Thread: Capitalism Vs Socialism

The hope for this thread is that it becomes a place of civil debate between those who favor capitalism, claim some form of socialism, advocate a combination therein, or those who are just looking to learn something.

Simple definitions to start off:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Mixed-Market: an system of economics where ideas of both capitalism and socialism are utilized; modern mixed-markets can lean more towards capitalism or more towards socialism.

To start off the debate, I propose a different view of capitalism as it is portrayed in the world today.

Capitalism today, to most of the world, is all about large multi-billion dollar corporations throwing their weight around trying to eat up their competitors. The end result is, of course, a monopoly that threatens everything we hold dear, right?

That's just absurd.

First off, I'd like for someone to point out to me where a monopoly formed without the help of government, and also where such a monopoly (if you can find an example of one) was a bad thing. Because, after all, if a monopoly forms on its own, it is by very definition a good thing -- since in a free market, the only thing that begets success is satisifying the customer.

Secondly, corporations do not naturally exist in a free market. The modern corporation is a government construct -- purposely created, mind you. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most anti-capitalist American Presidents, were pivotal in the creation of the modern corporation.

The capitalism of multi-billion dollar corporations is not free market capitalism, but indeed Market Socialism.

Think about it:
FDR and Wilson were very much into the idea of nationalizing industry (you know, socialism). That is where we get the modern corporation. A corporation is a business "owned by the people". If they can't name the corporation "The People's Automaker" (think Volkswagen - "People's Automobile" was originally created by the Nazis), they'll call it Chrysler, a publicly owned corporation. The ills of socialism are cropping up all over the spectrum of "big business" (and the Enron Scandal is but the tip of the iceberg).

Now I'm sure at this point, some of you are itching to point out that in a capitalist society, it is inevitable for the society to become an oligarchy (you know, because that's not what socialism is). Can the law forbid such a thing to happen? Of course not! Why not? Because the people who are writing the laws are being bought off. But is this a flaw in capitalism? NO!

This is a flaw in "Modern Democracy". The current "Democracy" is really an unacceptable form of government -- which is the reason that the founding fathers of United States never intended it to be a Democracy, but rather a Republic, and a Limited Republic at that. (The United States was meant to be a Republic with the limited number of powers clearly defined in a written constitution.)

The problem is that it has been undermined by all three branches of the government (judicial, legilsative, and executive), and perhaps the judicial branch most of all (especially since that power-mad Marshall was Chief Justice). The problem begins with the lawmakers who should NOT be able to make laws that will wrongfully benefit anyone in the first place. As long as they can, they WILL, and there's nothing that can be done about it within the system because further regulation will only make it worse.

I may not have illustrated my initial points clearly enough, so please feel free to ask questions or argue. I'm actually quite interested in hearing what Russians have to offer into the debate (reason number two as to why I'm here on this forum). I apologize for only being able to offer any sort of serious debate in English, as my Russian skills are quite limited (reason number one as to why I'm here on this forum, hehe).

I'll try to explain my point of view on that if you forgive me my English.

If I understand Marx correctly, Capitalism and Socialism differ from each other mainly in paying for a work. In the Socialism owner of a firm cannot appropriate a Surplus Value from workers as he did in Capitalism system (details read in Marx' The Capital).

I.e. in the Socialism exploitation of man by man is illegal.

In the USSR there never was Marx described Socialism, it was socialistic only by name. It was the State Monopolistic Capitalism. The country-corporation where all citisens were members of the corporation from their birth.

At the beginning it was admitted by our leaders and they declare that 'a socialism was in the course of building'.

In the USSR there was exploitation of workers. And there always was a potential exploitators class - bureaucracy (nomenclatura) which always considered collective or governmental ownership as their own.

The main meaning of Soviet Perestroyka was the conversion of 'collective' (only on paper) property into property of former nomenclatura.

That's all. He He He... All these perestroyka slogans like 'democracy', 'glastnost', 'freedom', 'human right' were scrim of cant.

