2007-01-20 13:39:17 · 16 answers · asked by trueblue88 5 in Social Science ➔ Economics
Socialism.
In fact, there isn't a single socialistic intervention in the economy that has ever improved things over capitalism. The "success" of socialist programs is purely mythological. The Scandinavian countries fall farther behind the the US economically every year; universal healthcare has resulted in rationing of care everywhere it's been tried making it at least as lethal as a system where some delay seeking treatment for financial reasons - the US has the finest healthcare in the world when you look at the care available instead of things unrelated to actual care - as the WHO did when it ranked France (where thousands of patients died in a heat wave) number one; "Beneficial" social programs are a key reason why unemployment in Western Europe is normally twice what it is here.
Look at the greatest examples of socialist "success" stories in this country. The minimum wage reduces employment opportunities. The New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression and now after spending more than $7 trillion (in current dollars) the poverty situation has not improved. Actually dependency has created an entrenched underclass. By contrast, welfare reform - that was, we were told, going to throw people out on the streets - ended up reducing poverty, spiking employment for the those who had been on welfare - who quickly made far more than the minimum wage - and actually increasing self-esteem among those who had been on welfare. And Social Security yields such a miserable return for those enrolled in it - and that's assuming that the benefit stream remains unaffected when the fund bankrupts in just a few years (there is no "trust fund" and the bonds in it are worthless).
Unbridled does not mean there are no laws against fraud or coersion or theft, because these are not aspects of capitalism - economic liberty.
Unbridled socialism does mean the sharing of misery and economic collapse.
2007-01-20 17:06:22 · answer #1 · answered by Fletch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is worse. It does not promote competition or free enterprise. The idea behind socialism could be compared to students. Lets say one works very hard and earns an "A", another student does very little and earns an "F", in a socialistic world, both students would be given a "C" to be fair. Although the U.S. is a combination of both, leaning more towards capitalism, it is just about the closest to unbridled capitalism in the world. This is why they have the strongest economy. I'm not sure, but I think France practices socialism.
2007-01-20 15:59:39 · answer #2 · answered by TE 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is the next step to communism. And capitalism is not unbridled as of yet. But if it was unbridled, I still would be against socialism. I am a conspiracy nut,and I can sadly tell you that socialism is comming.
2007-01-20 13:48:52 · answer #3 · answered by doggybag300 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's an easy question: socialism. Wherever "pure" socialism has been tried, it's been an abject failure. When it's been propped up by a capitalist economy, it lasts for a while, but still eventually fails. While there are no "unbridled capitalist" states today, it's obvious that a market economy is the only kind that works.
2007-01-20 14:42:42 · answer #4 · answered by nathanm_mn 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is absolutely worse. We need unbridled capitalism. We have never experienced it. There is way too much government interference in business. You should read "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand.
2007-01-20 13:44:47 · answer #5 · answered by K Dog 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Socialism is way worse. Unbridled capitalism would be refreshing.
2007-01-24 09:57:25 · answer #6 · answered by Ginger P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably unbridled capitalism. (We don't have this by the way. The USA for example has TONS of restraints on capitalism:
1) anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies from taking it all
2) minimum wages
3) welfare
4) public education
5) laws prevent insider trading
Socialism can mean a whole bunch of things. Some socialism is good but unbridled socialism is bad too.
2007-01-20 13:47:53 · answer #7 · answered by rostov 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism are equally horrible (Even though neither has trully existed). The best solution is a balance between the 2 sides.
2007-01-20 15:46:23 · answer #8 · answered by Akin B 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Unbridled capitalism: looks what happens with it's bridled. And Socialism: look at socialist state welfare states in all the Scandinavian countries. they don't want to have anything to do with the US, much less flee here. And, don't let people pull our USSR, which was unbridled state capitalism. Look was happens to our budget when Republicans gain control and "loosen the reins". Higher unemployment, from a balanced budget to an astronomical deficit in record time.
2007-01-20 13:49:05 · answer #9 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Socialism is worse. Capitalism takes longer to develop economic and social problems, while socialism is instant totalitarianism.
2007-01-20 13:49:19 · answer #10 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