Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Flipx99" data-source="post: 6232391" data-attributes="member: 562352">I take limited offense (as offense is such a strong word) to the notion of &quot;saving capitalism from itself&quot;. It appears (from some economists) that capitalism can only work during veiled regulation. I am not so certain, except for this instance: When capitalistic economies come crashing down, the value of social contracts become highly valuable. I suppose this is because once the money is gone, all you have is each other. Thus, a fall in capitalism could indeed cause a rise in acceptance of socialism. Preventing a crash in capitalism saves it from itself because people won&#039;t consider socialism.And this is where the issue lies. The socialist (and I use that term loosely) choice seems to me the result of agents wanting to immediate improvement in their lives. They work together coopertively to ensure food is on the table and everyone eats. It&#039;s hard to blame them for opting for that choice in the face of starving to hold on to capitalism.What I&#039;d be interested to see is what is the result of the crash of socialistic countries.Keep in mind, I am only concerned with degrees when it comes to socialistic/capitalistic. I&#039;d venture to guess we crossed that 50 yard line a while back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Flipx99, post: 6232391, member: 562352"] I take limited offense (as offense is such a strong word) to the notion of "saving capitalism from itself". It appears (from some economists) that capitalism can only work during veiled regulation. I am not so certain, except for this instance: When capitalistic economies come crashing down, the value of social contracts become highly valuable. I suppose this is because once the money is gone, all you have is each other. Thus, a fall in capitalism could indeed cause a rise in acceptance of socialism. Preventing a crash in capitalism saves it from itself because people won't consider socialism. And this is where the issue lies. The socialist (and I use that term loosely) choice seems to me the result of agents wanting to immediate improvement in their lives. They work together coopertively to ensure food is on the table and everyone eats. It's hard to blame them for opting for that choice in the face of starving to hold on to capitalism. What I'd be interested to see is what is the result of the crash of socialistic countries. Keep in mind, I am only concerned with degrees when it comes to socialistic/capitalistic. I'd venture to guess we crossed that 50 yard line a while back. [/QUOTE]

Verification