By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mummelmann on 21 February 2017
Edit Thread
Aura7541 said:
Mummelmann said:

^^Good point about capitalism, but are you thinking that I like capitalism?^^

One thing about that kill count though is that it's a bit harder to measure precisely, Nazism and communism have caused very clear cut and direct death tolls compared to capitalism, which is a more economic centric idea all in all and while it certainly alludes that some people and directions are more valuable, it's still not the same type of dogma.

That said; capitalism is not a positive mark of the 20th and 21st century, and I hope you realize that I know that too. However; my initial statement was that communism was as bad as nazism, or technically, you brought up Hitler and a communist, so the impact of capitalism amidst these arguments is kind of irrelevant for the purpose of my previous comparison and overall stance on far left and far right.

It also depends on what kind of capitalism you're talking about. The type of capitalism most people criticize is crony capitalism or corporatism. I'm all for a free market, meritocratic capitalist system, but I also bemoan how much influence corporations have over the government.

Free market, I'm not too sure, but quite free at least. Some regulation is needed, I saw a huge difference in the housing markets in Norway and Sweden when I moved here, in Norway there is no regulation on rents so the rents are beyond insane, especially in the cities. That's one example of regulation done right. Examples of poor regulations are also rife though, like when the Norwegian labour party said they wanted to increase corporate taxes so they could launch a government run recruitment program to get unemployment down and employ more young work force, whereas the NHO (Norwegian trades organization) stated that it would make a whole lot more sense to allow the corporations to spend these earmarked funds on their own accord towards the same purpose, sparing it a merry-go round in the state run administration which is driving costs of planning and allocation of projecta and funds through the roof, not to mention that the government has little to no knowledge of local needs and individual strengths and weaknesses of said companies, likely spurring them into either making poor decisions and wasting funds, or spending vast amounts of money on consulting services, as they are known to do across the board (pun intended).

I'm a bit torn, but the Scandinavian model is a hybrid economy, between planned/regulated and free market, it has produced societies with low unemployment and fairly successful welfare systems, but is has its weaknesses, mostly sustainability and a public sector that is bleeding money annually and proving stringent and inefficient at working in and allocating tax funds into useful venues and areas of society (as an example, Norwegian motorists pay a huge amount of fees and taxes and tolls on owning and running cars, but only a fraction of this income is spent of improving, developing and even maintaining infrastructure).