///

Originally Posted by N

In the Socialism owner of a firm cannot appropriate a Surplus Value from workers as he did in Capitalism system (details read in Marx' The Capital).

This "Surplus Value" nonsense is one of the most rediculous concepts I've ever had the displeasure of seeing.

The whole idea of banning "profit" is foolhardy. The concept runs into big problems when it comes to incentives for entrepreneurs, business owners and operators of any kind. They're not making any money for themselves, and the creation of wealth and the "surplus of money" necessary for innovation is limited to practically zilch (zero).

Originally Posted by N

I.e. in the Socialism exploitation of man by man is illegal.

The basic concepts of Socialism (including how Marx intended it) are predicated on the exploitation of man for the benefit of the collective -- and it fails to work on every level.

Originally Posted by N

In the USSR there never was Marx described Socialism, it was socialistic only by name. It was the State Monopolistic Capitalism. The country-corporation where all citisens were members of the corporation from their birth.

"State Monopolistic Capitalism" is self-nullifying. Since monopoly and capitalism are contradictory, state monopoly and capitalism are also contradictory. A monopoly does not form in a free market society without the intervention of the state.

Originally Posted by N

The main meaning of Soviet Perestroyka was the conversion of 'collective' (only on paper) property into property of former nomenclatura.

That's all. He He He... All these perestroyka slogans like 'democracy', 'glastnost', 'freedom', 'human right' were scrim of cant.

I don't know anybody that actually believes that Russia is a democracy or economically free. There are way too many old communists (and other socialists) behind the scenes dominating areas of the country --- and the corruption? Oh let's not get started down that path!

If you follow Marxist principles, and are based upon a Marxist foundation (like the USSR was), then you are Marxist. You can't say that you have nothing to do with Marxism after the fact, because you were evil and faile and Marx's "End of History" society was a utopia (and an intellectual fantasy) that could never come about in reality.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

[
This "Surplus Value" nonsense is one of the most rediculous concepts I've ever had the displeasure of seeing
The whole idea of banning "profit" is foolhardy. The concept runs into big problems when it comes to incentives for entrepreneurs, business owners and operators of any kind. They're not making any money for themselves, and the creation of wealth and the "surplus of money" necessary for innovation is limited to practically zilch (zero)..

It is good disscusion. Apart from the lots of poliitics implications which can be discussed talking about Capitalism versus Socialism. My proposal is only to bring some ideas mainly in terms of Economic.
Firstly, Freemarket is not the panacea and never is completly free,
Maybe, you said the goals of the companies should be profit (sometimes is increase the profit or not).. It can be a objective good enough to be folowing by a company but however take a look of the global market todaywhat is the behaviour of these bigest companies in the World . They dont like the free market. These bigest companies are trying that the free market become a Monopoly. i'll give to you an example' MICROSOFT . Let me know which company can be a competitor of this company. It is a monopoly. Secondly, Public goods as Education, Health Care, etc are public benefits that never will be offered by private company. Probably, these can be made more efficently by private companies but however it should be regulated or controled by the Public Sector.

Originally Posted by N

In the USSR there never was Marx described Socialism, it was socialistic only by name. It was the State Monopolistic Capitalism. The country-corporation where all citisens were members of the corporation from their birth.

I have met people from there over sixties y.o. who never described me their life that you are saying. they have right to be owner of their house without pay nothing as well as dont pay power, water suply, etc. Each summer they have paid vacations. Nowadays, their pension are ridiculous and they must pay for all.

to Lucas

Maybe my hyperbole about the country-corporation was not good.

I mean that >90% of people had only one employer - the State.
Although in the USSR there were even legal owners of small firms like cobbling, minor repair of watches etc.

