At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
True people are building private roads but building roads was one of those things that there wasn't enough of a demand for them until there were enough cars and there wasn't going to be enough cars until there was enough roads. It's in these instance I feel the government needs to step in and move things along. I don't feel that they should move into currently working systems like the healthcare system. I think 99% of things need to be free market but every once in a while the government might need to come in and jump start the free market.
As we discussed before ;I think an interesting test case is occurring currently in China . They have embraced state controlled capitalism and on the surface appear to be having quite a bit of success. The question remains; (and Elliot's comments to my response concur );if what they are constructing is in fact a Potamkin village.
I suspect that what they are creating is an educated middle class that has some pocket change that will soon realize that they have not obtained the liberties that they should've with their new prosperity . I suspect that the next time the tanks roll in Tiananmen Square they will have more difficulty pushing back the horde .
As we discussed before ;I think an interesting test case is occurring currently in China . They have embraced state controlled capitalism and on the surface appear to be having quite a bit of success. The question remains; (and Elliot's comments to my response concur );if what they are constructing is in fact a Potamkin village.
I suspect that what they are creating is an educated middle class that has some pocket change that will soon realize that they have not obtained the liberties that they should've with their new prosperity . I suspect that the next time the tanks roll in Tiananmen Square they will have more difficulty pushing back the horde .
Somewhere; and I don’t recall the source, said “Australia is successfully both.” I never found an explanation as to how that was the case. Whatever the case, I am well acquainted with world history, but quite short of knowledge in economics.
It is my understanding that under the capitalistic economic system, individuals own all resources and governments’ role is to protect the individuals’ private property rights.
Under this system, an individual has the inherent right to hold whatever property they can honestly acquire, because property itself has no rights. The socialist, on the other hand, deny that an individual has inherent rights of any sort, and that there is no proof to show cause and therefore deny inherent rights.
Now unless we follow the philosophy of pragmatism, all hinges on whether there are inherent human rights, or there are not.
Can they co-exist? I assume you mean within the same system. To my way of thinking, the answer is no. But people and governments keep trying to accomplish it anyway.
The most successful system that I have seen so far that has been able to integrate socialism and capitalism into a single system is in Israel. The kibutzim of Israel are socialist communes in which all members of the commune own everything together. All assets, liabilities, income and expenses are shared equally. However, the kibbutzim exist within a capitalist nation. The kibbutzim produce a product or products (usually a single major product for the commune that most adults are involved with creating) which is then sold in the open market of the Israeli capitalis system.
So in essence, what you have is a socialist entity existing within a capitalist system, and producing and selling something within the capitalist markets.
Does it work? To an extent. Since each kibbutz is self-reliant and separate from every other kibbutz and every other capitalist business in the country, the kibbutz must remain competitive in order to support itself. That eliminates the biggest problem in socialism: lack of competition and motivation. In most socialist entities, the problem is to get everyone to produce to their highest ability when there is no incentive to do so. People are getting paid whether they produce or not, so why bother to produce. But in the Israeli system, the kibbutz must produce and do so successfully, or else it will fail and its members will go hungry. Competition still exists, and so there is motivation to produce. So the biggest problem with socialism is mostly eliminated.
The problem is within the kibbutz... those who are more productive within the kibbutz eventually get fed up with those in the kibbutz who are less productive, but are getting the same compensation that they are. So they eventually leave the kibbutz and fully join the capitalist system that rewards them based on their efforts. Eventually the kibbutz is left only with those who are either diehard fanatics of the socialist system, or else those who are less productive. Quality and production suffer, and the kibbutz becomes less lucrative. Privledges are cut back as cost cutting measures, the members become dissatisfied and leave the kibbutz, and the kibbutz eventually fails. That is why there are fewer and fewer kibbutzim every year in Israel. Those that are still around are the ones who have become more capitalistic in their model, granting incentives and bonuses for higher quality work or greater production. In other words, they become semi-capitalist, with some socialist leanings rather than true socialists.
So can we call this a true integration of capitalism and socialism? Or is it really capitalism with a few socialist concepts thrown in, such as sharing of burdens, expenses and liabilities? I think it is more of the latter.
Israel, does have a successful and effective government-run healthcare system for those who cannot afford private medicine, and it can be argued that that is a form of integrated socialism and capitalism. But it must be noted that in that case government healthcare is only one choice among many for healthcare. Government-run healthcare is an ALTERNATIVE, and if you don't like that alternative, you can obtain private medicine or get a job in which the employer pays for part or all of your healthcare. So "socialized medicine" in that case is forced to remain competitive with private medicine due to market forces, just like any private medical system must. Given that, the system can really be called a capitalist private medical system with a government run choice that sits alongside all the other private medicine choices. And to be fair, the doctors in the government run healthcare system (called Kupat Cholim) are excellent at their jobs... because they compete with the private market.
