I'm a socialist. Can you give me as many reasons as possible to why the free market is better?
"Honour to the war of liberation" USSR, post-WWII and the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army
Baby Cai will be here any day now.
candy cane in ass is haram tho 😳
Bracketology with Joe Lunardi - 02/04
Is Andre Iguodala really THAT valuable?
The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. People living on a dollar a day or less dramatically fell from 26.8 percent of the global population in 1970 to 5.4 percent in 2006 – an 80 percent decline.
....Due to capitalism.
You need to complete that thought, relate it to the OP please
That's not an argument against socialism? That's just a fact. Socialism is the Scandinavian countries, so that's what you need to comment on for your argument to have credence.
Yeah. Now they live on $1.05 a day and cost of living rose $5.
Well capitalism is really two things:
1: Private Property (Meaning - that you own what is yours and that the state will protect what is your from other people)
2: Free Markets (Meaning that companies have to compete with one another on the market for customers, one of the ways to do that is through price)
So private property is what makes people be productive in the first place, as an example if you are a farmer, you have your own plot of land and what you grow there is yours, there is also another plot of land which is free for everyone to use, the problem is if you grow anything there anyone can just go there and take it from you so you wont grow anything there. Because people will just take everying you grow there away from you, which just turned all your hard work into zero gain for yourself from working on that plot of land.
Free markets is what keeps the companies competing with one another, if you as a private citizen figures out a way to build a laptop for 50% of the price you can start your own company and sell laptops at a lower price then everyone else, you get rich and the people now also has access to a cheaper laptop its a win win situation.
Private property is a fantastic thing, because with this in place protected by the state no one is allowed to take anything from you all anyone can ever do to get anything from you is to offer you something which you might agree to do the trade for. The same thing goes for finding a job, they offer a wage for a specific job done and everyone is free to say yes or no to that offer. This is why we sign a contract, where both parties responsibilites are outlined. How much they pay you and what your job is. Its a voluntary trade on both sides.
Keep in mind, OP, in a capitalist/free market society you can collectivise with whom ever you want in the form of partnerships, LLC, corporations, or simply via contract.
Can you extend the laptop analogy to socialism, please ? I'd like to know more about the subject but don't understand it clearly enough.
The market is the most democratic institution there is. Every exchange is a vote for the thing you demanded to be produced for exactly the amount you were willing to sacrifice for it.
Markets are efficient because of that. Many people know more than a few central planners.
If you are not a proponent of a market economy for just this reason alone then that can only be because you have misconceptions about how the world really works or because you mix up ontology and deontology or because you are dominated by feelings when you in fact should rely on reasoning.
So 8 people have as much voting power as half of the human population
This assumes perfect competition, which doesn’t exist. In reality, no markets are free and need to be regulated in order to ensure competition is as perfect as possible.
In a democracy you have one person one vote- a market is plutocratic, it basis that number of votes on the amount of wealth you have. What a fallacy.
Explaining the idea behind the markets and then saying the only reason you might not be in favour of the market is due to misconceptions is a very weak argument
The risk of failure, is part of the value of success.
Removing the risk of failure as socialism attempts to do, reduces the overall value of success, and in thr long term, limits it
This. See the us governments ill fated involvement in college loans...(ala the socialist program guaranteeing moneys for any teenager seeking higher education and the resulting explosion in tuition rates by universities).
Because there is no growth and production with socialism. Free markets allow people the most opportunity to engage in business and make a profit that contributes to themselves and the people that may work for them.
So there has been no growth in Scandinavian countries? Is it perverse to value society in terms of 'production'/GDP? These are the important questions
Because "the free market" is "adults engaging in voluntary trade", a non-free market is some authority outlawing certain transactions they deem bad. We're not children, we're able to determine what transactions we want to engage in ourselves.
Well lots of externalities are not included in market transactions, for example the effects of fertilisation run-offs, so in effect the 'true cost' born to society of a transaction is not included in the cost of the object. This is effectively a subsidy and is why certain fields are regulated. Exchanges do need to be regulated, they are regulated even in the most capitalistic country, that's just a fact. Again I think this is a weak argument.