In Marx Socialism system you have the full right to own property like house, car, clothes etc. i.e. personal property that you use for yourself.
But if you are owner of means of production you have no right to use it to appropriate the surplus value. That's all. I cannot retell the whole Capital.

to the_intrepid

I don't see how monopoly and capitalism are contradictory. I think you mean free market saying 'capitalism'. Free market never existed. That's utopia.

Originally Posted by Lucas

It is good disscusion. Apart from the lots of poliitics implications which can be discussed talking about Capitalism versus Socialism. My proposal is only to bring some ideas mainly in terms of Economic.

You were proposing only talking about Economics, but you brought up politics in the same post. How does that work?

Originally Posted by Lucas

Firstly, Freemarket is not the panacea and never is completly free,

By very definition, a Free Market is completely 'free' (as in open, and 'freedom').

Originally Posted by Lucas

Maybe, you said the goals of the companies should be profit (sometimes is increase the profit or not).. It can be a objective good enough to be folowing by a company but however take a look of the global market todaywhat is the behaviour of these bigest companies in the World . They dont like the free market. These bigest companies are trying that the free market become a Monopoly. i'll give to you an example' MICROSOFT . Let me know which company can be a competitor of this company. It is a monopoly.

I'm writing this post on a PC running Linux Red Hat 9.0 (updated, actually). Since I had a choice in the operating system I run, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Actually, within the law, Microsoft has done nothing illegal. It's only crimes are that of abusing laws (and politicians who were all too eager to bend to the will of money: See "Failures of Democracy") and being 'overly competitive'.

I do agree with you that big companies don't like the Free Market. But like I said, the modern 'megacorporation' (or 'big companies') are not naturally formed in a free market and are, in fact, intentionally created government constructs in order to nationalize industry. You can look into it if you'd like. It's called "Market Socialism".

(Also, "monopoly" denotes "one" leader and lack of choice. Anyone who believes Microsoft is a MONOpoly must not be able to comprehend simple definitions.

Originally Posted by Lucas

Secondly, Public goods as Education, Health Care, etc are public benefits that never will be offered by private company. Probably, these can be made more efficently by private companies but however it should be regulated or controled by the Public Sector.

Please tell me you're joking?!?! This is one of the dumbest bits of rhetoric I've ever heard in my entire life. Not only does private education and health care exist, but they are several times more efficient and cheaper than their public/government ran equivalents. They are regularly offered all throughout the United States and many other places. You know, they often say Canada has great "Free Healthcare" in the same sense that Europe has "Free Healthcare", but the costs of that "Free" Healthcare are tremendous, and you have to wait from a few weeks to several months to be treated. On top of that, the service (if you live long enough to be treated) is not nearly as good as that of the United States. Thousands of Canadians each year travel to the United States for health care even with their "Free Public Health Care".

All those countries in Europe that love to brag about their 'free' and 'Universal Health Care' are starting to experience drops in the quality of service as well as increases in the taxes that are needed to be collected in order to pay for it. Why does this happen? Because when people perceive something as 'Free', they tend to try to take advantage of it as much as possible. In a private system, you have to pay for everything you need, but you don't have to pay for anything more. In return, the quality of service has to be high otherwise they don't get paid. In socialized health care, the quality of service from institution to institution doesn't have to be competitive because they only answer to government (the same people who run and profit off the entire situation).

Private Education in the United States is actually alot cheaper and better than Public Education. It's the same everywhere you go. People often don't grasp the concept that even though on paper it looks as though it only costs $10,000 (or whatever) a year to go to Public School, the costs are often exceeding three times as much. The rest of the money is paid for by taxes. That's at the university level.

From grades K-12, "private schools" cost 4-5 thousand dollars a year less than 'public schools' and the quality of education is much higher as well. Also, even though private schools are already cheaper than public schools (and better), they could be alot cheaper if it wasn't for outrageous restrictions and regulations brought on by government. It's rediculous. Government drives up the prices on everything, and continues to do so in the area of Education (and Health Care).

