Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

There is a alternative to Capitalism and Socialism there is

Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Apr 2011, 12:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
works pretty well in denmark as well.
it annoys me when people think in absolutes.


It it ain't broken don't fix it.

ruveyn


define not broke, simple wordings like that show little conection to an actual reality.


Not broken = functioning sufficiently well.

ruveyn


according to who?
whats broke for one might be functioning for another.
in essence the concept of "not broke, dont fix" is subjective.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

27 Apr 2011, 12:27 pm

Oodain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
works pretty well in denmark as well.
it annoys me when people think in absolutes.


It it ain't broken don't fix it.

ruveyn


define not broke, simple wordings like that show little conection to an actual reality.


Not broken = functioning sufficiently well.

ruveyn


according to who?
whats broke for one might be functioning for another.
in essence the concept of "not broke, dont fix" is subjective.


It works well here in the UK too, tho it needs a few changes to make it better to stop both front door and back door privatisation.
Them yanks have a more of a free market mixed economic, every country has its on take on the mixed economic system.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Apr 2011, 12:29 pm

Oodain wrote:

according to who?
whats broke for one might be functioning for another.
in essence the concept of "not broke, dont fix" is subjective.


If few are starving and most are working it is "good enough". There are no perfect economies in the world.

ruveyn



Shagodah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9
Location: Czech republic

27 Apr 2011, 12:32 pm

The question is not whether something works or not, but whether it could work better.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Apr 2011, 12:34 pm

Shagodah wrote:
The question is not whether something works or not, but whether it could work better.


Nonsense. If something is "good enough" why try to improve it? It might only make it worse. The fact that something can be improved has no definitive consequences. Suppose the cost of improvement exceeds the benefits from the improvement. Then "good enough" is better than "better".

Old saying -- The Best is the Enemy of the Good Enough.

ruveyn



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

27 Apr 2011, 12:39 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
The question is not whether something works or not, but whether it could work better.


Nonsense. If something is "good enough" why try to improve it? It might only make it worse. The fact that something can be improved has no definitive consequences. Suppose the cost of improvement exceeds the benefits from the improvement. Then "good enough" is better than "better".

Old saying -- The Best is the Enemy of the Good Enough.

ruveyn


Better the devil you know that the devil you don't.
Suppose the costs of replacing a system exceeds the costs of keeping it Then its cost effective to keep it &/or improve it.



Shagodah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9
Location: Czech republic

27 Apr 2011, 12:46 pm

Well, I think that if the cost of improvement would exceed the benefits then it wouldn´t be improvement at all. If our predecesors had the same attitude you have, we would have been poor and the development would have stop in prehistory.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Apr 2011, 12:54 pm

Shagodah wrote:
Well, I think that if the cost of improvement would exceed the benefits then it wouldn´t be improvement at all. If our predecesors had the same attitude you have, we would have been poor and the development would have stop in prehistory.


QFT


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Apr 2011, 12:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:

according to who?
whats broke for one might be functioning for another.
in essence the concept of "not broke, dont fix" is subjective.


If few are starving and most are working it is "good enough". There are no perfect economies in the world.

ruveyn


i agree there are no perfect economies and what works is entirely based on where and when you are.
but taking from the above, in my eyes at least. makes the whole debate of capitalism/socialism mute, as it should be clear that some mix is required.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

27 Apr 2011, 12:59 pm

cdfox7 wrote:
Suppose the costs of replacing a system exceeds the costs of keeping it Then its cost effective to keep it &/or improve it.


What if it's cheaper in the short-term but much more damaging, deleterious and costly in the medium and long term?

(I'm thinking of like a dripping tap.)

Reform is needed, and the Conservatives aren't offering it.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm

the world and the people in it is constantly evolving so to be honest i think you need to constantly change to be effective and provide well for the citizens of your nation.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

27 Apr 2011, 1:19 pm

Tequila wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Suppose the costs of replacing a system exceeds the costs of keeping it Then its cost effective to keep it &/or improve it.


What if it's cheaper in the short-term but much more damaging, deleterious and costly in the medium and long term?

(I'm thinking of like a dripping tap.)

Reform is needed, and the Conservatives aren't offering it.


I agree the issue of cost of is only one aspect of the decision making process. Only forecasts and analysis can point to the medium & long term. Plus never take forecasts & analysis at face value as there most of the time there snap shots of the past to judge the future. Also the time frame in question of the medium & long term is an issue. eg what do you judge the medium term to be 5 year down the line?

I whole healry agree the ConDem's aren't delivering the goods for reform.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Apr 2011, 6:52 pm

Oodain wrote:
i agree there are no perfect economies and what works is entirely based on where and when you are.
but taking from the above, in my eyes at least. makes the whole debate of capitalism/socialism mute, as it should be clear that some mix is required.


This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

27 Apr 2011, 8:53 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
i agree there are no perfect economies and what works is entirely based on where and when you are.
but taking from the above, in my eyes at least. makes the whole debate of capitalism/socialism mute, as it should be clear that some mix is required.


This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn


Oh please do tell us the factual winner of the economic model race, great & wise Nobel Economics laureate!



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

27 Apr 2011, 9:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
i agree there are no perfect economies and what works is entirely based on where and when you are.
but taking from the above, in my eyes at least. makes the whole debate of capitalism/socialism mute, as it should be clear that some mix is required.


This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn


this is way you are a genius.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Apr 2011, 9:42 pm

cdfox7 wrote:

Oh please do tell us the factual winner of the economic model race, great & wise Nobel Economics laureate!


It is a matter of fact the the most successful economies (this happen to be the advanced industrial economies) operate on a mix of government regulation and market elements combined with private ownership of the means of production. The least successful economies (N. Korea is the champion here) still try to operate on Marxist principles. Not far behind is Cuba which is a basket case. Haiti is not even a mixed economy. It is just a mess. Somalia is neither communist nor capitalist. It is a gang run thugocracy and is close to anarchic.

Philosophical arguments DO NOT MATTER. Only facts matter.

ruveyn