Communism and Captialism are equal

I came to this realization of this by deconstructing the ideas of Socialism. I came to the conclusion that both can be bad or good, but it depends on who's hands it is in. If the person who is head of a company or a head of nation cares about people, and not power, then the little man will be happy.If the person wants power, than the little man will suffer. This is true in either cases of government.

We can agree on one thing: both of them are not perfect. And both are ass.

>>160
Now why are you entitled to take the fastest route? Many routes will get you there in about equal time, you don't NEED to take the fastest to get there on time. If you need to get their so much faster badly enough that you'd pay to get their just five minutes faster, you'll be going 140 down a relatively empty road.

If the road owner let only 5 millionaires per year use the interstates, he'll lower prices. After all, that's a massive oversupply because at the price, demand is so little. There are alternatives to roads that people would use. There's trains and other roads and planes and boats.

The free market is inherently less wasteful, as waste is limited by competition. A company which wastes a lot can't compete with a company that wastes just a little, and the wasteful company goes out of business. With government, the waste is ongoing and gets worse over time.

"Now why are you entitled to take the fastest route?"
Entitlement has never entered the issue. My point was that roads are natural monopolies and private ownership of them will tend to increase prices. And roadcompanies will prolly also consolidate and try to buy eachother out, and roadcompanies will prolly be bought by carcompanies so they can optimize sales.

"If the road owner let only 5 millionaires per year use the interstates, he'll lower prices."
Assuming he has no competition, he would set the price where revenues are at a maximum. Oversupply does not matter. Why doenst luxury resturant lower prices, they should if your argument would be true. Other modes of transportation is not real competitors as they are not equal goods, they are just like the other modes of transportation. For example, one person prefers planes because of comfort while another prefers cars because of freedom, planes and cars are not complete competitors because of this, they satisfy different wants.

"The free market is inherently less wasteful, as waste is limited by competition."
Yes, but not if there is a monopoly, this have been my point all along. Come on, its stupid to assume that the free market allways in any world in any circumstances is more efficient than the state. For one, this makes your claims unfalsifiable, meaning they are not arguments but opinions equal to religious belief.

>>163
Perhaps toll roads can be considered local monopolies, however, tax is a greater monopoly. Take your pick. 

>>163
If there is no reason why you simply must take the fastest route, then you are free to take alternative routes, therefore competition.

The luxury resturaunt sets prices according to supply and demand. If the demand is low, the resturaunt owner might prefer to go out of business rather than operate at a loss, or they might lower prices temproarily to increase demand and minimize their loss. If they keep their prices constant, they're losing money. However, my personal belief is that when the resturaunt changes it's prices, it just doesn't tell you, making you think the prices never change.

There is competition between buses, trains, aircraft, personal vehicles, and occasionally boats. Whether you like it or not, they have to compete. It's just one more level of competition among many. Direct competition is not the only kind that will keep prices low. We could arbitrarly decide the level at which different places "satisfy different wants", for example, I want a grocery store 1 mile away, and only one exists, therefore it is a monopoly. The store 1.2 miles away satisfies a different want and therefore is not a competitor.

The government is a monopoly. The government is THE monopoly. Anything a monopoly can screw up, the government can screw up worse, and raise taxes to cover the costs, because it's THE monopoly of monopolies. It's the monopoly that decides which monopolies must exist and which must not. There is no monopoly above the State.

Show me a case where the government did something more efficiently than the market. As of yet I've never found a case of this.

Neither are perfect. But capitalism is better.

>>165
"If there is no reason why you simply must take the fastest route..."
Yeah, and how often do you think that happen in reality, people not being concerned with the traveltime. That is very marginal.

"The luxury resturaunt sets prices according to supply and demand."
Of course, and it exist on the planet earth. This is irrelevant. What is the difference between a macdonalds and a luxury resturant? Which has more customers, which has higher prices? They can have the same quantity of revenue, but their business strategy is completly opposite. There cant be luxury roads according to you? Also, according to you, they are competitors, but in reality, they are not. They supply to different demands,  one can not substituate the one for the other. Its the same with planes and roads.

"The government is a monopoly."
Blahblahblah.

"Show me a case where the government did something more efficiently than the market."
Healthcare. Sweden has better than the US. The quality is higher, therefore the efficiency is higher. You meassure efficiency of healthcare in saved lives since a healthcare that does not save lives is not a healthcare at all. I cant be bothered to google it up, but since i am contesting the claim that the market is always more efficient, the burden of proof is actually on you, as if i was contesting the claim that UFOs or God exist.

