Sometimes socialism is better, at least in Sweden.

Capitalism is an economic democracy where the CONSUMER decides which products he/she wants to buy and the entrepreneur will then provide those demanded products, in sufficient quantity, to meet the consumer's needs.  It is the ownership of private property and capital/savings that the investor / entrepreneur will put at risk in order to earn a future profit - from the consumer.  When consumers demand a certain product, say televisions, the price will rise and multiple entrepreneur's or producers will compete to deliver the best tv's, at the lowest price, to meet consumer demand.  As sufficient quantity and selection comes to market the prices will compete and begin to fall. The inefficient companies that cannot compete or deliver products that consumers want will either go out of business or will be forced to make some different product in demand that isn't being sufficiently provided.  The result is that surviving companies run efficiently and produce the best products for the multitudes at the lowest price.  All this without spending taxpayers money to do so.  A similar company owned/ran by gov't has a primary goal of providing employment and secondary goal to serve the consumer (where doesn one typically get the best friendly customer service?  At a gov't entity like the unemployment office or at a private company like say a rental car business or hotel?  If the hotel was gov't owned do you think you will still get the same level of customer service?). The gov't entity will produce the products it wants/chooses and will sell them at the price it wants, almost like a monopoly.  If the company does not make sufficient profit then it does not care because the loss will be subsidized by taxpayer money.  The company will provide products, not necessarily in demand, at higher overall prices because of inefficiency and taxpayer subsidization and lack of competition.

Go into any American living room and  look at all the products that have been created for them by entrepreneurs.  Microwave Ovens, Televisions, Stereo Equipment, Computers... etc... these are all products that exist today that did not say 100 years ago because of technology invented outside of gov't in order to serve the consumer.

The same arguement can be applied to things such as the post office, public schools and so on.  Anything that is ran via a free market, not subsidized by taxpayers dollars, will be ran more efficiently.  The services in low demand will be reduced to bring more favored services to market at the lowest cost.  The improvements due to increased efficiency will bring a more prosperous economy because the capital/money saved from the efficiency improvements will be but to productive use elsewhere. 

There are many arguments against Capitalism due to unfairness of wealth in society.  Such as 20% of the population owns 90% of the nations wealth.  This is true. Another example is highly educated individuals (say a Phd University professor) that don't earn a salary as high as an uneducated assembly line worker (say GM employee) or uneducated oil-field worker or crab fisherman.  Which workers job provides the most added value (or at the most risk) to bring a product to market for consumption? Much of the time the wealthy entrepreneurs got their wealth by risking their savings / capital to satisfy the consumer in some way.  They employed someone at a low paying job.  What if they raised the pay for that employee. That would likely make the company run less efficiently and would result in less employment.  If his sale prices were to rise then someone elses cost would go up and that could make some other entity have to lay people off.  For the other wealthy members of society (in the pocket of gov't) , much of it is due to lobbying to gov't for the gift of money.  This should not be permitted in a free economy, but politics does seem to do it.

The boom/bust cycles of our economy are not a result of capitalism.  It is a result of gov't intervention in the economy to artificially lower interest rates below the natural level supported by saving/investing time preference of the citizens.  This creates bubbles and malinvestment that has to be later corrected by a recession.  This is not capitalism but gov't policy that interferes in the markets in order to gain political favoritism particularly around an election (for re-election).  Another result of gov't intervention and low interest rates is expansion in the money supply that creates inflation.  This occurs when gov't prints money to give to special interest groups as a bailout or due to lobbying.  This too impacts the economy in a negative way by reducing the value of the dollar (which destroys capital) and creates boom/bust cycles.

Capitalism is a great system that brings prosperity to the masses.  However, for it to work properly without business cycles you need the least amount of government intervention.  This requires politicians to surrender their powers to the citizens and give them back their liberties.  Politicians obviously don't want this and do want to be the knight in shining armour that rides in on the white horse to save the day.  THe problem is that gov't can't create wealth.  All they can do is raise taxes (which steals wealth) and redistribute their collection to the special interest group.  Printing money is also not wealth creation.  It also taxes the population by decreasing the value of their money and reducing their amount of capital that can be put towards investment.