Originally Posted by N

I have met people from there over sixties y.o. who never described me their life that you are saying. they have right to be owner of their house without pay nothing as well as dont pay power, water suply, etc. Each summer they have paid vacations. Nowadays, their pension are ridiculous and they must pay for all.

It's funny that I know people who have lived under socialist systems, and they've given me anecdotes that make it sound like I'm taking it easy on socialism. Also, in the USSR, you didn't really 'own your house' and could be evicted at anytime if they found you to be not productive enough -- or if you made the slightest complaint. That's at the minimum. Many were sent to prisons in Siberia.

Also, you continue to forget that (as Robert A. Heinlein put it) 'There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch'. In other words, nothing is free. Those people did pay for power and water, and they paid quite a bit for it. Ever wonder why the average American was much healthier and owned alot more private property than the average Soviet Citizen?

It's quite sad that all those old timers in Russia are struggling, but their solution to the problem (a socialist system) was the cause of the problem to begin with.

Originally Posted by N

to the_intrepid

I don't see how monopoly and capitalism are contradictory. I think you mean free market saying 'capitalism'. Free market never existed. That's utopia.

True capitalism is a free market (as in "Free Market Capitalism"). Modern 'capitalism' is no more about a free market than modern 'democracy' is about democracy. Reread some of my posts in this section ("Politics") for a better understanding of what I'm trying to say.

And a Free Market has existed! I'm not quite naive enough to think that a utopia could be reached, but a Free Market libertarian society has existed... and not just one, but two of them for certain.

The earliest was in Ancient Ireland. Before it was conquered by Britons invading (over the course of a few hundred years -- a decentralized country is hard to take over because it lacks all those unnecessary institutions that make the people of the country being invaded to easily be assimilated into the society of the conquering nation.)

If you would like to read about this society, check out Murray N. Rothbard's "For A New Liberty". It's a great book. It the chapters dealing with Ancient Ireland, it gives great insight into the workings of a real free market, libertarian society.

You might also want to look at David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" where he sufficiently talks about "anarcho-capitalism" in Midieval Icelandic fishing villages. (free market capitalism is a better way of putting it).

For more modern history, you might want to check out "The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier" by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill. It talks about how the 'Wild West' wasn't so chaotic and dangerous as contemporary thought would illustrate. In fact, even without much in terms of formal government institutions, the wild west wasn't the dangerous anarchy that it has been portrayed as being.

Surely the "intellectual curiosity" I keep hearing about is still alive in Russia?

What people don't seem to grasp is that in a free market society, even though there is a lack of heavy-handed government and lack of formal regulation, regulation does exist. The tenants of fairness and equal opportunity are actually adhered to much better in such a system because there are no formal government loopholes to exploit.

The Free Market is about empathy and helping your fellow man. How so? Because in a free market society, everybody has equal opportunity and you only succeed and propser if you are fair, and hold up your end of the bargain.

It's funny how corruption is rampant in big government and in socialized systems, but yet you don't find much at all in systems leaning to the free market. I wonder why?

to the_intrepid

I'm writing this post on a PC running Linux Red Hat 9.0 (updated, actually). Since I had a choice in the operating system I run, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Actually, within the law, Microsoft has done nothing illegal. It's only crimes are that of abusing laws (and politicians who were all too eager to bend to the will of money: See "Failures of Democracy") and being 'overly competitive'.

I do agree with you that big companies don't like the Free Market. But like I said, the modern 'megacorporation' (or 'big companies') are not naturally formed in a free market and are, in fact, intentionally created government constructs in order to nationalize industry. You can look into it if you'd like. It's called "Market Socialism".

Microsoft has been punished in Europe because its abuses as dominated position in the Free Market. As long as I know it has been punished also in USA.
There are activities in which they are natural Monopoly as Electricity, Power Supplies, and Public Transport. Of course, in Europe these companies were monopolies in the past and today it has been privatized. As result of that the cuts in supplies are often in summer. On the other hand, the profits of them are better now because they did very well cut the expenses and dont invest enough money to maintance it and less when the electricy increase its demand.

