Communism Vs. Capitalism

[FightingGameGuy]

@Mnementh:

As Kyros points out its very very to adjust GDP for inflation.

Money Saved: There are two issues with your argumenent here.
1. You are assuming that people buy only based on needs not desires and thus that the people who save money on the cars will not spend it on other goods they desire.
2. Most all people put their saved money in banks or stocks once they have a substantial amount of saved money. Through these intermediaries the saved money then enters the economy.

Hence, the money saved will almost certainly enter the economy. Combine this with the fact that more people will buy cars at the lower price than would have otherwise done so and the total amount of economic activity does go up.

Volunteers: As far as I know you are right about these. But when you consider the total volume of activity in any given country, I'd imagine the amount of volunteer-labor hours compared to paid-labor hours is extremely small.

Industrial Revolution: I've never said that economic improvement immediately correlates with an improvement in lifestyle, only that it eventually does. Though your evidence (as you cited it) is largely qualitative (do we really know whether quality of life got worse? : ( ), I'm sure no one wants to actually undo the industrial revolution. Eventually, it lead to a stratospheric increase in the quality of living.

I've never said that capitalism is perfect for the world either, except in reducing market inefficiency =D. That being said I do think the world would benefit from more free trade, especially the elimination of farm subsidies in the US and Europe.

My problem with communism is that it is so incredibly inefficient, that any beneficial distribution of wealth to the poorest people is unlikely to make up for the loss of wealth caused by the inefficiencies.

@bdbdbd's ideal capitalist society: Capitalism as currently defined is simply about eliminating all barriers to absolutely free markets. What on earth does everyone working only for an elite have to with free markets? Nothing. Under a totally free market people don't work for the smallest wages to stay alive, they work for whatever the market (not some hegemonic elite) decides the wage for their current job to be, and if its to low they choose not stick with that job.

@NintendoOwnsMii: re: Government owned businesses.

Will the government create or even allow competition for itself? If not, its essentially giving itself a monopoly, which is inefficient (monopolies can sell at their own price instead of the market price so they sell fewer goods at a higher price to secure the most profit for itself compared to how things would have been under competition).

Under most economic theory, the government should primarily only perform economic activity where no one can effectively not use its product. The quintessential example of is national security: I can't decheck national security on the list of government services I want because so long as I live within my country I will be protected by it anyway. Thus, it makes sense for the government to charge everyone for it, there's no feasible alternative.