Free Market/Welfare states in the developed world

[NextEpisode]

Interesting topic!

At first sight, one might look at the capitalist system/the free-market system as immoral and only rewarding for the rich. This is a view quite common among left/socialist sympathizers.

Let’s first address the underlying key question; “Free market/capitalist systems” vs. “Socialist systems”. Which is most preferable?

(1) History is consistent. Wherever there is political freedom, capitalism is present. Thus, capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. It is, however, clearly not a sufficient condition.

(2) In order to prove a thesis, scientists conduct experiments. History provides us with two real-world experiments related to our question at hand:
….. (i) West Germany (Capitalism/free-market) vs. East Germany (Socialism) and
….. (ii) South Korea (Capitalism/free-market) vs. North Korea (Socialism)

It’s really interesting when you think about it, originally you have one united country, then you split it into two countries. The people (race/language etc etc…) remain the same, the geographic conditions remain the same, and the amount of natural resources remains the same – no difference between the two newly split countries. THE only difference being which system the respective country chose to adopt.

What happened?

--> South Korea & West Germany flourished -- living standards increased immensely and technology and innovation became keywords that both countries represented.

--> North Korea & East Germany stagnated -- livings standards and political freedom decreased. Poverty followed. The production collapsed. Of course, those in bed with the “people in power” lived well.

(3) The argument put forward in (2) could also be applied to Russia (Soviet), India & China in a similar manner. Because, up and till these countries adopted capitalist market principles and opened their economy to the world -- they suffered from the same poverty and low living standards as those mentioned in (2).

China is great example, in the period 1930-1970, China = stagnation and poverty. No improvements in technology and living standards at all. In the mid-1970s china initiated reforms introducing capitalist market principles. (Reforms included: the decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start up businesses, privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations).

What happened?

--> From 1978 to 2010, unprecedented growth occurred in China, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. Remember, in the period 1930 to ~1970 the growth rate ~0%.

Then you might say, “ye ye, whatever, growth is just a figure…”. BUT, you see, what this translated into is that over 600 million Chinese was lifted out of poverty (UN-standards).

(4) "The world runs on individuals pursuing their self-interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
- Milton Friedman

(5) A final remark; A common mistake is to judge X by its intention rather than X's actual result. So, whilst the socialist philosophy promise equality and greatness, history shows that it actually result in the opposite, or well, you could say that a large proportion of the people has "equal poverty", lol.

This post only touches a fraction of the OP's points/questions. More later...

What yall people say though? Anyone care too agree/disagree with the points I just made?

[Tornado]

(5) A final remark; A common mistake is to judge X by its intention rather than X's actual result. So, whilst the socialist philosophy promise equality and greatness, history shows that it actually result in the opposite, or well, you could say that a large proportion of the people has "equal poverty", lol.

I feel you hit the nail on the head with the problem with Socialism. The intentions are good, just like full-on Communism ideals of classless,moneyless social state of order but it's hard to put into practice, shown in your examples. I do feel it's down to human nature as well, we won't all get along having a equal slice of everything.

As far as England goes, it is capitalism through and through

Right-wing politicians in the United States are quick to scream socialism when talks of Universal Health Care are brought up, but to me that sounds like ignorant babble and slander, considering that nearly every developed nation in the world has adopted some form of Universal Health Care and still maintain a free market economy.

Funny thing is, since the NHS is free here (funded by taxpayer money) it's often criticized for bad standards, long waiting times, unclean etc...

[Willy]

NextEpisode you seem to be fairly intelligent but my goodness your posts read like a dictionary. No homo.

[Minimii]

(1) History is consistent. Wherever there is political freedom, capitalism is present. Thus, capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. It is, however, clearly not a sufficient condition.

if you are handed 20 green apples you cant say that every apple in the world is green.

Capitalism isnt necessary for political freedom, how could it be.

I feel like Socialism is ideal and in theory would work best for everyone, but as mentioned by Nextepisode, it is difficult to achieve in practice. When one studies the economic structure of mentioned governments (East Germany/North Korea) they were never close to acheiving Socialism as defined by sociologists and philosophers like Karl Marx. The USSR itself became a degenerated worker's state that remained divided by class until it's collapse. I believe it to be sad that humans can't put such a theory into practice and make it work the way it is supposed to. But that's a whole other discussion.

I feel capitalism has created the dog eat dog world that we live in today, and while I may disagree with it theoretically, I'm also a realist and I realize that it's been the dominant economic system to date.

But, wouldn't the economic issues that many developed nations (Like the USA and those of the EU) signal failure within the capitalist system?

I'm not trying to turn this into a Capitalism vs. Socialism debate (I will abandond thread if it does). I'm simply trying to start a discussion pertaining to the mixed economies of many developed nations.

The question would be

"Considering the IHDI of said countries, is a mixutre of a capitalist and socialist economy best for the greater good of humanity?"

I believe it to be so and was simply asking for the input of members living in countries with such economies.

Lots of 3rd world countries are suffering because the lack of socialist practises (pakistan for instance).

I'd say that welfare state with mix of socialism and capitalism is ideal for developing countries, also i believe that socialist (or at least leftist) society is the next step from capitalism.