The PCNation

[Somewhere_]

Good point. Though Libertarian socialism relies more of volunteeringly giving taxes...seems like it would fail though...
I guess Liberation capitalism with checks to protect people from abuse would be best.

Libertarian Socialism = "voluntarily" giving taxes lol. Lets be real here, its forced.

Libertarian Capitalism will be the best option. And contrary to popular belief, it actually limits the companies so they can't take advantage of us. I do not want Corporatism- it isn't any better than socialism!

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Socialism, even if it allows all personal freedoms, including no gun control, still restricts our freedom economically. Not to mention, the taxation is theft because there is no reason why my taxes should be going to other people unless I voluntarily donate. In addition, communism/socialism has never been implemented correctly. Personal freedoms coincide with economic freedoms, so when the economic freedoms are taken away, the personal freedoms generally do as well.

Libertarian Socialism = "voluntarily" giving taxes lol. Lets be real here, its forced.

Libertarian Capitalism will be the best option. And contrary to popular belief, it actually limits the companies so they can't take advantage of us. I do not want Corporatism- it isn't any better than socialism!

Yeah, I also have my doubts on that voluntarily part...but if it fails then we get the revolution some wanted lol.

That's true, they won't be getting any Wealthfare either.

 

[Kanzler]

Libertarian Socialism = "voluntarily" giving taxes lol. Lets be real here, its forced.

Libertarian Capitalism will be the best option. And contrary to popular belief, it actually limits the companies so they can't take advantage of us. I do not want Corporatism- it isn't any better than socialism!

How does it limit companies?

 

[Somewhere_]

Yeah, I also have my doubts on that voluntarily part...but if it fails then we get the revolution some wanted lol.

That's true, they won't be getting any Wealthfare either.

Thats fine. Charities and churches have shown to do a better job anyways.

 

[gimmepie]

Why is everyone hating on socialism? In socialism welfare etc isn't as needed since resources are collectively owned and a more restricted market isn't exactly a bad thing either, it prevents big companies like banks from screwing you over.

 

[gimmepie]

Why is everyone hating on socialism? In socialism welfare etc isn't as needed since resources are collectively owned and a more restricted market isn't exactly a bad thing either, it prevents big companies like banks from screwing you over.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Why is everyone hating on socialism? In socialism welfare etc isn't as needed since resources are collectively owned and a more restricted market isn't exactly a bad thing either, it prevents big companies like banks from screwing you over.

The kind of socialism you're describing sounds (could just be the wording) more like Communism than Western European socialism where private property still exists and taxes merely fund social programs. There's no true socialist countries though, nor are there tru capitalist countries either anymore. Even "socialist" countries in western Europe had to become more capitalistic as socialism was starting to cause some issues in places like Sweden. I'll try to provide more specifics later, as I'm going to bed now.

Perhaps for this we should try our hands at something that isn't either. I think we might need something new in real life...

 

[KetsuekiR]

Why is everyone hating on socialism? In socialism welfare etc isn't as needed since resources are collectively owned and a more restricted market isn't exactly a bad thing either, it prevents big companies like banks from screwing you over.

I'd agree with you if PC had banks. Or a market. What everyone in this thread seems to forget is that PC isn't a country. We don't have problems of poverty or taxes or whatever countries are facing. It's absolutely great that we're considering ourselves as kin, part of one PC Nation but let's not dive too deep.

That said, I think a socialist government might be the best way to go considering the needs of PC and it's users.

 

[gimmepie]

I'd agree with you if PC had banks. Or a market. What everyone in this thread seems to forget is that PC isn't a country. We don't have problems of poverty or taxes or whatever countries are facing. It's absolutely great that we're considering ourselves as kin, part of one PC Nation but let's not dive too deep.

That said, I think a socialist government might be the best way to go considering the needs of PC and it's users.