One other point.  In a Socialist setting where there is no real ownership of property, or desire to work to earn property,  or struggling to perform your best does not advance you any further in society, what is the incentive to work hard? The result is an inefficient economy.  If you don't do your work then someone else will do it for you.  You will still get paid and will eat and drink for another day.  One joke often in America is that Gov't workers have the easy jobs, the cushiony jobs.  They don't have to work as hard as those in private companies (I'm sure there are gov't workers that do in fact work hard).  They are therefore regarded as less efficient.  Having said that, do you believe that society would be better on the whole if everyone worked for government enterprises?

As for the increased vacation days in Europe... so some countries may get the whole month of August off.  This doesn't sound benificial to the consumer.  Someone has to work to produce during that time so others can consume.  Is this 4-weeks manditory?  Or can you choose to work and get paid for it?  If you can choose to work instead then that would be good because some would prefer the money to forced vacation.  I get 4 weeks vacation per year but my 4th week I earned with seniority at my company.  If I had to choose 4 weeks per year with lower salary or 2 weeks with higher salary I may choose the 2 weeks.  Of course, I can always take the time off without pay if I choose.  If I'm forced to take 4 weeks then there is no choice.  Another thing, at my company if I choose not to take my vacation I can instead take pay for those holidays in addition to my full 26 pay cheques per year.

Hi Aaron,

 I don't know if you looked at the Freedomforce website but there are good explanations of the difference between collectivism and individualism, I am an individualist because I have no interest in trying to force my idea of the good on other people.

Creed of Freedom

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=creed

The Issues,

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues

Enjoy,

 Greg

Labor Unions are something created/permitted by gov't to give power to the worker's union at the mercy of the employer.  The union forces wages higher at the expense of the consumer who must pay more for the goods or service.  Overpaid?  Often in a union strike a "scab" will cross the picket line to work/replace the union worker at the same skill level but are willing to accept a lower wage.  This proves that the unionized workers are overpaid compared to the wage demanded by the free market.  Also, because the wage is higher it means less workers can be employed and therefore productivity is less and there are more unemployment.  Unions are another example of interference in free markets.  All this came about during the socialistic policies of Roosevelt during the great depression

Unions also demotivate the employees to work hard above & beyond their peers for financial gain or advancement.  When you're in a union you don't move up the food chain until those senior to you move up.  There is a pecking order.  The system clearly does not promote productivity.

Minimum wage is another example.  How many teenagers or unskilled workers are unemployeed because their labor is not productive enough to justify the minimum wage?  If they could start at a lower wage they could gain the experience to justify a pay raise later.  Forced to work part-time from a full-time position is the same - meaning the rate production no longer support the wage rate.  The employee is not productive enough to support his/her wage.  This may not be his/her fault if the economy is in a recession.   Minimum wage creates unemployment and unemployment Insurance pay also demotivates the unemployed from finding work until either their checks run out or they find a job equivalent to what they had.  If the economy plummits then they will wait for the cheques to stop coming and then reluctantly accept some inferior job at less pay because they are forced to.  Minimum wage and Unemployment Insurance both were introduced by Roosevelt during the GD.

How is it that things ran just fine until the government started regulating things then?

Study the Crash Course, until World War I, things were remarkably steady here, and until Black Monday, there was a stable, unregulated economy.

I'm interested in hearing how you're tying UNDER-regulation to the problems were having now, considering we were unregulated in times of prosperity, and we've fallen on two meltdowns in 80 years under a heavily regulated system.

Greg,

I think that the link you made is so good I'm reproducing it here!! I've been working on an idea that 'Blind Joe' made in a thread on the 11th of January. I've since added to it and would appreciate your opinion.

