4 ms·

>Many fans of capitalism believe it superior to communism because free markets and high individual initiative produce better outcomes than central planning. Yo

>Many fans of capitalism believe it superior to communism because free markets and high individual initiative produce better outcomes than central planning. You are incorrect, when you start getting into nuances. When you have the govt doing central planning, there is no way to get rid of them when they under perform. When people voluntarily form central planning organizational structures, they are eliminated by the free market if they under perform. The difference between communism/capitalism is fundamentally of philosophy not of structure. In the former it's coerced co-operation (which almost always results in central planning) and the in the latter it is voluntary co-operation( there will be many organizational structures and some may have a central planning) How old are you? (no I didn't make a mistake when I asked you that question)

Talanes 7y ago
>When you have the govt doing central planning, there is no way to get rid of them when they under perform. All Democratic governments include a way to do exactly that - by definition. There's room for debate over how effective it actually is at removing underperformers compared to the free market, but saying it has no way to get rid of them is just untrue.
- antepodius 7y ago
  Is there? How often does the american federal government shrink? How would it shrink, if it turned out that it was too big? In a democratic government, you're not electing the central planners. In the american government, you're not electing any of the millions of three-letter agencies that rule your life. You hire a president, and he may or may not do something, who knows. At least a market has some contact with a ground truth of bankruptcy. If there were several competing EPA's competing for money on the basis of their efficacy, that might be interesting.
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  >All Democratic governments include a way to do exactly that - by definition. There's room for debate over how effective it actually is at removing underperformers compared to the free market, but saying it has no way to get rid of them is just untrue. You are either young and naive, or an idiot. Sorry, name calling is the only way to call out ignorance. Things simply don't work the way you think it does. In theory 'democracy' promises you a lot of things, but you get very little. Most democracies for most part are sophisticated form of oligarchy where the masses are essentially fed what to think, by propaganda, 'debates' etc.
  - dang 7y ago
    You've broken several the site guidelines in this thread. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? Crossing into making an argument personal is especially not ok, and we have had to ask you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21797575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21797575.
    - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
      Dang, you may ban me if you wish. Sorry but my sense of what should be said appears to be fundamentally different from what is in the guidelines, or sensibilities of most people.

Talanes 7y ago

>When you have the govt doing central planning, there is no way to get rid of them when they under perform. All Democratic governments include a way to do exactly that - by definition. There's room for debate over how effective it actually is at removing underperformers compared to the free market, but saying it has no way to get rid of them is just untrue.

antepodius 7y ago
Is there? How often does the american federal government shrink? How would it shrink, if it turned out that it was too big? In a democratic government, you're not electing the central planners. In the american government, you're not electing any of the millions of three-letter agencies that rule your life. You hire a president, and he may or may not do something, who knows. At least a market has some contact with a ground truth of bankruptcy. If there were several competing EPA's competing for money on the basis of their efficacy, that might be interesting.
dennis_jeeves 7y ago
>All Democratic governments include a way to do exactly that - by definition. There's room for debate over how effective it actually is at removing underperformers compared to the free market, but saying it has no way to get rid of them is just untrue. You are either young and naive, or an idiot. Sorry, name calling is the only way to call out ignorance. Things simply don't work the way you think it does. In theory 'democracy' promises you a lot of things, but you get very little. Most democracies for most part are sophisticated form of oligarchy where the masses are essentially fed what to think, by propaganda, 'debates' etc.
- dang 7y ago
  You've broken several the site guidelines in this thread. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? Crossing into making an argument personal is especially not ok, and we have had to ask you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21797575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21797575.
  - dennis_jeeves 7y ago
    Dang, you may ban me if you wish. Sorry but my sense of what should be said appears to be fundamentally different from what is in the guidelines, or sensibilities of most people.