|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
is there a better way then capitalism to run a countries economy?
have you ever thought of a better idea then capitalism and what would you call it ?
the first question would be; is there any true capitalism, anywhere? It certainly does not exist in the U.S. Typical market failures abound. Monopolies keep investors from entering a market at will, subsidies export the cost of doing business etc Nixon stated that we are all Keynesian. You can google the term for a concise definition, but I think it means that a combination of private enterprise and public spending is necessary to the economy. Another good resource is "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand that gives a pretty good definition of capitalism. I would answer that Nixon was right, and I am a reactionary liberal. A Keynesian model is probably a better idea than pure capitalism. Cartel Capitalism in the 1800's allowed egregious exploitation of the working man, and promoted the movement of the greatest part of the wealth into the hands of fewer people, sort of like what is going on today. If Keynesian concepts had been employed, the government might have opted for public works programs that would have paid huge numbers of workers, to repair infrastructure. These honest wages get spent by millions and that supports the economy. A single billionaire can only wear so many pairs of pants. As it is, investment in corporations, banks and investment firms that did not actually produce real wealth (like corn and beans or widgets,) is what happened. This is sort of simplistic answer, but it is what I think.
A commonwealth where you can make as much money as your ingenuity allows with certain restrictions concerning how it's done to protect the health and welfare of society as a whole.In other words no polluting the environment or taking unfair advantage of those less fortunate than yourself.
2.No income taxes . Instead the cost of running the government would be apportioned according to the population in a particular district,state ,county,city,township and represented according to that apportionment.
3.Although anyone person can make as much money as they are able to legally. Upon their death their personal wealth would revert to the commonwealth ,to be used for benefit of everyone in the commonwealth ,including keeping the dead individuals spouse and imeadiate family members under the age of 21 in the lifestyle in which they have come to be accustomed. After the age of 21 the children would be expected to make their own way in life without relying on their parents or an inheritance.In the event of the deaceased spouses death the same would apply,if,they have remarried.The only difference being that if the surviving spouse's new spouse was wealthy,the question would arise as to wheather the surviving spouse was in need of the money to keep her in the lifestyle they had become accustomed to.
4.Capitalism should be inclusive of all the workers in a corporation.In ,other words only those who work directly for the corporation should be able to own stock in that corporation.Outsiders who don't contribute directly to the corporation by virtue of not being an employee would not qualify for any ownership of stock in that corporation.
5.Banking is the most trusted position in any government and should only be run by the government or the people much as a credit union is run today.it's owned by the people who put their money into it.Lending money to corporations as well as individuals. Private individuals should never be allowed to own the banks ,or even have any influence over the banks,except as a member of a credit union where they would only as much influence as anyone else.
On paper, yes there might be a better way. In reality, competition results in more plentiful products that are less expensive. Capitalism is great. Yes, it does result in different financial classes, but so does socialism and communism. No system is perfect, but capitalism is the best.
The Chinese seem to be experimenting with this. A combination of both socialism and capitalism.
Capitalism can work with stronger controls... not unlimited or unbridled capitalism such as has existed for much of U.S. history.
No one should have the right to rape the environment or damage the future for personal gain.
As a true conservative I believe capitalism is all that would really work in the US. Our government is founded on capitalism. If the expensive DOD weren't bleeding our government dry, capitalism would still work for us. As it is, we got off track and became an Orwellian security state.
The problem with capitalism, is, as Marx pointed out, that there are problems inherent with the system, but, there are always problems with any economic/political systems. Taking the capitalist model as a starting point, it allows individuals to be rewarded for their hard work, but, there among other things, there is the problem of 'laissez faire capitalism', in short, restraints are required, the lack of which have enabled the current economic disaster that many countries are suffering at the moment. Your question is a very good one, and one that will still be being asked 500 years from now. Having said that - a system that has the preservation of the earth, and a lack of greed at its heart would be a good starting point - look at how small cultures have survived (notably with a disdain for material goods, and a value placed on sharing), and try to expand upon it to a system that is workable (if at all) for larger populations.
Sure. Totalitarianism is very efficient. It should be mentioned that capitalism's definition is pretty soft in most people's minds. They think the invisible hand is capitalism. In truth markets exist in nearly every form of economy, and always have. Adam Smith merely discovered a relationship between currency and transactions in a sociological context. It was always there.
Capitalism at it's root is what we normally associate with laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism to it's core is a very cold and unsympathetic thing. America has rebelled against it several times in it's history. The 1910s-1930s were as close as we've come to a capitalistic implosion. It's the same time that Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto denouncing the evils of capitalism, and socialism was becoming very popular all over Europe and America.
A mixed economy is the best tested form in terms of balancing individual freedom with social responsibility, and more closely resembles what America has had since the Great Depression (and most other first world countries in the world). Labor laws are socialist in nature, as are social security, public schools, and everything associated with dialing 911. The blend of socialism and capitalism is a mixed economy. Pure capitalism has never existed in America as even the colonies had laws regulating trade before The Declaration was ever signed. Pure capitalism is most closely anarchy as it has no political implications. In fact any form of governance virtually guarantees the destruction of pure capitalism. If I can't pay someone to kill you, I'm not allowed to implement my capital how I see fit.
I do not believe there is. Countries, given their assets and resources are the basis for enconomic engines. These engines are driven by a capitalistic profit motive energy and they then tend to reach their maximum potential in terms of financial production. The Capitalist approach allows the most money to be moving in the private sector of the economy and hopefully the least amount of money tied up in the governmental function. In this manner, the majority of the asset is being worked to achieve a profit. The money trickles down into the various levels of the economy through payrolls which produce the ability to consume goods which creates the demand for jobs to sell the goods and produce the goods, which in turn produces income, which in turn produces a new round of consumerism which is ever expanding and creates even more jobs, which in turn creates mor consumerism...and the cycle goes on and on. Reagan was a huge proponent of trickle down economics...it is no mystery...it works, it is the absolute heart of capitalism. Capitalism only starts to be encumbered when government gets out of hand and creates entitlement, welfare, and overhead which exceeds the income streams of government causing government to go back to the taxpayer over and over and over until the income that taxpayer has no long produces any consumerism which in turn diminishes jobs which in turn diminishes profits which in turn brings the whole dame thing to a stop. WB
I think a combination of capitalism and socialism may be better . There are some sectors that require the attention and control from the government , While there are other sectors that can be allowed to be handled by private individuals .
by Rhonda D Johnson2 years ago
What did the US use for collateral when we borrowed money from other countries?We know that the US government has borrowed billions of dollars from China, Japan and other countries. But what did we use for...
by ahorseback3 years ago
Take a look at the following , NASA , the military industrial complex ,the elementary education system , the criminal justice system including all police and law enforcements and judges local...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
What would the US be like under President Sanders? What do the Millennial's find so attractive about his political ideas?What do you believe are the consequences of his agenda as far as the future of the Nation?Does it...
by Peter V4 years ago
What do you think about Socialism? Good or Bad for America?I have my own opinion but what do you think of the current direction America is heading (towards socialism)? Do you think this is very bad and goes against what...
by Brian7 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a...
by Sophia Angelique7 years ago
sm.Socialism are services provided by the state, e.g. medicare, social security, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc. Socialism can also include things like subsidized transport, subsidized electricity,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.