So while many might look at Israel as an example of capitalism and socialism working together, I believe that the system is really a capitalist system with a few socialist concepts thrown in. They tried real socialism and it failed. They tried socialism combined with capitalism, and it failed. So now they have a system that is essentially capitalist with a few government-run or commune-run institutions that must remain competitive in the capitalist marketplace.
Can they co-exist? I assume you mean within the same system. To my way of thinking, the answer is no. But people and governments keep trying to accomplish it anyway.
The most successful system that I have seen so far that has been able to integrate socialism and capitalism into a single system is in Israel. The kibutzim of Israel are socialist communes in which all members of the commune own everything together. All assets, liabilities, income and expenses are shared equally. However, the kibbutzim exist within a capitalist nation. The kibbutzim produce a product or products (usually a single major product for the commune that most adults are involved with creating) which is then sold in the open market of the Israeli capitalis system.
So in essence, what you have is a socialist entity existing within a capitalist system, and producing and selling something within the capitalist markets.
Does it work? To an extent. Since each kibbutz is self-reliant and separate from every other kibbutz and every other capitalist business in the country, the kibbutz must remain competitive in order to support itself. That eliminates the biggest problem in socialism: lack of competition and motivation. In most socialist entities, the problem is to get everyone to produce to their highest ability when there is no incentive to do so. People are getting paid whether they produce or not, so why bother to produce. But in the Israeli system, the kibbutz must produce and do so successfully, or else it will fail and its members will go hungry. Competition still exists, and so there is motivation to produce. So the biggest problem with socialism is mostly eliminated.
The problem is within the kibbutz... those who are more productive within the kibbutz eventually get fed up with those in the kibbutz who are less productive, but are getting the same compensation that they are. So they eventually leave the kibbutz and fully join the capitalist system that rewards them based on their efforts. Eventually the kibbutz is left only with those who are either diehard fanatics of the socialist system, or else those who are less productive. Quality and production suffer, and the kibbutz becomes less lucrative. Privledges are cut back as cost cutting measures, the members become dissatisfied and leave the kibbutz, and the kibbutz eventually fails. That is why there are fewer and fewer kibbutzim every year in Israel. Those that are still around are the ones who have become more capitalistic in their model, granting incentives and bonuses for higher quality work or greater production. In other words, they become semi-capitalist, with some socialist leanings rather than true socialists.
So can we call this a true integration of capitalism and socialism? Or is it really capitalism with a few socialist concepts thrown in, such as sharing of burdens, expenses and liabilities? I think it is more of the latter.
Israel, does have a successful and effective government-run healthcare system for those who cannot afford private medicine, and it can be argued that that is a form of integrated socialism and capitalism. But it must be noted that in that case government healthcare is only one choice among many for healthcare. Government-run healthcare is an ALTERNATIVE, and if you don't like that alternative, you can obtain private medicine or get a job in which the employer pays for part or all of your healthcare. So "socialized medicine" in that case is forced to remain competitive with private medicine due to market forces, just like any private medical system must. Given that, the system can really be called a capitalist private medical system with a government run choice that sits alongside all the other private medicine choices. And to be fair, the doctors in the government run healthcare system (called Kupat Cholim) are excellent at their jobs... because they compete with the private market.
So while many might look at Israel as an example of capitalism and socialism working together, I believe that the system is really a capitalist system with a few socialist concepts thrown in. They tried real socialism and it failed. They tried socialism combined with capitalism, and it failed. So now they have a system that is essentially capitalist with a few government-run or commune-run institutions that must remain competitive in the capitalist marketplace.
I can live with that.
I think you paint a clear picture there.
It is apparent that Israel, as a Socialist experiment has failed, in both the economic system, as well as the secular.
“Religious life in Israel has flourished to the point of tension with secular Jews. What has not changed in 50 years is Israel's role as a refuge for immigrants. Jewish newcomers from 100 countries created what is called a mosaic, not a melting pot.”
Lets take roads.
How many times do you go thru construction sites on the interstates, and for miles and miles of cones reducing it to one lane from 2 or more, you don't see anyone doing anything? Your tax dollars at work.
Compare medicare part d vs walmart or local pharmacy pricing for generic drugs.
Compare $4 co-pays for a month of a generic drug [say walmart] vs $8 co-pays [ in my area ] if you are a veteran for that same generic drug if it is not service related.
Perhaps only the armed services are best government run.
I think it is only human nature to work harder for yourself than for anyone else, and spend more when it is not your money that you are spending.
Perhaps only the armed services are best government run.
From a purely Constitutional Originalist perspective, the only things that the government should be running are the military/police forces, governing of interstate commerce, running the mail system (and by extension, one could argue the phone systems as well), and maintenance and repair of roads. The federal government has no constitutional role in anything else. Imagine the taxes and wasted spending we would save if the government stuck to its Constitutionally mandated role.
Quote:
I think it is only human nature to work harder for yourself than for anyone else, and spend more when it is not your money that you are spending.
Yes, that would seem to jive with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory. I agree.
Linear Mode
