What would be the 'perfect' political system for USA if there wasn't capitalism?

Monarchy, under rightful British Rule.

No country has developed a “perfect” political system – whether a huge, very populated country like the USA or China, or even in the much smaller countries around the world. Sadly, greed and power are strong influences of humanity, so virtually every system has been corrupted to some degree.

Capitalism is an economic system; democracy is our political system. I would like to see a more socialistic democratic system but would it work? I doubt it.

A better system in the US would be capitalism without the predatory part, but with the social responsibility part.

We are a republic. It works but we have strayed.

@janbb is right, capitalism is not a political system.

But I’ll agree with @janbb and @mattbrowne that a LOT more of us would benefit from a more socialist economic system than currently benefit from our increasingly unregulated capitalist system of economics. Only a few folks benefit from unregulated capitalism.

As a political system, our current representative democracy can work very well. But it’s increasingly warped by the influence of Big Money.
One-Person-One-Vote is not what it should be when so much cash is involved in elections and, on the other end, in ‘consulting’ deals in lobbying and industry for people who grant the right favors while holding office.

@janbb Hit it right on. Capitalism isn’t political. It puts the opportunity out there for us all. But I wonder why schools and colleges teach financial management and business, but not social responsibility?

because social responsibility lowers your profits. anything that lowers profits in any way, no matter how minute, is bad.

Nothing is perfect. I would like to try a more direct democracy in the US, get rid of the electoral college. I also think no politician should be able to serve more than three terms in a row without taking a term break, and then they can run again.

As far as Captitalism, I think America has been a combination of capitalism and also having social systems and I like having the combination, but I think it needs to be tweaked every so often. Capitalism is a good system as long as there are limits put on it so the balance of the very wealthy and poor doesn’t get so out of whack. Too far out of whack and it will destroy the country, it is not what America is supposed to be in my opinion. What made us prosperous was a strong middle class, we used to be very proud of it, and we used to brag that it was part of what separated us from the third world. I want social systems like socialized medicine and social security. I don’t think social systems like that have to be in conflict with capitalism, in fact I think they aren’t in conflict at all, but many people in America think they are.

Huh?

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system.

Your question is analogous to asking; ” what is the sound of green? ”

Much of the reason for our current problems is that we’re using an economic system as a system of government. Dollars count more than votes. While we are officially a Republic, we’re actually more like an Oligarchy with a little Theocracy thrown in. Things would improve if we went back to being a Republic.

Monarchy, under rightful British Rule Tried that once, didn’t work out so well.

”what is the sound of green? ”

I think it is a kind of “Shhhhhhhsssssssthup” sound.

but that could be turquoise.

We haven’t given Capitalism a proper chance yet. Government still gets in the way. We should replace Congress with representatives from the Fortune 500 and the CEO of Wal-Mart should be President. People shouldn’t be allowed a vote, they tend to vote for selfish personal reasons anyway and everything should be left in the hands of big business.

Well, @flutherother it looks like we have already boarded that ship and are about to embark on that journey. “Warning: Here there be Monsters”

There seems to be a misconception on the definition of capitalism. From Merriam Webster, Capitalism “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

If there is even a single policy to regulate the above definition, then it can no longer be called and no longer is a capitalist system and therefore capitalism cannot be blamed as the cause of all economic problems. Though the system itself does accept problems as a natural cycle and any regulations would only amplify, prolong, create, and expand these problems.

Just for starters, I would start a system where it would be based on nobility and rights would have to be earned. All property would have to be productive. You cannot vote unless you’re productive and pass a certain amount of tests that measures intelligence, knowledge.

@annabee When those regulations are influenced or ignored by private corporations, it gets Capitalistic quick.

As for your proposal, while I like the theory of Meritocracy, who determines merit? Therein lies the problem.

@ jerv

You are still confusing apples and oranges.

” Dollars count more than vote ”

You would not need a capitalistic system for there to be something counting more than votes. Connections in a socialist system. Bribery in a state run system, and so on.

Money always talks to politics everywhere, or some other ” pull ” serves the same purpose. Still, power can always get money, but money can not always get power. Ask Bernie Maddoff about that one. Try visiting day.

@jerv

Ignoring regulations is still causing the private sector to take certain measures it would normally not do.

Influencing regulations is a form of Corporatocracy, not capitalism.

I was actually referring to a form of Timocracy, but I guess meritocracy works too. Those who stand out above classes determine merit.

