5 votes
Apr 24, 2015

Neither system has proven able to withstand the ravages of time. The systems that work the best for the longest are usually a mixture of various political and social demands and responses.

A pure capitalist system cannot last once the resources have been consumed.

A pure socialist system does not last because it cannot produce enough for a continually growing population. So, to answer the question, I would rather live in a blended system. One that is capitalistic enough to for its people to make a living and one that is socialistic enough to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Reply to this opinion
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 24, 2015

"A pure capitalist system cannot last once the resources have been consumed." When has this ever been seen to be the case? I'm not aware of any capitalist nation that has collapsed primarily due to resource depletion. I can think of examples of technology altering the supply and demand balances screwing up a country in the short time, but not outright depletion, as when the supplies drop low enough, there's incentive to find an alternate productive activity in order to maintain income.

The closest to pure capitalism, or laissez-faire economics, that I can think of would probably be the pre-WW1 US. It wasn't until the willful use of government to consolidate economic controls (which started in earnest in 1913 with the federal reserve act) that the economic system significantly changed. The professed benefits of a more stable economy less subject to the boom-bust cycles never came to fruition as you can see the cycles continued throughout the 20th century, even as governments continued to consolidate economic power.

Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: