This is just a few of my personal view points regarding the advantages and disadvantages of socialism and capitalism.
Advantages of socialism: Society is fair and there is no segregation Popular with the general population People worse of with a capitalist Government are better off.
Disadvantages of socialism: People can't make something of themselves as everything is owned by the state. For every person working hard, there will be just as many taking advantage of them i.e. not working but still taking pay. This is a bit extreme, but in theory a nuclear physicist could earn as much as the man cleaning his office. People from other countries can take advantage of certain benefits.
Advantages for capitalism: If people work hard and aspire to achieve their goals, most of the time they will achieve them and make a lot of money. Less Government owned businesses so if there is an economic downturn, successful businesses will still run. More independent population. Those who are intelligent and would succeed if left to start a business or other career, will succeed rather than just receiving the same amount as everyone else.
Disadvantages of capitalism: People who receive less money are frowned upon by the more successful. Class system more prominent. Private companies could give very low pay to their workers. More than half of the country would be worse off.
What do you think? Which type of government do you think is better?
They aren't mutually exclusive. Nor are they forms of government.
For example, in the 1960s, the so called Golden Years where economies boomed, there was a peculiar Keynesian combination in many countries, which saw economic growth in a capitalist economy based on the mass consumption of a fully employed and increasingly well paid and well protected labour force, giving rise to both the first proto-welfare states and a surge in the number of public companies and MNCs being found/expanding. The arrangement was triangular, with governments, formally or informally presiding over the institutionalized negotiations between capital and labour, who were habitually described as ''social partners''. In effect, a combination of both.
People who receive less money are frowned upon by the more successful. Private companies could give very low pay to their workers.
People who receive less money are frowned upon by the more successful.
I was giving extremes such as in the 1800s - early 1900s when the poor where deemed inferior by the Aristocracy and rich in my country, I agree that doesn't happen a lot any more.
Many companies could give very low pay to their workers
Many large companies such as Tesco and KFC still hire migrant workers and don't offer them a decent wage.
Don't believe me? Check this out [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/30/tesco-migrant-meat-workers]
I was giving extremes such as in the 1800s - early 1900s when the poor where deemed inferior by the Aristocracy and rich in my country, I agree that doesn't happen a lot any more.
Looked down because they lack the blood, not because they were poor. In fact, many of the middle class were rich businessmen, except they lacked such family descent in the 1800s.
Many large companies such as Tesco and KFC still hire migrant workers and don't offer them a decent wage.
By their standards, it is good pay. As the great economist, Paul Krugman once said ''As long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard.''
Paying low wages is NOT a feature of Capitalism. In feudalism, you received no pay at all. You can have capitalism and unions and workers' rights all nicely seating together; they aren't mutually exclusive, nor are they even binding.