The actual site of PC might not be a country, but the hypothetical PCNation has hypothetical citizens that we need to consider. xD

 

[KetsuekiR]

The actual site of PC might not be a country, but the hypothetical PCNation has hypothetical citizens that we need to consider. xD

Exactly. That's why a socialist government seems like the best option. Other forms may be great for economy or the likes but they're things PC doesn't have. We need to think about and prioritize the citizens and the things that can and does exist within PC and that's why a socialist government is the best way forward :p

Besides, I'm with you on this one GP :p

 

[Somewhere_]

Why is everyone hating on socialism? In socialism welfare etc isn't as needed since resources are collectively owned and a more restricted market isn't exactly a bad thing either, it prevents big companies like banks from screwing you over.

Except instead of companies screwing us over, it is the government. Anyways, Capitalism actually benefits the consumer more than the company and limits the companies. Monopolies can't exist in a true free market.

A restricted market ultimately hurts the consumer because then the government sets the price and that price wont be fair, especially with the rising inflation. In the end, a restricted market hurts the consumer. In addition, there is no room for economic growth. Everyone is stuck where they are- lower class! There will be no room to even move from the lower class to a higher class.

Anyways, personal freedoms generally coincide with economic freedoms. When our economic freedoms are taken away, we are going to see a loss in personal freedom.

 

[Dusty]

Except instead of companies screwing us over, it is the government. Anyways, Capitalism actually benefits the consumer more than the company and limits the companies. Monopolies can't exist in a true free market.

That's absolutely not true, monopolies don't exist because the market is restricted. Pretty much every nation has anti-monopoly laws to keep that sort of thing from happening in an otherwise open market. Its only because true open markets don't exist that monopolies don't exist. And on top of that, who capitalism benefits depends entirely on the company. The free market promotes competition, but other than that it highly depends. Lower prices sure, but also lower quality in both products and services, leading to corporations screwing us over anyway. Markets need to be regulated in order to assure honesty and above board business from companies.

 

[Kanzler]

Except instead of companies screwing us over, it is the government. Anyways, Capitalism actually benefits the consumer more than the company and limits the companies. Monopolies can't exist in a true free market.

Why can't monopolies exist in a truly free market?

A restricted market ultimately hurts the consumer because then the government sets the price and that price wont be fair, especially with the rising inflation. In the end, a restricted market hurts the consumer. In addition, there is no room for economic growth. Everyone is stuck where they are- lower class! There will be no room to even move from the lower class to a higher class.

Have you ever considered that it's possible for the government to restrict and regulate a market without going all the way with setting prices? How about the fact that a government-owned company can operate in a given market, without setting the price at all?

Have you considered the fact that the Soviet economy was growing even when the market was heavily restricted and planned and prices were set by the government?

Have you also considered that despite how "capitalist" the United States is, that its social mobility is low compared to other Western countries?
Graph on page 187, figure 5.1: https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf
Slides 4,5: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NER...ality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf

Anyways, personal freedoms generally coincide with economic freedoms. When our economic freedoms are taken away, we are going to see a loss in personal freedom.

Second time you've made this claim, is there any support for this?

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Why can't monopolies exist in a truly free market?



Have you ever considered that it's possible for the government to restrict and regulate a market without going all the way with setting prices? How about the fact that a government-owned company can operate in a given market, without setting the price at all?

Have you considered the fact that the Soviet economy was growing even when the market was heavily restricted and planned and prices were set by the government?

Have you also considered that despite how "capitalist" the United States is, that its social mobility is low compared to other Western countries?
Graph on page 187, figure 5.1: https://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf
Slides 4,5: https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/NER...ality-social-mobility-and-economic-growth.pdf



Second time you've made this claim, is there any support for this?

You know, the Soviet Union, like China today, tended to inflate their economic growth to make the economy look better than it actually was?

You're right about social mobility, but part of that is because our laws have been crafted by the rich and for the rich. If you remove away the cronyism and make the laws simple enough for the majority of the population to understand things will be more equal. In other words the inequality is due to the increasingly fascist/oligarchy form our economy has taken more than capitalism.

