpensive.

A rating agency can't insure that anyone will stick to an agreement. Only the government can do that. Which is why cartels need big government. Restriction of trade is not possible in capitalism because somebody can always make more money by breaking the agreement and selling cheaper or better bulbs.

You don't even need to get into conspiracy theories with this. In China and the USSR light bulbs lasted longer than they did in the west, by more than triple (1500 vs 5000 hours). It wasn't just light bulbs either, in the USSR where supply lines were limited efficiency was pushed as a matter of necessity and it resulted in them having far less waste products. In the west where capitalism encourages plentiful supplies the opposite happened and our methods of production became wasteful in the interest of generating more sales.

The scarce thing is your time and effort. You weren't doing anything else while you were making your program. Your time was a non-renewable resource put into it. That plus the cost of the hardware and software you used, and the electricity and what not is your cost of production. The price reflects the average cost of production incurred by your competition to write the program and make it available for sale.

Time and effort and knowledge of the software are not scarce, anyone can put in the effort (and it's not exactly hard work), the knowledge is freely available to all. That leaves time as the only real resource and just about anyone can set aside an hour or two. Therefore none of the resources that went into building it were worth anything. The price reflects quite literally what I felt like selling it for, if people buy it they buy it, if they don't, I don't really care, I'm not out anything by missing a sale.

a reply to: Aazadan

Is there any actual certified authenticated proof those bulbs are that old?

And I thought there is only one, and it was a special kind.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Is there any actual certified authenticated proof those bulbs are that old?

And I thought there is only one, and it was a special kind.

Historical documentation.

The centennial bulb is the one most cited since it's the record holder, it's not a special design just a random run of the mill bulb from back then.

a reply to: Aazadan

The Centennial Bulb was made by a company that made bulbs with shaped glass and looped filaments in order to give off more light for the same current.

The CB does have a longer filament than the Edison bulb. And it has not been switched on/off very much. Its atoms must be aligned like the winning lottery numbers.

Most electrical stuff wears out from thermal stress. When on it gets hot and expands unevenly, then at off it cools and contracts unevenly. Eventually some thing breaks or moves out of line, like cards move out of motherboard slots.

The CB manufacturer would have been forced to make Edison bulbs during WW1. All production was standardized for the war to be interchangeable and accountable. WW1 killed the electric car and the steam car.

There was also a fad of merging companies at the turn of the 20th century. Mergers weren't monopolies, in the public or media view. The CB manufacturer got merged in 1914.

The merger fad and the WW1 nationalization were in concert with the Progressive Era collectivism. Everything was glomming together then.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

Is there any actual certified authenticated proof those bulbs are that old?

And I thought there is only one, and it was a special kind.

I thought that too. Usually rich people are the first ones to buy a new technology and they can afford something custom made. I assumed it was one of those and that there were other centennial bulbs as well.

Maybe the Rothchild's have a few in their castle.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You're focusing too much on just the light bulb, I'm putting it forward as an example of planned obsolescence but not the only example. If you wish, I could name 100 other products that this principal applies to, for starters every item on a Walmart shelf opposed to a quality built item that does the same job. It applies to appliances, software, tools, clothing, and everything else. If it didn't, the quality of goods we can make today are such that most items would be purchased only a handful of times throughout your life. These repeat purchases generate more profit, but more importantly they generate jobs. Capitalism dramatically improves worker productivity, such that we can create abundance. If 10,000 pairs of jeans need to be made in a time period, we can make them with 500 people. But a year or two later we can make them with 450 people. That puts 50 people out of work, the fix is to make the jeans wear out sooner, so that we now need 11,000 pairs of jeans and those 500 people remain employed. Usually this involves lowering the price of the jeans as the materials are now of lower quality. Oddly enough, this actually makes the product more competitive because it has the same appearance as the competition but sells at a lower price.