@annabee “any regulations would only amplify, prolong, create, and expand these problems.”
That is historically proven incorrect. For example, we had only the merest regulation on the financial industry prior to 1933 when Glass-Steagall was enacted. Before that the economy had Big boom/bust cycles approximately every 15 years, massively disrupting lives and companies. After Glass-Steagall we had fifty years of unprecedented economic growth and stability and growth of the middle class. Then Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 80’s and we got the S&L crisis, LTC collapse, and the near-meltdown of our financial system around 2008.

Also, per the definition of capitalism you provided (and with which I agree) it depends on “competition in a free market”. This is a nice theory but never proven because free markets don’t exist and the end game of capitalism is proven, again and again when we let it, to be monopoly. For example, in the U.S. the railroad and steel cartels had to be regulated to rid them of price-fixing and other monopolistic/oligarchic practices a century ago.

Biases are not historical proofs. In this case you’re using liberal/keynesian bias interpretation of history.

What about a libertarian/Austrian school bias? or a Conservative/Chicago School Bias?

Monopolies are caused and protected by governments. There, that is a chicago and austrian school bias.

Good try, but I’m unconvinced.

Those are facts, not interpretations.

“Monopolies are caused and protected by governments. There, that is a chicago and austrian school bias.” Yep, properly classified as a bias.
There are plenty of cases where governments produce monopolies, e.g. British East India Company. But they are cases where that is the intention.
Unregulated capitalism, in historical fact has produced many monopolies, such as the Vanderbilt railroads and a few other industries of the Guilded Age.

A lot of people miss the fact that the largely unregulated Gilded Age was wonderful.
For the top tier capitalist oligarchs. Everyone else was hammered by the economic boom/bust cycles. That’s history, that’s fact. If you’re not interested in facts you’ll remain unconvinced for sure.

I’m actually biased towards the Austrian school. The Austrians/Chicago schools say the exact opposite of what dabbler is considering a historical fact and the funny thing is they too think what they say are historical facts. Go figure.

Repeating the same biased montra to annabee is not going to be any more convincing than it was the first time.

What I’m trying trying to explain is these different schools of thought all consider themselves accurate and believe they’re all basing it on “historical facts”. They take credit during the good times, and they blame each others beliefs on the bad times. In my opinion, they’re all full of shit. Economics, history, politics are not hard sciences, so in my opinion, it is all bullshit.

Like I said before, the correct way to measure the forecasting track record of economists (or any forecaster for that matter) is to measure how consistently they make a profit by betting their own money on their forecasts. This means that the wealthiest economists are likely to be the best forecasters. How many economists have such success? A handful and even pointing that out is called survivorship bias.

@dabbler, see what Tom said.

@tom That is a good point. Most of them get only wealthy based on their book sales, not their forecasts.

I suspect that we would do better under a Parliament like Britain or Canada. One no confidence vote and the Prime Minister is out and new elections. We could have gotten rid of Bush before his first term expired.

@annabee I can read. Tom can’t even spell mantra.
Who cares what the economists imagine, there are actual historical facts that can be considered. Looking at facts is different from throwing an opinion out there. If you want to ignore facts for the sake of your own biases that’s fine, but stop projecting.

@tomathon By that logic, we should raise taxes on the rich. Warren Buffet is definitely all for it, and I think that one of the richest men in the world probably knows more about money than some mere partisan blowhard.

@annabee If you wish to dismiss all viewpoints that disagree with you as “biased” then we may as well ignore all facts, and any information that could lead to anything that could possibly be considered a fact. Including pretty much anything you say, as it’s non-factual. I say that not to be mean, but merely to point out a gaping flaw in your logic.

@Neodarwinian There will always be something that will count more than votes; I won’t refute that. I am merely saying that, in our current system, dollars are the thing that counts more than votes.

@jerv

Buffet isn’t the only rich guy in town though, so we/I don’t have to necessarily adopt his way but I will strongly consider it given his success with money. I can choose to listen to the Koch brothers as an alternative who hold that taxes should be lowered. They too are successful with money.

@dabbler

Autocorrect feature, actually.

Pretty petty for pointing that out. Says everything I need to know about you.

@tomathon Warren Buffet is worth almost as much as moth Koch brothers together, and Bill Gates isn’t exactly poor. I think I would have to side with the more successful duo here… unless you wish to retract your earlier statement about economists.