Please tell me you're joking?!?! This is one of the dumbest bits of rhetoric I've ever heard in my entire life. Not only does private education and health care exist, but they are several times more efficient and cheaper than their public/government ran equivalents. They are regularly offered all throughout the United States and many other places. You know, they often say Canada has great "Free Healthcare" in the same sense that Europe has "Free Healthcare", but the costs of that "Free" Healthcare are tremendous, and you have to wait from a few weeks to several months to be treated. On top of that, the service (if you live long enough to be treated) is not nearly as good as that of the United States. Thousands of Canadians each year travel to the United States for health care even with their "Free Public Health Care".
May be you are right that the Europe Health Care needs to be changed so that it can be more efficiently. I don’t envy your system at all because people are became in citizen of the first class- that can be paid private company and the 90 % who has to go to Public Hospital which are no resources.
Even if the Health Care in Europe is increasing its budget each year. Believe me, No one here today to be questioned ours system.

Regarding Free Market

Your definition is good, but it is only a summary
So One of the principle among others so we can talk about Free markets is the price of the goods are established by buyers and seller .
How can be fixed the prices of Health Care without get involved the governments?

Another principles of Free Market said that economic activities are getting better without the intervention of the Public Sector. That is not true at all. There are sector as public transport which don’t be left to private initiative. If you live in a village ( 200 inhabitants) 40 km far form the city. Do you thing a private company is going to provide you a daily Bus if no economic feasible.
May you say “you can use your own car, but if I don’t what is going on”.

Originally Posted by Lucas

Microsoft has been punished in Europe because its abuses as dominated position in the Free Market. As long as I know it has been punished also in USA.
There are activities in which they are natural Monopoly as Electricity, Power Supplies, and Public Transport. Of course, in Europe these companies were monopolies in the past and today it has been privatized. As result of that the cuts in supplies are often in summer. On the other hand, the profits of them are better now because they did very well cut the expenses and dont invest enough money to maintance it and less when the electricy increase its demand.

I'm not surprised that Microsoft has been punished in Europe (actually, I've been aware of the fact. I read alot of news at http://www.slashdot.org . I'm not sure if you've ever heard of it, though.) Europe is becoming more socialized ever year.

I'm not sure what you are saying about Electricy, Power, and Public Transport being natural monopolies? Are you suggesting that government is needed in these areas?

That's just plain silly. Do you think people would just stand around without power/electricity, water, and transportation and roads? Nonsense!

When supplies are cut, and demand is high, the price goes up and short term profits go up. However, long term profits are greatly reduced because it takes too much money out of the hands of the consumer over a period of time.

Much of the perceived success of the European Union is due to artificial inflation of the Euro. It will not last. At this point, the only hope they have for success in the European Union is to continue to bring new members in, while raising taxes higher and higher. This is trouble.

Originally Posted by Lucas

May be you are right that the Europe Health Care needs to be changed so that it can be more efficiently. I don’t envy your system at all because people are became in citizen of the first class- that can be paid private company and the 90 % who has to go to Public Hospital which are no resources.

European Health Care needs to be unsocialized or it's not going to last. It's becoming more and more expensive while the quality of care given is becoming worse and worse. People abuse things which they perceive as free, and when people are guarunteed a job, they have no incentive to continue to provide high quality.

People often thing that if you come to America and don't have the money for health care, you'll be left dying in the street. This is not true. In fact, American health care is better than European and socialized health care in this regard. In Socialized health care systems, you are put in a queue until some bureaucrat decides you're worth the money needed for the treatment. In America, you're guarunteed to be treated (we're not so cruel as we are often portrayed).

What the Hospital then does is make a choice. They can agree to a payment system (if you want to pay them one dollar a month for the rest of your life, they must accept it!). The alternative, of course, is that they accept a loss and possible forbid further providing of health care to you. Also, in such a system, government monopoly on health care doesn't exist, so prices do not get driven up by goverment -- and naturally go down over time.