Kind Regards

Paul

 :-

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/martian-lands-denver-wrong-side-tracks/11476

Introduction by G. Edward Griffin

There is nothing more common in history than for oppressed people to rise up against their masters and, at great cost in treasure and blood, throw off the old regime, only to discover that they have replaced it with one that is just as bad or worse. That is because it is easy to know what we dislike about a political system but not so easy to agree on what would be better. For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power. To prevent that from happening, it is necessary to focus on the system itself, not on personalities. To do that, it is just as important to know what we are for as it is to know what we are against.

Even today, with so much talk about fighting to defend freedom, who can stand up and define what that means? For some, freedom means merely not being in jail. Who can define the essence of personal liberty? Who can look you in the eye and say: "This I believe, and I believe it for this reason and this reason and this reason also." The world is dying for something to believe in, a statement of principles that leaves no room for misunderstanding; a creed that everyone of good faith toward their fellow human beings can accept with clarity of mind and strength of resolve. There is an old saying that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. The Creed of Freedom that you are about to read is the rock-solid ground that will allow us to stand firm against all the political nostrums of our day, and those in the future as well.

The Creed of Freedom expresses the core ideology that binds all members together. This is not like the platform of a political party that typically is a position statement on a long list of specific issues and which changes from year to year to accommodate the shifting winds of popular opinion. Instead, it is stated in terms of broad principles that do not change over time and that are not focused on specific issues at all. If these principles are followed, then most of the vexing political and social issues of the day can be quickly resolved in confidence that the resulting action will be consistent with justice and freedom.

Although I have authored the Creed, I cannot claim credit for it. Anyone familiar with the classical treatises on freedom will recognize that most of its concepts have been taken from the great thinkers and writers of the past. My role has been merely to read the literature, identify the concepts, organize them into logical sequence, and condense them into a single page.

When you read the Creed, please be aware that it is a summary of a much longer dissertation. It cannot be fully appreciated until after reading the explanations, definitions, and arguments to support it. Although the Creed appears here first, it is recommended that, after reading it, you follow the link at the bottom of this section that takes you to the more complete explanation.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
     I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
     I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
     I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
     I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
     I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
     I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM

The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM

Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.

Steven Leeb is a Neo-Keynesian.  He doesn't have a clue. 

Who controls the present, controls the past. Who controls the past, controls the future."

-George Orwell

"Those who do cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

-George Santayana

We certainly don't need a "world order". We need self governing autocracies built and predicated on constitutionally enumerated individual liberties. I believe that our perfect world lies with examining the past, and integrating it with the future.

If we can't manage to do that, we will have no progress.

Except that the future has in store nothing like the past.  Period.

Never in human history have we overpopulated the planet.

Never in history have we faced a future powered by lower quality energy

Never in history have we had to face the fact that we have nowhere else to go....  we've depleted the entire planet. 

This time, history will repeat itself only inasfar as previous civilisations have collapsed.  Never before has it happened on a global scale.

So you tell me what we can learn from the past to fix this mess?

Mike 

Mike,

You have a seriously myopic perspective my man.
I don't say this to sound rude, but you have failed to consider a number of things.

First, proportionality;

Humans before couldn't travel as fast or as far; we couldn't cover as much ground.
When speaking of overpopulation, we need to consider density - and when we take population density into account, we can clearly see evidence of both population saturation and the corresponding bottlenecks in population.

Mesopotamia's constant warring throughout the ages was largely over contended resources - a key element of overpopulation.

Europe's Dark Ages came on the tail end of the Fall of Rome, which was had high density, and historically had almost the exact same social dynamics displayed by contemporary America.

To elaborate on Europe, it's Black Plague came at a time when the population had boomed. Was it as large as what we have now?
Absolutely not. However considering humans limited ability to travel back then, per populated acre, their density was probably very similar.

I agree that what you're talking about is "larger" in that it is on a Global scale, but I believe the "net effect" won't be more "severe", it will only appear so because it involves more people.

But I don't think that matters, as if we'd learned from these historic failures, perhaps we'd have exhibited better stewardship.

Perhaps we're once again missing one anothers' points.

Thanks bearing01, saved me from having to make those same points.

Greg