No. On principle, Communism is the best economic system. However, mans greed doesn't allow this to work. Everyone gets paid the same. One mans job is no more important than another.
Doesn't seem right to me that a Doctor should be paid as much as a guy working the drive in at McDonalds.
Working shouldnt be so much about how much you are paid but if you enjoy what you are doing, thats the key to a long term sucessful job
Capitalism, duh. - Competition leads to innovation and lowers prices - Consumers have purchasing power - Access to the fruits of your labor - Freedom to do as you please - No coercion Socialistic economies dependent on government breed waste, corruption and misery. Every problem with our economy is due to government intervention.
I´d say best yet For those who say communism, I differ cause If Ima get paid the same amount for being an engineer than for being a janitor, I´ll most definitely be a janitor man. Same cash income, much less responsibilities. Communism is a utopia and it has never been successfully implemented in any country cause the people in charge always change the rules halfway in.
Capitalism (on a whole) eliminates social economic status thus rocketing it to the #1 system. You can be born into poverty and with a strong mind and willpower rise to the top without competing with everybody around you, or you can start at the top and plummet into submission. It's a proven system of honesty and choice, however money is and will forever be absolutely corrupt no matter the systems implementation.
Ideology as a whole is a bad idea, it gets in the way of transcendence. Transcendence and worldwide contentment with everything is the next step in evolution.
Uh, where would the doctor take his break then if no one was working at McDonald's? Every job is equally important because the motivation of every worker is on a practical level money. Every passion/hobby is not paid however. That's how I look at it. People in tribes don't kill shamans to take their positions... they respect them for their unique, difficult, and specialized life. Socialistic economies? Which ones are you referring to, for example? I think we haven't tried socialism in a world without nationalism yet. We'll see how soon it flops then. Nationalism is mutual suspicion and essentially arbitrary trust. [Because that's just the way it is, and the way it is is just like that.] Glad that you stressed responsibilities. How about all the other factors that determine why we take on a career? Perhaps if we used our technology for the sake of all (as in machines do factory work for humans instead, while humans learn things, interact, and pursue their passions freely... this would work. But damn, a culture of respect... what's next? Money is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is not absolute. Money does not corrupt absolutely. How's that for a conventionally wise proof?
so far it's the best we've come up with, but undoubtedly in the future humans will come up with far superior systems. The reason it's so good is because it mimics the way nature distributes resources. In nature the organism best suited for a particular niche survives while all others either die out or change niches (a rule of nature is only one organism can occupy any given niche at any given time). The same applies to capitalism; the company able to produce and market its products best will survive at the expense of all others. This guarantees that resources are distributed in the most efficient manner in that they go to the companies that are able to use them the most efficiently. The secret to getting the most out of it is for each country to focus on the things where they have a competitive advantage, and to not distort the market with tariffs and subsidies. If we can't compete in any given area then we should drop out of it and focus on the things that we can do well. (hint hint farmers)
In order to advance we need to get rid of all systems that are installed with the intention to put people in line and have markets.
Well, most economies are socialistic. An economy that incorporates capitalism and socialism is a mixed economy, which is what the US has. Socialism in a world without nationalism would be more along the lines of anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. But that is really not plausible given the population levels on Earth. And money can be absolute, meaning it has a designated value that can't be manipulated behind closed doors, but we operate a system of money that is deceiving. But the problem with power is not only tangible money, but anything of tangible value, ie access to resources.
This is very truthful. Money is Great power not absolute power. Goes hand-in-hand with the age old... "Money cant buy you happiness"....but it can get you pretty damn close!
You're bat crazy man, we are a social being and we need to trade with one another. Unless you want to go back to straight up bartering we need a money supply. A free market capitalistic economy is not an instituted system so much as it is a by product of human interaction. Communism is a system created by powerful men to control the less powerful.
Socialism in a world without nationalism would be more along the lines of anarcho-communism or libertarian communism. But that is really not plausible given the population levels on Earth. And money can be absolute, meaning it has a designated value that can't be manipulated behind closed doors, but we operate a system of money that is deceiving. But the problem with power is not only tangible money, but anything of tangible value, ie access to resources.[/quote] It is possible when world citizenship is first, then localized citizenship. However, authority ideally rests in you first, then the local "government" if you fail, then the less localized "government", and lastly in "international law", which does nothing but protect all world citizens. What is this absolute value you're talking about? Surely not gold, which we put a value into. Surely not oil... Surely not a Big Mac...