I always ask "Where has true socialism worked?". Don't tell me about Scandinavian countries. They are capitalist economies with high taxes and heavy social programs.
i ask back “when has capitalism ever worked?”, because since the capitalist system has began, a mass extinction event has began, millions have starved due to not being able to find work, millions have been killed because of wars to protect profits, millions have been subjugated, especially in the global south, and i could go on. i could go into a historical argument about the ussr, or the many anarchist experiments of the world, but you are being so hypocritical in saying that a socialism has never worked when capitalism has also been a pretty big failure.
Superb and well written.
This guy immediately shoots himself in the dick by equating socialism with 'statism'. Most of his arguments are unconvincing too, it's mostly deductive non sequiturs
Socialism really doesn't work without a very strong centralized government, with people naturally wanting to keep their income for themselves or their rather than being forced to give to the government, we end up with people being jailed or killed for wanting to start businesses or for exercising free speech.
This reason here is why the debate should be over.
I'm in favor of plans by the many, instead of plans by the few.
Can you give me any reasons why Socialism is better?
Well thank you for actually reaching out and being willing to learn. Others can explain it better than I but I just want you to know that what you’re doing is the ultimate way of truly understanding any subject and I’m so glad people like you exist. You give me hope that one day we all will be able to hold such open and civil conversations❤️❤️❤️
No one is entitled to the fruit of anyone else’s labor. The government taking the fruits of one man’s labor and giving it to another is abhorrent. We used to call that slavery.
capitalism is the only system that accepts and expects humans to be flawed.
what does that even mean? how is that even an argument?
Milton Friedman won a Nobel Prize for economics, so he’s got some credibility. He was a very outspoken proponent of the free market, and he spent a large part of his professional life trying to explain free market principles to “ordinary people.” He wrote a book, Free to Choose, and even turned it into a 10-part series. Each episode ends with Friedman answering questions from socialists and communists and others with conflicting theories.
You should check them out—free—on YouTube. Here’s episode #1:
Can we pull a reverse. Try to change our minds.
Imagine working all week. You can be a farmer and have some corn or be in modern society and have some money.
Now somebody who didn't work at all comes y and takes your stuff
Sucks for you. Good for the guy that steals the fruits of your labor.
You gonna work hard next week when you know the same thing can happen?
Actually, for what I know, in communism working’s an imperative, giving that every non-worker is sanctioned.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I studied economy, I really like the free market. The biggest advantage of a free market is that it is extremely efficient. No other system even comes close. This efficiency has led to the insane growth of wealth and technology over the last few centuries. Fewer people die of starvation than ever (recorded) before. Not just as a percentage, but as an absolute number. People are older, live more comfortable, etcetera. That's largely because of the free market.
The big problem of course that it is only efficient. Efficiency doesn't say anything about ethics.
I personally believe it is the most ethical way of running an economy. Not empathic, but squarely ethical. The basic safety net offered by governments makes the system the closest to my idea of a sweet spot between efficiency and compassion I ever saw implemented or devised.
free markets are inefficient. companies compete making the same product and eventually one drives the other out, and companies go broke all the time. wasted resources and efforts and people left unemployed
Capitalism grants .ire freedoms to the consumer on a while compared to socialism. If you want to look into capitalist markets transitioning to socialist markets look at "the great leap forward".
Competition lowers prices. Multiple companies competing for customers drives down the price. One government company can charge whatever they want.
The question you have to ask yourself is which you find morally right. There is no right answer, communism strive in some aspect and capitalism in others. Both these capitalism subs and communist ones are filled with lies make your own research
If you look worldwide, capitalist citizens are richer, healthier, and happier, hands down. Capitalist citizens also have more personal freedom, hands down! Nowhere do we see people trying to flock to socialist countries to live, like they do to the U.S.
