Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Gustaf]

Under my interpretation I voted regulated capitalist economy. I figured that meant something like 33% regulation  and 67% capitalism with mixed being the other way around...also, I understood this as relating to the production of goods and services, not purely redistributionist policies.

[Gustaf]

neither one nor four have ever existed and 2/3 are the same thing.

No, one has certainly existed in the past (and does exist in parts of the Third World). Not much fun if you're a prole, though.

I dare you to give one example. I would argue not only that no 100% unregulated capitalist states have existed, but also that none (that I'm aware of anyway) come even close enough to be accurately labelled as such.

[Gustaf]

neither one nor four have ever existed and 2/3 are the same thing.

No, one has certainly existed in the past (and does exist in parts of the Third World). Not much fun if you're a prole, though.

I dare you to give one example. I would argue not only that no 100% unregulated capitalist states have existed, but also that none (that I'm aware of anyway) come even close enough to be accurately labelled as such.

I'll give you an example that I'm very familiar with.

There was no regulation of industry (or, bluntly, of almost anything else; urban issues being especially "fun") in Britain during the first few decades of industrialisation and no effective regulation until much later even than that. This is not opinion, this is fact. Now you can point to various things (almost all meaningless things) around the margins, enough to claim that it wasn't "100%" (whatever that means) but the basic point stands. It was unregulated, unfettered, unrestrained capitalism.

I'm not familiar enough to argue the fine points. However, to name one thing IIRC England didn't introduce free trade until 1846. And when were the traditional rules for what we in Swedish call "skrån" abolished? (that is, privileges and the likes associated with certain crafts)

I suspect you are thinking of unregulated as in rich people being able to treat poor people however they want. I'm thinking more in terms of whether you can use your property and financial resources completely unfettered. And I think state sovereignty tends to interfere with this in several respects. Besides, I suspect there was room for a lot of behaviour from those "unregulated" capitalists that in itself would be infringements on the free market. 

19th century Britain may be your best case though, I'm willing to cede that. I don't buy there being any such cases in the world today though.

As an aside to Opebo, I'm not just ignoring you for the usual reasons but in this case because you were unusually non-cognitive in your post.

As a final note it's a little sad that topics like these tend to degenerate into "we're so far from my favourite system, because it would be so good and the world is so bad" going back and forth.

[Gustaf]

As an aside to Opebo, I'm not just ignoring you for the usual reasons but in this case because you were unusually non-cognitive in your post.

You aren't ignoring me, you are insulting me, you simpering Swede.  Try to be man enough to own up to it.

"simpering Swede"? Whatever happened to prude?

Anyway, if you were man enough to actually argue rationally with people instead of arrogantly demeaning them I would respond in turn. Since I am a believer in communication and betterment I ignore your posts in the sense that I don't bother to respond to their "points". I usually note them and refer briefly to my reasons for not responding so as not to make anyone think that I missed it or have some other reason for my behaviour. I normally make a point out of not running away from discussions, but I make exceptions for those who fail to show respect to differing view-points and never make an effort to properly discuss an issue.

But you know what they say: don't dish it out unless you can't take it!

[Gustaf]

I suspect you are thinking of unregulated as in rich people being able to treat poor people however they want.

To a point, but there's more to it than that. I mean capital, industry, etc (whatever, the name isn't important) being about to treat anyone and anything in any just about any way that it/ they/etc feels like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But then you aren't thinking about capitalism (as it has existed and as it does exist) so much as a sort of market-utopia.

Eh, yes. That is exactly my point. "unregulated free market" has not existed and does not exist.