>>165
dude, you need to go back to economics 101

competitive capitalism > democratically controlled monopoly > capitalist monopoly

Sometimes there is no choice but to have a complete monopoly. If there has to be a monopoly I want it regulated by a democratically elected government, rather than having an institution free to increase price up to the point where some people would be better off getting water from a stream and boiling it using a wood fire like they did in the medieval era instead of pay for piped water.

>>167
If you must take the fastest route, then you can afford to pay.

The luxury resturaunt isn't offering exactly the same good, but nobody is offering exactly the same good as anybody else. If that's the case, then everything is a monopoly and competition is just a fantasy, and when you expand the definition of monopoly to include everything, the word monopoly means nothing, and in that case you should stop throwing around meaningless words.

Efficiency is (quality x quantity) / (costs). Your analysis of Sweden's healthcare ignores the quantity and costs. There is more to the quality part of healthcare than saving lives. There are non-lifethreatening medical problems, there is the issue of costs, how long it takes to get the treatment, whether treatment is available, and a number of other factors. If treating an ingrown toenail costs $20 in the US and $200 in Sweden, then US healthcare is more efficient, even if Sweden hides 99% of the costs in taxes.

You are contesting the claim that the market is *always* more efficient. You only need to provide one example that demonstrates otherwise to show that I am incorrect. You provided one example which was invalid for a number of reasons, so go find another one.

>>168
Dude, you need to go read some Mises.org.

>>169
I personally would love to see that happen, because if that happened, all I would have to do is lay down more pipes and sell cleaner cheaper water than the other guy. I wouldn't even have to serve an entire city at once, I could do it in a neighborhood, use the revenues to expand into other neighborhoods, and use that revenue to expand to the rest of the city. At some point before I completely replaced the old water company, the other water company WOULD lower it's prices, lest I drive it out of business. Such a stupid move by the company ignorantly assuming it has a monopoly would make my life far easier and make me much richer.

>>170
"If you must take the fastest route, then you can afford to pay."
Man, you are really good at making claims that begs the question. Okay, ill bite. Why does someone, just because one is in a hurry, afford to pay any cost to reach a destination? Magic seems to be the only answer to me, but i guess that is not what you meant.

"The luxury resturaunt isn't offering exactly the same good..."
So in your world macdonalds and a luxury resturant are competitors? A company that makes arrows are a competitor to a company that make bullets? Please answer yes or no. And no, competition is not fantasy, and i am not saying everything is a monoploy. Macdonalds and Burger King are competitors, they have different branding strategies, but the same business strategy. Is this difference to hard for you to grasp?

"Efficiency is (quality x quantity) / (costs). Your analysis of Sweden's healthcare ignores the quantity and costs."
I didnt do an analysis. I didnt say that lifes saved was the only factor, why would i say that. Again you state the obvious as a rebutal, but i am not inclined to mire my responses in truisms. Okay, lets play a game. The first thing you can think of as a rebutal, is prolly something i have already implied or am at least aware of. Instead, try to rebut the point of tha argument, and if you cannot, accept deafeat. Your analysis of sweden is just assumptions. Well, i can do that to. In the US an ingrown toenail costs 20000$ while in sweden it costs 2$ with all hidden taxcosts included. Now, according to my baseless assumptions, the US is less effiecient, and Swedens crazy pinko system is more so.

>>170
According to studies, US has the most expensive healthcare system per capita in the world (double the second most expensive) while ranking around 20th among OECD countries in quality. So, the US is doing something very wrong compared to cheaper and better healthcare systems, like Swedens (half the price, half the infant mortality). Source is from University of Maine
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf

Where has all the angry agorists of yeasteryear flown?

>>172 But we suffer from insane taxation. There's the big rub. I'm as yet unconvinced that a hard-left solution (Sweden's) or a hard-right solution (complete laissez-faire) is preferable to something on the grayscale.

>>174
Well, if the US system is the alternative, then we actually pay little for our health care quality at the moment. Privatization (=tax cuts) does not automagically mean decreased net costs, so it may be that we are better off in the present-soon-to-be-demolished system, meaning that the taxes are actually the lowest possible price (per capita) for high quality health care. This is understandable when one adds the fairness (how equal health care different groups get, WHO does this) of the system into the equation, i find it actually hard to imagine a private health care system where also poor people get adequate health care. One reason american health care is so expensive is because around 20% dont have insurance, and therefore dont go to the doctor unless there is a BIG problem. Swedens health care is more effective in this area. 

bump for teh fun