But now that the “Lower taxes, deregulate all the things!” brigade has shown up and claimed that history is a falsehood, nothing productive is going to happen here now

/thread

You can side with the more successful duo, but it doesn’t invalidate the enormous success of the koch brothers and that is why you cannot ignore what they believe is the correct path. I choose them. I won’t retract my statement because it isn’t inconsistent. When you’re in a certain league, it doesn’t matter. You won’t find enormous differences between a person with an IQ of 145 and someone with an IQ of 165.

@jerv

The scientific method is objective (facts), like physical sciences and life sciences. I won’t be denying anything on that. No biases. No opinions. No schools of thought.

What we’re discussing is subjective (non-facts). Economics, politics, history, etc.

Historians aren’t arguing whether there was a civil war or not, they’re arguing the cause of it. One guy writes it was because of slavery, another writes it was because of economic reasons. A third, something else

What @dabbler does is takes a historical fact like “the great depression” (no one denying it happened) and then she puts in her liberal/keynesian bias by saying unregulated capitalism caused it. Does the same thing for boom/bust cycles. If he/she wanted to sound convincing, he/she would tell the viewers of what other schools believe were the cause of the great depression and boom/bust cycles and explain why they’re wrong. Then there is something to consider. Therefore, since he/she did not, I dismiss it on the grounds of concealing information, pure bias, and because I don’t side with his/her school of thought.

@annabee: @dabbler pointed out a correlation. He did not assert causation. He didn’t have to assert causation, because he was refuting your imputation of causation to regulation:
“Though the system itself does accept problems as a natural cycle and any regulations would only amplify, prolong, create, and expand these problems.”
Those were your words. Do you dispute that those words are an assertion of causation?
Do you dispute the historical accuracy of @dabbler‘s assertion of boom-and-bust cycles and their relationship in time to the Glass-Steagall Act?

Further, your cited definition of Capitalism:
“an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

You claim that “If there is even a single policy to regulate the above definition, then it can no longer be called and no longer is a capitalist system…”

This does not follow. First, your claim is incoherent. Regulating the definition of a word in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary clearly does not change the meaning of the word. I interpreted your statement as meaning that a single policy regulating investments or the market renders a system “no longer a capitalist system”. If so, then your premise is invalid in the first case because regulation of investments does not remove personal decision as the determinant. The regulations may influence personal decisions, but they don’t determine them. It is invalid in the second case because a “free” market is not the same as an “unregulated” market. In an unregulated market, power vacuums occur. If any player in the market has more power than some other player (for example, holding a “corner” of the market in a particular item) that player can game the system in a way that amounts to de facto regulation.

@rexacoracofalipitorius wrote “Do you dispute the historical accuracy of @dabbler‘s assertion of boom-and-bust cycles and their relationship in time to the Glass-Steagall Act?”

Yes I do. Here is one example: link

Your next point: By influencing, you’re limiting choices. If a regulation says you cannot build in point A, then you’re forced to make a private choice to build in point B, or C. But it is determined that A is off limits. That is not capitalism.

Your final point: Too vague to answer. Are you saying that under unregulated capitalism natural monopolies will occur and therefore regulations will be inevitable? How can you prove this if there was never a capitalistic system (according to the definition)?

@jerv

Here is a good example that illustrates the problem with your argument. I just checked out the tax views of the world’s richest man and the 3rd richest – Carlos Slim Helu and Amancio Ortega. Both of them want to see taxes reduced, and Carlos was asked for his opinion on America’s economy, he gave the same answer.

130 billion between the two of them v.s 120 billion between Buffet and Gates (keeping Kochs out). So if I follow your argument, Carlos and Ortega are more successful and should sooner listen to them. Does this invalidate the success of Buffet and Gates? Should their opinion not be considered given the amount of success they have?

It’s a silly argument. They’re all in the same league. Once you’re within that range, the fine details of wealth don’t matter. Either side would be a strong support to lean on. I chose to listen to the lower tax crowd, you chose higher.

@annabee I don’t see what your link has to do with the question I asked you, so I think I failed to express it clearly.
@dabbler claimed the following:
First, that the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933;
Second, that prior to that Act’s passage were boom-and-bust cycles with an approximate 15-year period;
Third, that after the repeal of Glass-Steagall (@dabbler states that this took place ‘in the ‘80s, but wikipedia does not bear this out) that several crises ensued.

