Hey, no. You can't change from trying to find a substitute for Nazi Germany on your list to trying to find the solution to the worlds economy.

Those countries were meant to represent the 'third way' you ripped out because the Nazi's apparently had one - not to represent the solution to capitalism being broken.

Nazi Germany did have one.  Hence why your other solutions don't fit.

They're economy was neither Capitalist or Communist.

It was a combination of both yet neither.

It was a Free Market Communism in a lot of ways.

In general the Free Market was free to do whatever it wanted... unless the State deemed it nessicisary to do things their way for the good of the country...etc.  It wasn't based on regulations or anything.  It was just its own system.  It also showed the biggest flaw of such a system.  You need a fairly uncorrupt government.  It's the same old "benevolent dictator" problem.

This stayed consistant.  Though during the war they did add a bit of the roman style of economy.

China regulates everything.  Venezula.  Don't really know enough about it.

The problem with the so-called "Third Way" is that for the government to be an effective partner in the economy and to reduce the corruption and favouritism the government has to be a less corrupt organization than the majority of companies in the economy; and (for the most part) governments tend to be far more corrupt than most companies.

The profit motive tends to keep most companies as efficient as possible because if a company is wasteful another company can emerge, produce the same (basic) product or service at a higher quality and lower cost, and push the inefficient company out of business; and where the profit motive stops being effective, enforced light-weight regulation and over-sight can prevent abuse of the system. In contrast, the only motive members of government have is to get re-elected so they can keep living off of the gravy train; and the government controls the laws and regulations which bind them, and they're kept loose enough that they can get away with (pretty much) whatever they want.

To see what I mean, Canada's government is considered one of the least corrupt governments in the world and in it a (projected) $2 Million gun registry cost $2+ Billion to implement and the books are kept secret so the public can't audit who got the money; and beyond that, the Federal Liberal party stole tens (or potentially) hundreds of millions of dollars from the government because of lack of oversite, and no one went to jail.

I counter your graph with another graph:

Just because people think something's true doesn't make it true.  The average person is an idiot, haven't we all realized that by now? 

@tarheel. There are so many confounding factors in that.

Edit: To clarify, I'm saying that there is a correlation but that does not imply causation.

Is it really that hard to imagine?  Take what you learned from Econ 101 and apply it to this.  When is a market the most efficient?  When it's entirely free (taxes result in an unavoidable loss) and can operate at natural market equilibrium.  Logically, the more money there is to go around, the more money there will be for everyone.  Any argument based upon the benefits of the redistribution of wealth ignores the inherent issues in any even semi-socialized economy.  Corruption becomes easier; governments are poorer (read: less efficient) managers of a market than the "invisible hand," and people themselves become less efficient when their income is less dependent on their performance (just look at the large amount of people satisfied to sit around, eeking out a living on unemployment checks in the US).

If you want, also consider that the overall trend in the graph holds true for any individual geographic region as well.  With geographic region held constant, many of those confounding variables are held constant (and, thus, become irrelevant), and a relationship becomes much more easy to believe.

Edit: I'm not arguing for pure free market, just for something tilted more in that direction.  Mostly free market with minor regulation.

There are so many non-sequiturs in this post, I wouldn't know where to begin.

I guess for starters, I find it funny that you place so much faith in the "invisible hand" when your last post asserted that most people are idiots. There is no "invisible hand," just people making decisions. When it comes to spending money, they're all rational actors with perfect information, but when it comes to deciding what kind of economic system they want, they're confused little sheep who haven't got a clue.

Suppose political parties and policies are just another market, where people make decisions on how to spend their votes based on what represents the most utility they can get for their vote.

Suppose for a moment that these idiots understand that tighter regulation might mean less wealth to go around, but they feel that the stability gained from more regulation is more valuable than the extra wealth. Consider it an insurance policy against economic collapse, and one that most people feel is a worthy investment for the peace of mind that it brings, even if, like fire insurance, it's a policy that may never have to be cashed in.

Wow im pretty surpised that the Germans are so pro capitalism. They dont even have free Capitalism its called social Capitalism. Everyone who dont get a job and has no money gets 300 Euro plus a flat plus medical treatments. And they support big companies if they get in trouble.

I think most of the European Countrys maybe say that they have free Capitalism but they dont have. This system has his own problems the people which are lazy just dont work because there is no neccesity for it. If you have a Family, you get more money and 150-200 Euro monthly per kid. So there are cases where you get even more or the same money if you dont work. Thats really a problem. But surprisingly most of the people want to work even if they just earn 50 Euro monthly more.