Regarding Free Market

Your definition is good, but it is only a summary
So One of the principle among others so we can talk about Free markets is the price of the goods are established by buyers and seller .
How can be fixed the prices of Health Care without get involved the governments?

It's actually quite the fallacy to assume that when government fixes prices, the prices cannot go higher than that. You just don't get to see the money going to keep these price fixes in place, which often hurts other areas of the market.

Government price fixing actually removes the naturally existing ability of the market (the producer and the consumer) from LOWERING the prices as well as IMPROVING the quality of health care.

Another principles of Free Market said that economic activities are getting better without the intervention of the Public Sector. That is not true at all. There are sector as public transport which don’t be left to private initiative. If you live in a village ( 200 inhabitants) 40 km far form the city. Do you thing a private company is going to provide you a daily Bus if no economic feasible.
May you say “you can use your own car, but if I don’t what is going on”.

Alright, first it's absurd to think that a business, such as WalMart or some other store, would build their store out in the middle of nowhere without providing transportation to it.

Also, people wouldn't move 40km away from a city if there weren't roads there. But as far as whether or not a private company would provide some form of transporation between the two areas, it is possible. It's a matter of whether or not there is any interest for those people 40km away to want to go to the city often enough for it to be profitable.

If there is, a private road or railway would be build. If not, then the people will still have to pay prices to get their own transportation there, but without having to pay ever-increasing taxes for public transportation, especially over long distances, they would have to pay less in the long run.

But seriously, who in their right mind would move 40km away from a city if they want to commute to that city often?

If you want to compare private roads to public roads, you should compare roads anywhere in the United States or in Russia, (or anywhere else), to the private roads at Disney Land and Disney World. Disney roads are incredible smooth and clean, and it costs only a fraction of the cost to keep them that way than it does for public roads -- and that's when you scale it (1 mile of Disney road vs 1 mile of 'regular' high way road).

I'd love for you to see the monorail in Disney World versus the monorails in Japan, for starters. It's incredible how nice Disney's are. It's quite spectacular. Why? Because they have to make them work efficiently and maintain cleanliness or they lose business. Government roads aren't nearly as good because no matter what, the money is still going to be given out because of lack of legal competition.

(Also, if you're familiar with how 'Internet Ads' work on websites like Netscape or Yahoo, you might like this resolution on how to privatize roads.

Just like how each person visiting a website is a 'hit', and a certain amount of money is given from a sponsor (who is being advertised) to the website owner, so could it work where each car driving on a road is a 'hit', and a certain amount of money from a sponsor (who is getting great advertisement) to the road owner.

Think about it, for roads that are very busy, the sponsoring company would get millions of dollars in order to pay for the roads. The owner of the roads could even be making quite the profit (as Yahoo, a company worth billions, does). Everybody benefits; roads become more efficient and wealth is created and distributed throughout the economy.

It certainly wouldn't create utopia, but it's a giant step up than where we are right now.

Again, just compare Disney to any public area.

Personally, I am willing to accept a bit of inefficiency (and happy to pay the resultant higher taxes) in our health system, or any other aspect of our 'socialist' society, if it prevents us from become as obsessed with money and profit as the morally and ethically bankrupt country across the pond, with all the social problems that go along with it.

But that's by the by, I am no more interested in getting into a discussion with a capitalist zealot than I am with a communist zealot, I only posted at all in this thread because this little fella made me laugh really hard, and I wanted to say 'thanks'

If you want to compare private roads to public roads, you should compare roads anywhere in the United States or in Russia, (or anywhere else), to the private roads at Disney Land and Disney World. Disney roads are incredible smooth and clean, and it costs only a fraction of the cost to keep them that way than it does for public roads -- and that's when you scale it (1 mile of Disney road vs 1 mile of 'regular' high way road).