Let's figure the apple business
How a such fragile item can be delivered through long distances and reach its specific consumer even in a million+ people society
On Free market
Disclaimer: As in socialism there is no private property, everything belongs to the People, and the Government represents the People. The stores or tents people work at, the trucks people drive, the money people may have in their pockets or even the apples in their stomachs, all belong to the Government. As the outcome of any work belongs to the People, every worker works for the Government. As long as he or she is above a minimum acceptable level of contribution to the commune, he or she has the same rights to access goods and provisions as anyone else, so the Government takes care of the fair distribution. Said that,
Simple, free will, if someone doesn't believe they need something why would they want to contribute to something they don't believe in. Not my personal opinion, but why would a Christain want to contribute to abortion clinics when it goes against their beliefs? Or an extreme example, I don't want healthcare for some odd reason, why should I be forced to have it if I don't want it, it's immoral for a few to decide on everyone's needs.
It is not that the free market is better but rather that it is a necessary step in achieving a working socialist system.
 I need to expand on this. You state that you are a socialist. In reality an individual cannot be a socialist unless they are living in as fully established socialist system. No such system currently exists. I do understand that you mean you believe in socialism. Many people also desire such a system whether they admit it or not.
Extract from above link;
The basics need to be instilled, first and foremost. From there, the country will be able to enter the second phase. At this point, the nation would be viewed as a country that implements fully-realized communism, where class divisions and government are no longer in existence*.*
Socialism does not imply the absence of a market. Credit unions, food cooperatives, etc are all generally market entities, but also are all generally socialist entities. Socialism is simply an economic system where stewardship and burden is shared. It doesn't indicate how.
Now, why is a free market better than a market that isn't free? Well, first off, do you agree that the biosphere is better off being regulated by an outside force or allowed to function and evolve naturally? If you believe it's the latter, then there you go.
The "invisible hand" that Smith identified is the same dynamic that plays out in biological systems. Indeed, Darwin came to the realization later than Smith did, so we really should be calling things "Smithian evolution."
These ideas are part of a broader observation about the relationship between the biosphere and system of human interactions, and something I'm very interested in studying. You can keep track of progress at
But again, a major takeaway from this commentary should be that socialism and markets are not mutually exclusive.
Why are markets good?
I guess I should add a commentary on why markets are good. Resources are limited. The economy isn't a zero-sum game, but we need efficient distribution of resources. Markets don't always work, but in the long term, they do efficiently distribute resources. Long term price trends are indicators of the resources needed to produce an item, and how that item (or service) influences the distribution of available resources, and brings in new resources, going forward.
America is capitalist. Most of the rest of the world wants to move to America. There is the evidence you desire.
While I have some arguments I am not an expert on economics. But I here to say it is good on you for visiting the subreddit to discuss an opposing viewpoint. Something
I know this is a couple of days old now but I remembered this video that I watched a while ago.
I am from Sweden and I know a lot of American socialists look to us and other Scandinavian countries for their hope in finding working socialism.
Here is a video that goes through why it didn't work and why Sweden is actually successfull.
Because then you have poor people who don't know what to do with themselves and an industry opens up to help them.
I've been reading through this for a little while and people aren't really answering your question.
The first thing to understand is that there isn't really a binary right/wrong situation here because, yes like others are saying, capitalism is about free markets using the power of many people's innovative efforts to achieve the best possible outcomes, but it also doesn't take into consideration what it takes to have the freedom to be innovative.
Innovation is a byproduct of the top of the maslow pyramid - self-actualization - when people have the ability to get away from their basic human needs of shelter/food/family, they have the ability to innovate.
But innovation that catches traction and gets attention and subsequently, funding to scale up also requires human power. Employees then buy into an innovative vision and in turn provide energy and manpower to turn the innovation of a few into a practical social benefit for the many.
The capitalistic part, to me, is that any one of those people have the freedom to realize that maybe they know how to make one part of the central innovation better and either rise up within that single silo of innovation or branch off into a new silo of innovation that in turn brings more manpower into it's reach.
When you pull back your perspective into a macro view, you'll see a landscape of silos full of innovators and their respective manpower bases growing higher and higher. That ceiling grows higher and higher and many, untold millions of people follow that silo upward.
The problem that MANY innovators overlook is that if they don't raise the floor as well, those silos can get unstable and top heavy. Gravity exists in many, many ways and we need responsible regulation that combines capitalistic principles with the greater social benefit.
