Can capitalism and socialism be mixed in such a way that would improve current economic worldwide conditions?

Question

I have read all the writers comments about failed socialistic societies.

I understand as much as capitalism has worked.. there still is the underlying issue of the "disgustingly rich vs. the disgustingly poor" or impoverished.

My question wishes to ask if the next step in monetary evolution.. could integrate a system of the best of both worlds?

No disgustingly poor and maybe no disgustingly rich.. a workable happy medium?

Lengthy answers welcome! This is not meant as a yes or no question. Thanks!

Answer 1

Because of greed utopia cannot be realized regardless of the system. The best way, regardless of the type of economy, would be to try and live with nature, use of solar energy, vegetarian diet, meditation, etc. instead of subjecting yourself to all that consumer stuff that is being sold to and bought by you.
Regarding money, I think soon cash will be obsolete, everything will be electronic banking, credit and debit cards, etc. This will allow governments data to plan everything, as their computers will know where all personal income comes from, where and how much is spent, automatically collect income taxes, etc. Again this can happen regardless of the economic system. The only ones that can then game the system will be people that barter, but trading chickens for tomatoes has limited applications compared to cash.

Answer 2

The scandivian system of markets works, but the drawback is high taxes that reduce the incentive of some people to work, but also transpracy in Sweden, Norway is league ahead of America, Mexico.
In Scandivian country the goverment is acutally closer to the people at the local level, and they work as a collective to ensure basic needs are met, but Scandivain countries dont red tape a person to death to set up a business, and does not tax investment capital.
The scandivian system will nail you on comsumption, and luxury taxes, and tax at a extermely higher rate for the wealthest. There tradeoffs with Scandivan system and being extermly wealthy in Scandivan culture is not looked up upon as much because they figure at times is was not with merit. Probadly dont see as many new cars in Scandivain country as America, but owning more tv, cars, vcrs is America way of measuring progess. Scandivians do too, but not at the expense of the population.

Things like spending money with no budget constraints, having high traiffs on goods, nobody paying taxes, having cronies run goverment departments, having people not held account for breaking contracts, and having to grease plams to get things done is what rots a economy more than America style or Scandivian style markets period.

Answer 3

A pure capitalist economy tends to use 'capital' as a dominant factor of production while the socialist economy plays all its tunes on the labor as a dominant factor of production. However, as anyone can see, both the factors are important for any kind of production to take place. Yes, of course, the mix of the two could differ. It may be hard to find nations pursuing either of the form of systems in exclusivity. Much of the world seems now to be on a 'mixed economic system'. "Peoples capitalism', and 'socialistic welfarism' are current catch words in economics literature. If capitalistic systems lead to concentration of economic power, socialistic systems may lead to concentration of political power. The 'mixed system' alone has the potentiial to water down 'concentration and its spoils'. Both production and distribution are vital to wlfare. If we do not produce( the prime domain of capitalism with intensive capital usage), we would only distribute poverty and deprivation. On the other hand, if we produce intensively and do not bother its equitable distribution, it is all regressive and results in concentration and loss egalitarianism. It may seem plausible to vote for a mixed system for the welfare and ameliortion of the masses inhabiting this globe.

Answer 4

European countries and places such as Australia and New Zealand haved probably got the best mix of capitalism and socialism.But whether that is as good as it gets remains to be seen. Absolute communism has been proved to be a failure because of it's encouragement of mediocrity and I suspect uncontrolled capitalism would fail because it would eventually lead to revolution.
Only a well balanced mix of the two or something that has not been tried yet will be the answer.

Answer 5

Actually what is wrong with economic inequality? If the poor have enough money to live with dignity, then who cares if there are disgustingly rich people?

Maybe we should be more focussed in making jealousy history.

Answer 6

All capitalistic countries have some socialistic ways, and all socialistic countries have some capitalistic ways. Anyway, I think that is what I once read.