Btw we should probably decide what kind of basic economy we want and move unto the economics later. I think most of us have stated Democracy of some kind, so should we just go with that since we've kind of derailed into economics. Now there are different kinds of democracies ranging from Direct Democracy to Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[Kanzler]

You know, the Soviet Union, like China today, tended to inflate their economic growth to make the economy look better than it actually was?

Yes, but that doesn't weaken my point. The Soviet economy still grew significantly, even if we take into account them making up their statistics. Their economy grew year by year, even if it wasn't as high as they wanted it to look. BadSheep said that there is no room for economic growth in a socialist system. That's just patently untrue.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Have you considered the fact that the Soviet economy was growing even when the market was heavily restricted and planned and prices were set by the government?

The Soviets had the pinnacle of prices for food; they didn't have any food to sell! All hail the great and glorious Komяade Ста́лин!

Anyways, I'm all for regulated Capitalism as well as welfare for those who do not have a job yet are trying to find a job. This economic type seems to be the best given we have resources we can exploit; as such, we do not know the resources of PC Nation. Has anyone considered which kind we could have before asking for Capitalism? For example, if we have something as valuable as Oil, we could easily be a rich, capitalist superpower. Preferably a Democratic government, of which I'd prefer a Democratic Republic.

 

[Blueredemption]

The Soviets had the pinnacle of prices for food; they didn't have any food to sell! All hail the great and glorious Komяade Ста́лин!

Anyways, I'm all for regulated Capitalism as well as welfare for those who do not have a job yet are trying to find a job. This economic type seems to be the best given we have resources we can exploit; as such, we do not know the resources of PC Nation. Has anyone considered which kind we could have before asking for Capitalism? For example, if we have something as valuable as Oil, we could easily be a rich, capitalist superpower. Preferably a Democratic government, of which I'd prefer a Democratic Republic.

товарищ Сталин, but that's just me being picky after 4 years of Russian :P Anyway, you bring up a really good point. We can't do jack about what to pick as an economy until we know what resources we have around us. So I say we stop debating and start shooting the ground for oil! (I wish that would work). Now I totally support a direct democracy, but if the country is as big as say, China, it won't work. Give me some theoretical demographics please!

 

[Thepowaofhax]

товарищ Сталин, but that's just me being picky after 4 years of Russian :P Anyway, you bring up a really good point. We can't do jack about what to pick as an economy until we know what resources we have around us. So I say we stop debating and start shooting the ground for oil! (I wish that would work). Now I totally support a direct democracy, but if the country is as big as say, China, it won't work. Give me some theoretical demographics please!

If we use the amount of users on this site, we have 516,491. That is quite a small population, so Democracy should probably work.

 

[Somewhere_]

Monopolies are prevented, or rather restricted for 2 reasons:

The larger the company, the harder it will be to control. It will fall apart eventually because of lack of teamwork, greedy people, etc.

High prices and low quality will make room for new competition. People would buy the cheaper, better products from other companies. And these companies will be forced to create innovative ideas to grow.

United States isn't capitalist. Similar to how we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We are almost, but not quite. Anyways, we are heading in a more left direction. For example, Net Neutrality was recently passed less than a year ago.

As for social mobility (rather lack thereof), isn't that more of social expectations? And there are many other factors other than just economy such as schooling systems. And the public schools in the US aren't exactly good, and they vary on the location.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Monopolies are prevented, or rather restricted for 2 reasons:

The larger the company, the harder it will be to control. It will fall apart eventually because of lack of teamwork, greedy people, etc.

High prices and low quality will make room for new competition. People would buy the cheaper, better products from other companies. And these companies will be forced to create innovative ideas to grow.

United States isn't capitalist. Similar to how we are a Republic, not a Democracy. We are almost, but not quite. Anyways, we are heading in a more left direction. For example, Net Neutrality was recently passed less than a year ago.

As for social mobility (rather lack thereof), isn't that more of social expectations? And there are many other factors other than just economy such as schooling systems. And the public schools in the US aren't exactly good, and they vary on the location.

You've have a good point there. For example the big banks knew they could rely on the gov to bail them out, if they hadn't they would've collapsed under their own size and greed.