economic system poll

[MaC]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

But if you want to use the terms-by today's sense I'd say it's two-thirds capitalism-one socialism (or else we wouldn't have so many of the afformentioned, abominable government controls.

[Citizen James]

Mixed capitalism. (#2)

[Inverted Things]

None. They all suck.

[Bono]

I agree with you.  I favor a Keynesian system that reduces many of the rough edges of laissez-faire capitalism.

Great role models are - Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany.  It boggles the mind that the toiling masses of the USA are too dim to realize this.

Norway and the Netherlands don't have that much of a welfare state, esp the Netherlands.

[opebo]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

Laissez-faire still has State run courts, law, police, military etc.  So it is at least 5% socialistic.  100% 'capitalism' would be the law of the jungle, and someone would have your head on a spike, Milky.

[opebo]

I agree with you.  I favor a Keynesian system that reduces many of the rough edges of laissez-faire capitalism.

Great role models are - Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany.  It boggles the mind that the toiling masses of the USA are too dim to realize this.

Norway and the Netherlands don't have that much of a welfare state, esp the Netherlands.

Source?

I can't find a lot on this, but I find your assertion hard to believe.  The Dutch and Norwegians allow the poor to starve in the street, American-style?

[afleitch]

Free-market Capitalism for me

[jokerman]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

Laissez-faire still has State run courts, law, police, military etc.  So it is at least 5% socialistic.  100% 'capitalism' would be the law of the jungle, and someone would have your head on a spike, Milky.

Not necesarily.  Capitalism implies that the government provides the proper economic arena for businesses to compete, with regards to law and government issued money (or capital, to link it to the name).

[opebo]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

Laissez-faire still has State run courts, law, police, military etc.  So it is at least 5% socialistic.  100% 'capitalism' would be the law of the jungle, and someone would have your head on a spike, Milky.

Not necesarily.  Capitalism implies that the government provides the proper economic arena for businesses to compete, with regards to law and government issued money (or capital, to link it to the name).

Right, all of which are 'socialist' in the sense that they are provided by the State.

[Gustaf]

Norway has massive redistribution and are heavily protectionist. Their food costs more than Sweden, despite our 25% tax on food. That gives you an idea of it. The Netherlands is more similar to the UK I think, below the EU-average for tax levels.

The choices here seem very bad. If Sweden is socialist, then what is the Soviet Union?

[Jake]

There is no difference prude.

I picked the second option or status-quo in the United States.

Tweed had a good breakdown of the poll choices.

[nclib]

A mixture of options 3 and 4.

[DanielX]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

Laissez-faire still has State run courts, law, police, military etc.  So it is at least 5% socialistic.  100% 'capitalism' would be the law of the jungle, and someone would have your head on a spike, Milky.

Not necesarily.  Capitalism implies that the government provides the proper economic arena for businesses to compete, with regards to law and government issued money (or capital, to link it to the name).

Right, all of which are 'socialist' in the sense that they are provided by the State.

No, they are not. Government's role is to prevent certain things (like criminals or barbarian invasions) from breaking the nation apart, making things a bit safer for capitalism. A fine distinction, to be sure.

There's a big difference between a minimalist nation that simply provides a military, police, justice system, and basic diplomacy, and a state with a full-out welfare state. You say so yourself.

[opebo]

For example
                                        Capitalism                         Socialism
Laissez-faire                        95%                                    5%

That's a contradiction in terms.  Laissez-faire or free market implies absolutely no socialism.  The ARE no regulations, price controls, minimum wage, trust busting ect.

Laissez-faire still has State run courts, law, police, military etc.  So it is at least 5% socialistic.  100% 'capitalism' would be the law of the jungle, and someone would have your head on a spike, Milky.

Not necesarily.  Capitalism implies that the government provides the proper economic arena for businesses to compete, with regards to law and government issued money (or capital, to link it to the name).

Right, all of which are 'socialist' in the sense that they are provided by the State.

No, they are not. Government's role is to prevent certain things (like criminals or barbarian invasions) from breaking the nation apart, making things a bit safer for capitalism. A fine distinction, to be sure.

There's a big difference between a minimalist nation that simply provides a military, police, justice system, and basic diplomacy, and a state with a full-out welfare state. You say so yourself.

No, there's actually very little difference.  As long as the State monopolizes power, it is organizing society into heirarchy.  Its just that the one under Capitalism maximizes inequality.

[Democratic Hawk]

Capitalism: Some government intervention to ensure competetion and the well-being of the businesses and the consumer.  Example: USA

Pseudo-socialism: Government owns/controls some major industries, but plenty of private ownership still exists.  Examples: Canada, UK

Somewhere between those - but as I'm opposed to nationalisation, I voted capitalism

Dave