TL/DR: Capitalism is an engine of growth that brings billions of people off the floor. But without wisely regulated capitalism, gravity can take hold and bring those lofty penthouses crashing down along with their respective manpower bases.
this system has reduced poverty with every country its been tryed in while in most socalist countrys its a shithole (Like Venezuala) or bruttaly oppresive (Like China). There will never be a perfect system, but Capitilism is the closet thing to that
I think the major difference reason, Capitalists believe in the free market, is that Capitalists believe the 'aggregate of customers making decisions to spend money on things' will just make better economic choices, than, say, a government, which somehow limits the (legal) desires that customers may spend their money.
A free market would theoretically equalize out all earners based on the supply and demand of those products or services they buy. This will force the companies that try to sell the products or services to prioritize consumer's needs as their first priority (because if there was a better choice, the customer would buy things there).
While under a limited marketplace, the sellers would most likely have to implement strict processes which they would have to follow, which would make things less efficient and less able for the actors to make judgment calls. Second, the influence of a limiter and rules in the marketplace will inevitably bring about whole new market of finding loopholes in those rules. And the companies or organizations doing the selling now take the rules as their top priority and addressing consumer needs drops as a priority, thus making the products/services less effective to the consumer.
Capitalism ties in with anthropology of people having freedom. It’s it’s basic premise that we (people) are sovereign and can determine our own outcome. You want many reasons and are inquisitive- as you say “really wanting to learn.” So you believe you are free to apprehend the truth which may be varied, but you know a search is possible. That’s capitalism. Self-determination. There is a hierarchy of values and you can decide what that hierarchy is. You will take the many reasons and order them and qualify them yourself. (Capitalism) Imagine a world where the values are predetermined and the hierarchy is set as to what is of higher quality of the items in a search. If you have been told no search is possible and the values are already determined, you resign yourself to a socialist. People under socialism’s rule are reduced to dialectical materialism. It’s easy to justify extermination. Just my two cents...as capitalists speak.
Wow, I expected a try.
First thing is there is no such thing.
If you believe that then I have some fraudulent stock to sell you they are guaranteed to go up in value for the rest of existence no matter what anyone tells you.
I am selling them for the small some of $30 million dollars.
The only thing stopping me from selling these is the socialist institution started by the communist FDR mainly the SEC.
SEC and Socialism must be evil right?
Free market is creativity. Free market is letting off chains from the hands of your people. Free market is letting everyone wander to whichever universe they want to in their mind and bring about whatever they want. Free market is 8 billion people making whatever they want. Free market is limitless.
I admit that capitalism has some advantages that socialism doesn’t have, like the one you just suggested. However, poor and relatively poor people are in a disadvantage with capitalism, giving that not everyone has the opportunity to be properly active in the free market.
Are you trolling, or really that obtuse?
Come on, we have to dispel the idea that we are close minded, so let the OP ask. It is freedom to do so.
Chill, it's just a dude who wants to learn more
Free markets are freedom, how do you not like freedom?
Imagine if you worked harder than your co workers, longer hours, and even spent time to upskill yourself in your free time. Eventually earned more money through dedicating more time and effort. Only to be told that it’s not fair the other people make less than you so we have to take a larger portion of your income to susidize Them
First, I'd have to ask, "what are your priorities? What sorts of things in economics are most important to you?"
Bit of a history guy, I will say, the people in this thread let's say that, have some good reason why the free markets are better, but a bit of an uncomfortable turth here. You can't talk about the history of socialism and ignore the National Socialist Germans Works Party, or more commonly known as Nazis.
In fact I have a book, writin after the WWII, called The Complete History of World War II Armed Services Memorial Edition, and there's, of course a chapter about Hitler.
But there is a paragraph that tells that the Nazi were at least comfortable with the idea of Socialsim. Here's the paragraph:
"It was during this work he met Gottfried Feder, a civil engineer with a foggy idea of Socialism to end all Socialism. Feder had much in common with Hitler - neither of them had read Dad Kapital by Karl Marx and both were out to destroy Marxism. The very abstruseness of Feder's theory hit Hitler with an impact of revelation. He immediately appropriated Feder's phrases, and also his little mustache brush by cutting of thr long ends of his own. Later he appointed Feder as Secretary of the Labor Department of Reich."
So, take that as you will, but it's right there, socialism being embraced by the Nazis.