Priceless.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I'm not sure what you are saying about Electricy, Power, and Public Transport being natural monopolies? Are you suggesting that government is needed in these areas
That's just plain silly. Do you think people would just stand around without power/electricity, water, and transportation and roads? Nonsense!

When supplies are cut, and demand is high, the price goes up and short term profits go up. However, long term profits are greatly reduced because it takes too much money out of the hands of the consumer over a period of time?.

Regarding Electricity companies

Whichever countries are considered there are limited number of companies which are able to provide it. Why? there are many reasons. First, the investment is huge as well as it takes longer to this plant generated electricity and benefits. Second, if the demand is being provide by three company, for instance, it is very difficult for a new company to invest this amount of money. Multinational companies prefer buying companies which are already supplied this electricity. That means a Natural monopoly because even thought they have the enough money to invest they don't do it.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Much of the perceived success of the European Union is due to artificial inflation of the Euro. It will not last. At this point, the only hope they have for success in the European Union is to continue to bring new members in, while raising taxes higher and higher. This is trouble.

I don't think so. Even thought European Currency Authority would be able to do it that is not true it dont have enough power to do it . Mrs Greespan chief of the Federal Reserve is the only person who is able to fix the Euro/Dollar where is more convenient for USA. The Public Deficit is so huge that this exchange is very convenient for american products so that they can be sold easily.
You are right
Euro is being very important for Europe. The trade in the World has another currency strong enough so that International operation comercial dont need the dollar

Originally Posted by Lucas

Regarding Electricity companies

Whichever countries are considered there are limited number of companies which are able to provide it. Why? there are many reasons. First, the investment is huge as well as it takes longer to this plant generated electricity and benefits. Second, if the demand is being provide by three company, for instance, it is very difficult for a new company to invest this amount of money. Multinational companies prefer buying companies which are already supplied this electricity. That means a Natural monopoly because even thought they have the enough money to invest they don't do it

I don't think you have all the logic worked on this. Keep at it though.

I don't think so. Even thought European Currency Authority would be able to do it that is not true it dont have enough power to do it . Mrs Greespan chief of the Federal Reserve is the only person who is able to fix the Euro/Dollar where is more convenient for USA. The Public Deficit is so huge that this exchange is very convenient for american products so that they can be sold easily.

Mr. Greenspan can only alter the interest rates on the U.S. Dollar, which is still more trusted than the Euro, even if the Euro is worth more [quite temporarily]. The Euro is only worth more because of artificial inflation of the Euro.

I haven't trusted Greenspan for several years. Remember the "Dot-Com" bust of the late 1990s? Greenspan's meddling with interest rates, upset the market and caused the U.S. Economy (and therefore the world's) because of it.

You are right
Euro is being very important for Europe. The trade in the World has another currency strong enough so that International operation comercial dont need the dollar

The Euro is only really going to help the powerful economies of mainland Europe (such as Germany and France). A movement in the United Kingdom is already underway to get them out of the European Union. I don't blame them. The European Union is going to fail.

(If you're interested in more lively and in debth discussion on such matters, please feel free to head on over to haveyoursay.org . It's a growing forum with a large international base. I think there are actually more Europeans there than there are Americans.)

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

[A movement in the United Kingdom is already underway to get them out of the European Union. I don't blame them.

So far UK dont accept the currency, that is true. It took its decision.
Euro is not going to fail because of that

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The European Union is going to fail.

That is only your opinion. Many times History show us that some events tend to be repeted. During 2000 y.o. Europe and Asia were under Roman domination but at the end it felt.

Originally Posted by Lucas

So far UK dont accept the currency, that is true. It took its decision.
Euro is not going to fail because of that

I didn't say the Euro is going to fail because the UK doesn't want to really be a part of the European Union. The European Union is going to fail because it's an attempt to create a socialist superstate based upon a form of socialism/communism often referred to as regionalism (or I'm getting my terms mixed up).

