Created by BlueOni
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Which of the following economic models do you favour?
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/9/15 , edited 4/9/15
Blatant curiosity, CR. Show me which you prefer. As for me, it's mixed.

Edit: Totally feel free to add asterisks to your answers. Even I do. I said "mixed market system", but I favour a mixed market system composed of workers' cooperatives, which would technically count as a socialist system. So, CR: your system, and your asterisks?
Posted 4/9/15 , edited 4/14/15
Why do i get the feeling this is like check for spiders?
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/9/15 , edited 4/14/15

Nishizumi wrote:

Why do i get the feeling this is like check for spiders?


Every good poll needs a joke option. ^__^
Posted 4/9/15 , edited 4/14/15
Yep
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 4/10/15
Carthage!!!
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 4/10/15
mixed economy but gov control only for welfare of people. normal economic activities is best handled by market economy. that's my view.
Posted 4/10/15

veritatis_cupitor wrote:

mixed economy but gov control only for welfare of people. normal economic activities is best handled by market economy. that's my view.


This I suppose. ^^
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/15
The government is always dictated by the will of the populace. Unfortunately, the populace rarely knows what it actually wants, and the elected are equally as clueless as to how to implement it.

I prefer a mixed economy, with most basic services, (including internet, electricity, water, etc. owned by the government, and provided for freely (though not free, but at a minimal cost, and open from all but the most necessary restrictions) and in cases where private options are available, favored over private options), health care services were provided for all, and financial welfare services were provided for the destitute and near destitute. I favor a government system that is very lightweight, yet flexible and strong enough to influence and control the economy in as much as keeping disparity levels relatively constant via taxation (the money must flow, not bottleneck, and some disparity is good to encourage the desire to do better), and to prevent risky economic situations (breaking up larger businesses to encourage more "main street" small business, less stock speculation. government owned banks, etc).

The government's job is three fold: Ensure economic stability, to ensure the health and welfare of its workers and consumers (citizens), and create as much opportunity for people to succeed in as much as it does not conflict with the first two tenants. It should also be forward thinking , trying to implement the most sound and advanced methods of solving problems to ensure a brighter, more stable and sustainable future.

The government's role is not to be a "nanny" to the citizens, nor is it to enforce culture (or the cultural desires of any group), as some cases seem to show these days.
35925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Online
Posted 4/10/15 , edited 4/11/15
Just remember: The more control the government has over an economy through regulations and outright owning things it shouldn't( internet, electricity, water, etc. ) the more stagnant it tends to be. Even more so if it tries to dictate the winners and losers with regulations and rules.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 4/10/15

AniMatsuri wrote:

Just remember: The more control the government has over an economy through regulations and outright owning things it shouldn't( internet, electricity, water, etc. ) the more stagnant it tends to be. Even more so if it tries to dictate who the winners and losers with regulations and rules.


Most of those are public services that came about FROM the government, and stagnated under private enterprise.

The new deal of the 40's made electricity and roads what they are, and the internet was a military project opened up to the world. Current "net neutrality" problems, including piss poor speeds in the US are due to private enterprise getting a hold of it since the phone companies because deregulated (like the electric companies, etc.) in the 80's.

Banks were also far more firmly regulated between the crash of 29 and the 1980's, when, once again, they became deregulated....

So..... yeah.
35925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Online
Posted 4/10/15 , edited 4/11/15
Government funded rail lines were all failures the only ones that succeeded were privately owned and built ones.

Privately owned solar panels on individual homes are turning the whole power dynamic on its head. On the other hand, the government poured billions into solar companies that went belly up shortly thereafter some before they produced their 1st product.

Yes, the kernel of the internet was created originally for the military. It has since been privatized and is wildly successful. The "poor" internet speeds in the US are due in part to the fact that the US is big place to cover compared other countries. In spite of that a lot of the internet innovations still come from the US. Also, one of the reasons why hardly anyone has a landline anymore is because of the many regulations and taxes placed on them. Did you know a tax to fund the Spanish-American war is still added to the cost of a landline phone bill?

Of course there needs to be rules in place, but freedom to succeed also includes the freedom to fail.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/15

AniMatsuri wrote:
Also, one of the reasons why hardly anyone has a landline anymore is because of the many regulations and taxes placed on them. Did you know a tax to fund the Spanish-American war is still added to the cost of a landline phone bill?



I'm not going to nitpick and do hours of research for the rest of this argument, but I WILL call bullshit on the reason landlines died.

Landlines died because everyone's got a cell phone and everyone fucking hates telemarketers. Your taxes on your cell phones are actually probably higher than your taxes on a landline.

(in fact, my land line costs about $35 a month, despite every goddamned effort I have put into telling my privately owned phone company to CANCEL the service, whereas my base rate cell service is $60 a month I could try and see what the breakdown on taxes for them are for you in a few weeks if you want.... )

Same with my electric bill. $5 for actual usage, $18 for "service and maintenance charges" when we suffer 4-10 power outages a year... Also privately owned.



Of course there needs to be rules in place, but freedom to succeed also includes the freedom to fail.


No disagreeing with that. I'd rather see nothing gets "too big to fail" and let them fail while limiting size (and thus, size of impact) rather than giving money away because they basically got you hostage.
35925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Online
Posted 4/11/15 , edited 4/11/15
I rarely get calls from telemarketers on my landline and caller ID filters the rest of them out. How long have you been fighting with the phone company to get your service cancelled and what makes you think that if it was government owned you get better results? Right now here in Hawaii the public is fighting a white elephant (money pit) light rail project that the government is pushing though no matter what and is extending the sunset time on an additional tax to pay for the building the project and beyond.

Why is your base cell rate $60? I only pay $40 for mine.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 4/11/15
I'm really not sure. Maybe mixed economy at a minimum (with the upper bound being total communism, I guess?). But it's a lot easier to explain my viewpoint then to find what poll option best describes it.

Ultimately, I don't think our current free market model will hold in the future--say next 50 years, give or take. Jobs will get more automated, population will grow, and vacancies people will pay you for will get more specialized. In short, the private sector won't support everyone sufficiently (I'd say right now is more or less the tipping point). As such, we will slowly implement policies that help make key expenses affordable. The end result is that the market will still be there for people who want to have luxury items; but will be just *there* for most people who will mostly use funds on what is needed.

But, what the hell do I know?
35925 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Hawai'i
Online
Posted 4/11/15
If any kind of communism worked it wouldn't fail every time it's tried. The reason it fails is it doesn't take into account human nature and resourcefulness. As some types of jobs go away due to automation, other types will arise to take their place.

The way this poll is set up is it gives you 2 extremes and what seems like a reasonable middle ground that most people will chose.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.