I stipulate that the Glass-Steagall Act was not “repealed” in the 1980s. Neither @dabbler nor I has made any claims regarding the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Do you dispute the balance of the claims?

To alter choice is not the same as limiting choices. If a tariff (for example) exists on sales of an imported good, then a market player can choose to pay the tariff, not purchase the good, purchase a domestic (presumably non-tariffed) good, or attempt to illegally purchase the good without paying the tariff- or steal the good. That’s more choices, not fewer. If the choices are less palatable to the player in the market, that’s unfortunate. If the imposed regulation makes for better available choices for more players on balance, then it’s potentially a good regulation- so I claim. If the change is in the opposite direction (or even brings parity) then it’s probably a bad regulation. Note that the existence of better choices does not mean that all or any of the market’s players will actually choose them.

To the final point, I don’t claim that anything will occur, only that it can. If it can, then an unregulated market can be an un-free market. Thus an unregulated market is not the same as a free market.

Assuming it’s true that an unregulated market can exist as a free market, it can only do so if all players are perfectly rational actors with perfect information of market conditions, or if all imputations start and remain equal. (This according to my memory of Morganstern and Von Neumann’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, from which I’ve taken the term “imputation” and the usage of “players” in the market.) If any single player possesses an advantage in information or in available capital, that player can choose moves that result in de facto regulation of the market- as in the “cornering the market” example. If this regulation of the market is in the player’s economic interest, then a rational player will do it. If the regulation is not in the player’s interest (maybe it only appears to be in his interest, or maybe it serves a short-term interest to acquire $SHINY_BAUBLE) then the player might well do it anyway.
I submit to you that real people are not perfectly rational actors, and don’t have perfect information of market conditions.

@rexacoracofalipitorius

Alright, let’s back track. This is what @dabbler is actually claiming “After Glass-Steagall we had fifty years of unprecedented economic growth and stability and growth of the middle class. Then Glass-Steagall was repealed in the 80’s and we got the S&L crisis, LTC collapse, and the near-meltdown of our financial system around 2008.”

Yes, the Glass-Steagall act was passed in 1933.

Yes, boom/busts existed before 1933.

No, the Glass-Steagall act was not repealed in 1980.

Yes, part of the Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 is what repealed part of the Glass-Steagall act. The part that was repealed, @dabbler mistakenly claims it was repealed in 1980 and claims that since this part was repealed, it has caused all the busts that followed from 1980 onward. Wrong on all counts.

From 1933 till 1999, there were 11 recessions – 11 busts. @dabbler claims there were none. He/she says there was only growth and stability, so 11 busts proves him/her wrong.

There were two recessions that followed since the GLBA repealed part of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999. My previous link is a study that proves Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (this is the act that repealed Glass-Steagall) repealing the Glass-Steagall act did not cause the two following recessions since the repeal of 1999 which @dabbler argues did.

I’ll answer your other points after we’re done with this one.

Mere Anarchy is the most perfect of political systems, because like all other potentially perfect polities it requires that all people also be perfect in order that it may work. It has the advantage over the others of being the simplest.

I take it we’re done with the @dabbler points. Moving on…

By putting a tariff on an imported good, you’re indeed increasing choices, but the new choices are equivalent to choosing between eating out of a garbage container, or eating pigeons or rats instead of a normal meal.

What do you think happens to the dynamic of the market when you put a tariff? If the owner pays more, he is going to take it out on the employees and consumers. If the owner doesn’t buy, then that is one less product for the consumers. If the owner steals, you encouraged immorality.

@ragingloli – Social responsibility doesn’t necessarily lower profits. More and more consumers think twice before deciding on which product they buy. This trend continues.

There is something that I forgot to mention. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. For instance, capitalism thrives in China but their political system is nominally socialist. Norway has a democratic political system but the economic system is partially socialist. Unregulated capitalism is much more harmful and dangerous than a regulated socialist economic system.

The political system in the United States consists of being a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The United States actually has a social market economic system. As far as what I feel would be the best economic system for America, I feel that a social market economy is the best system. I agree with @mattbrowne when he states “A better system in the US would be capitalism without the predatory part, but with the social responsibility part.”

@Ron_C – I would put it this way:

Norway has a democratic political system and the economic system is a social market economy. Socialist implies a lack of private ownership of companies.

@mattbrowne In my parts they consider social market capitalism to be communism.