But the taxes are redicolously high. Everyone has health Insurance so everybody gets the same treatment and infact a bum would get a kidney transplant. You have to pay 25-52% monthly Taxes/Insurances. Above 50k a year single its somewhere around 50%. Its pretty insane. My Father earns about 160K a year in Cyprus. He pays now 10% taxes. In Germany it would be 52% If you earn more then 500k married or 250k single you even have to pay a Tax for "rich". Thats additional 25000 or something like that.


I think the Capitalism itself is at the moment the best System and cant be replaced by some other System. But I think there should be a social part in it not too big to motivate the people but not to small that you dont get medical treatment or food if you dont have money. It has to be balanced carefully. And the banks have to get some limitations. What they partially do is just rip of people. And the people dont even get it. I think that some limitations should be made. For example the Rating Agencys are too powerful everybody relies on them. They should be controlled a little. And the crisis right now and even most of the crisis in the past is due to low regulations/limitations. And not because of regulations thats false. If you look on the map and see the Countrys with low Limitations lost more money then the Countrys which had a better law for that. Banks have too much power even now. And even if they go bankrupt then they dont go bankrupt because the people HAVE TO pay for them. I mean the US Citizens had payed 1 Trillion dollar for the banks. That means you have payed most of your taxes the past 2 years for the bank mistakes. Because noone monitored them. And because they promised things to people other banks or to customers which they knew that it wouldnt work. And speculated and because they dont speculate with their own money. They speculate with the customers money. In Germany a Bank has to invest 20% of their own money if they make Speculations thats way to low and in the US it was even much lower.

90% of the money on this planet didnt even exist. Its just numbers on a computer this money and it even dont reflect the true value of goods on this planet. Its just numbers which can dissappear and if they dissappear WE have to pay REAL money for it. The money didnt vanished it was never here. I dont get why some people even think that this is good. Its bad and its not moral. You dont profit from that some employees profit from that but not even the most. The products are so extremly complex that even the bank members dont now exactly how they work. Its like in South park Margaritha Ville. They have to be watched atleast. And they should have some rules not neccessarily more rules but better rules. They were inventing money but the money never flows into a company or in the population or not even in to the pockets of some its just their and they push it back and forth and make hundreds of different bets on the money. Its so complicated that nobody on this planet knows how it works because there is no information about it. the information lies in hundreds of banks and every bank knows just a tiny piece of it.

Maybe some people dont like the word regulation I think we should change the way how a bank works. Because unless its regulated it can happen again. I wish I could express myself better I just dont find the right words to describe it.

Is there a State Institute in the US which controls the banks ? Not regulate them but just watch in their numbers. That would be a good tool i think but that have to be world wide due to globalization. Its not bad for the banks because they just monitor the activitys and nothing else. If every country would have such an Institute and there would be a global Commision which can use the data of the Countrys they can act years before the bubble bursts

You know... it's actually a lot easier then what my post was.  It's a lot easier to choose a good cereal then it is an economic system or politician.

I mean, people voted for Bush... TWICE. Considering the general level of quality we get with polticians.  I'd say it's a lot easier to evalute consumer products then it is polticians and economic plans.

That's why you can get degrees in politics and economics... yet not cereal.

Not that I nessisairly agree with him... but his statement makes more sense then yours.

The concept of the invisible hand has nothing to do with individuals being smart or making good decisions, just about making decisions which are preferable for them. The concept is used as a contrast to how inefficiently managed economies are run. Essentially, you can walk into a cereal section of your local supermarket and see a vast array of cereals which are manufactured to suit certain individuals tastes, and the flow of supply and the invisible hand ensures that each of these cereals are manufactured in the quantities that people desire. In contrast, if a communist government decides that the most efficient way to handle distribution of breakfast foods is to create a gigantic warehouse 5 miles out of a city which only holds Lennin-O’s that’s what happens; and if the government produces too few Lennin-O’s or too many Lennin-O’s it doesn’t really matter that much, and the government has little or no incentive to make anything that people actually want to eat.

Being a rational actor who is smart enough to decide whether you want a chocolate cereal with or one with marshmallows does not necessarily mean that you’re smart enough to decide the kind of economic system you want. Consider how individuals worship communist dictators without ever considering that communist dictators murder their own citizens, and communist countries have a nasty habit of mismanaging resources and producing massive famines; on this board there is an individual who loves Chairman Mao even though he murdered 70 Million of his own people, and the great Chinese Famine at the end of the 1950’s killed (roughly) 15 Million people. Do you really want someone with such poor thinking skills that they can’t understand "Chairman Mao = Bad" to decide the economic system you live in?