In Eastern Europe, even among those countries that have recently (and with great fervor) join the European Union, there is already growing regret because of all of the unnecessary, if not outright useless, regulations that have to be adhered to in order for the new members to get any sort of benefit out of the European Union.

Just like how the United States switched from the 'gold standard' to money not being backed by actual gold, the European will face illegitimacy and instability issues because of it.

Let's compare the European Union to the USSR.
-Both are nondemocratic superstates.
-The EU is governed by 25 unelected commissars. The USSR was governed by 15 unelected commissars.
-Nations joined the EU "voluntarily", but they were really heavily pressured into doing so. It was the same with the USSR, though with the USSR it was military pressure. With the -EU, it is economic pressure.
-Both have the goal of eliminating nation-states (that in some cases existed independently, with their own identities, for hundreds and hundreds of years!).
-There are more than 30,000 bureaucrats in the European Union that do not have to pay taxes. This same corruption was also built into the USSR.
-It's been about a decade now since the European Union auditors could account for the entire budget of the EU bloc (unable to account for billions of dollars of your money).

Simply put, the European Union really is the EUSSR. Except that in the case of Europe, it is the Mensheviks' version, not the Bolshevik's.

That is only your opinion. Many times History show us that some events tend to be repeted. During 2000 y.o. Europe and Asia were under Roman domination but at the end it felt.

It's not just my opinion. Uncountable thousands of people in Europe and in the United States share the same opinion.

Also, history shows us that monolithic superstates all collapse under their own weight in the end (Roman Empire, British Empire, the USSR, probably the American Empire in the next 25-35 years, etc).

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Simply put, the European Union really is the EUSSR. Except that in the case of Europe, it is the Mensheviks' version, not the Bolshevik's.
Also, history shows us that monolithic superstates all collapse under their own weight in the end (Roman Empire, British Empire, the USSR, probably the American Empire in the next 25-35 years, etc).

Let me tell you something:

The economics’ model of USA is not the unique models which can works or runs. I have never said here that I am on contrary of The Free Market. I said The Authorities must take part in the market mainly to provide society things (Health Care, Education, others) which are not being provided by a strictly Free Market (that is not mean all of the schools or hospitals must be public). If anyone is rich to pay a private system, go ahead. I don’t care about it. Second, those economics’ sector where the competition is not real because there are a few companies, for instance, three companies that it is easily which it can be agreed the price of things the governments must act.

You don’t say anything regarding the huge Deficit in the budget of USA. Why not? Each European country’s budget is being breakdown according with its own priority. I prefer my government assigns these resources in Education or Health Care than in the Army as USA done. I don’t know the accurately number but not more the 5% of the National budget is being assigned to Europe Budget so is irrelevant.

Let's compare the European Union to the USSR
-Both are nondemocratic superstates

Are you kidding???

-Both have the goal of eliminating nation-states (that in some cases existed independently, with their own identities, for hundreds and hundreds of years!).

So far it is going on the contrary that you are saying. Europe is only Economic Union Trade along whit a currency and monetary policy which is conducting by the chairman of the Europe Bank that is all. The important decisions are made in the Primer Minister conferences which are celebrated time to time. Either President of the commission or European Parliament are not persons notable and are designated by states’ primer minister.

-There are more than 30,000 bureaucrats in the European Union that do not have to pay taxes. This same corruption was also built into the USSR.

Do you thing 30.000 are a high number compare with 300 millions people? Let me tell you that thanks European Union countries as Ireland or Spain (no bigger that France or Germany) have been able to sell their products in Europe. During the last years Ireland has been growing about 7-8 % in its GPD; it has been called the European tiger. Nowadays, Spain has an unemployment rate nearest of 10% along with 22 millions of Active workforces, in the past the numbers were 20% unemployment and 18 millions of active workforces. The income per capita is both countries are near of the 90% of Europe average.

Don’t hesitate that European Union (only economic union) has been very important for many reasons. I can understand America dislike that situation.[/i]