I've been working on a list of basic economic systems so that I can more easily differentiate and classify economic systems. So far I've identified 9 basic economic systems, although there are always variants.
Capitalism
Georgism (representative of special commodity socialism in capitalist environment, in this case real estate)
Monetarism
Keynesianism
Mercantilism
Welfarism
Fascism
True Socialism
Communism
Do you think I've missed any? Next step creating clear and precise definitions.
Well I'd say that, at the broadest level of consideration, all economic systems are capitalism, socialism, or some amalgamation of the two. For instance, Keynesianism and Welfarism would certainly not be mutually exclusive, as virtually all the welfare states follow Keynesian economic and monetary policy, at least to some extent. Interesting how you list Monetarism as a distinct system, I've never thought of it like that. Makes sense though.
Here's how I would break them out, considering only modern systems, and strictly in economic terms (politics aside):
Capitalism - No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Price Interventionism* - A market system, but one where the state intervenes in an attempt to control prices, often with price ceilings and/or floors.
Monetary Interventionism* - Government produces and maintains the money supply. The state also attempts to manipulate the money supply, ostensibly to ensure full employment and supposedly mitigate the business cycle.
Welfarism* - A market system identified by high taxes and large-scale wealth redistribution.
Mercantilism* - A market system, also refered to as "protectionism." The state attempts to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, promote exports, and reduce imports through the use of tariffs and quotas.
Command Socialism - State ownership of capital, production is centrally planned.
Market Socialism - State ownership of capital, but production is not centrally planned.
*These are not mutually exclusive. Most countries now qualify for all 4 to some extent.
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3844
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:47 pm
Quote:
Capitalism - No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Certainly, there must be some restrictions on what can be bought and sold, i.e., most types of WMD?
BTW, I'm happy you guys made this thread. Perhaps I can learn something
MockingGods Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3844
Location: USA
Posted:
Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:56 pm
PJS wrote:
Barter?
I really don't see this as a system. Essentially, capital/money was created to facilitate bartering, and then all these other "systems" sprang from that.
I'm noticing a trend though, the difference in these varied systems seems to be only where the control lies, and the other nuances are basically insignificant. It seems that under “capitalism” there is no control (I’m sure some would argue market control)? If so, what’s produced is basically what’s popular, or what private entities feel will produce the most profit.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:26 am
It's true that many of these systems are not basically incompatable. If I were to describe the economy of the United States, I would say it is a mix of monetarism, keynesianism, mercantilism, and welfarism. That is because all four systems are systems of intervention, unlike the pure endpoints.
Offsprng46, you seem to be listing means of intervention in the economy, while I'm listing more the final resultant economies. Price interventionism can be part of Keynesianism or it can be part of Mercantilism, for example, and would even fit with Georgism. Of course Monetary Interventionism is the textbook definition of Monetarism.
Monetarism is a lot like Georgism in that they are both "Capitalist but..." The Georgists think that real estate is such a special commodity that it, unlike all other commodities, must be controlled by the government either through heavy taxation, regulation, or outright government ownership. Monetarists are "Capitalist but currency", but currency is in many ways a good unlike other goods because it is not a good itself but is instead the medium of exchange for goods.
As near as I can tell, those are the three basic means of economic interference: taxation, regulation, ownership. If I were to diagram the economic spectrum it would look something like this.
On one end would be full fledged communism, where all goods are owned and controlled by the government, and at the other end would be full fledged capitalism where all goods are privately owned and controlled. One of those three threads would be economic interventionism through taxation and wealth redistribution, most commonly known as welfarism. A second of those three threads would be economic intervention through regulation, which fits the Keynesian and Fascist models. The third is outright ownership of goods.
MockingGods, since I'm listing these as pure textbook examples (recognizing that in the real world implementation is never perfect) then under pure textbook capitalism, the only restriction on what might be bought or sold is slaves. So yes, you could go down to the corner market and buy a WMD.
I'll borrow offsprng46's definitions and try to expand on them.
Capitalism: No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Monetarism: Government produces and maintains the money supply. The state also attempts to manipulate the money supply, ostensibly to ensure full employment and supposedly mitigate the business cycle.
Georgism (taxation): Government heavily taxes all revenues from real estate removing any profit from owning real estate. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Georgism (regulation): Government controls all real estate. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Georgism (ownership): Government owns all real estatt. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Mercantilism: A market system, also refered to as "protectionism." The state attempts to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, promote exports, and reduce imports through the use of tariffs and quotas. Can be in terms of general trade balance (light) or specific protected industries (heavy).
Welfarism: A market system identified by high taxes and large-scale wealth redistribution.
Keynesianism: A market system identified by extensive government intervention in the economy through taxation and spending obsensibly to ensure full employment and supposedly mitigate the business cycle through government deficit spending during times of economic recession and high taxes during times of economic expansion. Left Keynesianism has the deficit spending benefit the lower classes and shares common traits with welfarism, while Right Keynesianism has the deficit spending benefit the upper classes and shares common traits with Mercantilism.
Fascism: A market system identified by strict controls of all aspects of the economy. While property is still nominally privately owned, the owners do not control the property.
True Socialism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all the means of production.
Communism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all goods.
Capitalism: No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Very interesting Jason. Just a quick question because I don't have much time right now. What do you mean by "selected" in the statement "Money is selected by the consumers in the market"?
Quote:
Communism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all goods.
One more... heh
I thought the ultimate goal of communism was No state, or all goods being owned by the public in a communal fashion; basically no individual private ownership, but no governmental ownership either.
It's true that many of these systems are not basically incompatable. If I were to describe the economy of the United States, I would say it is a mix of monetarism, keynesianism, mercantilism, and welfarism. That is because all four systems are systems of intervention, unlike the pure endpoints.
Offsprng46, you seem to be listing means of intervention in the economy, while I'm listing more the final resultant economies. Price interventionism can be part of Keynesianism or it can be part of Mercantilism, for example, and would even fit with Georgism. Of course Monetary Interventionism is the textbook definition of Monetarism.
Monetarism is a lot like Georgism in that they are both "Capitalist but..." The Georgists think that real estate is such a special commodity that it, unlike all other commodities, must be controlled by the government either through heavy taxation, regulation, or outright government ownership. Monetarists are "Capitalist but currency", but currency is in many ways a good unlike other goods because it is not a good itself but is instead the medium of exchange for goods.
As near as I can tell, those are the three basic means of economic interference: taxation, regulation, ownership. If I were to diagram the economic spectrum it would look something like this.
On one end would be full fledged communism, where all goods are owned and controlled by the government, and at the other end would be full fledged capitalism where all goods are privately owned and controlled. One of those three threads would be economic interventionism through taxation and wealth redistribution, most commonly known as welfarism. A second of those three threads would be economic intervention through regulation, which fits the Keynesian and Fascist models. The third is outright ownership of goods.
MockingGods, since I'm listing these as pure textbook examples (recognizing that in the real world implementation is never perfect) then under pure textbook capitalism, the only restriction on what might be bought or sold is slaves. So yes, you could go down to the corner market and buy a WMD.
I'll borrow offsprng46's definitions and try to expand on them.
Capitalism: No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Monetarism: Government produces and maintains the money supply. The state also attempts to manipulate the money supply, ostensibly to ensure full employment and supposedly mitigate the business cycle.
Georgism (taxation): Government heavily taxes all revenues from real estate removing any profit from owning real estate. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Georgism (regulation): Government controls all real estate. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Georgism (ownership): Government owns all real estatt. The state also attempts to manipulate the use of land, obstensibly to ensure full productive use of the land.
Mercantilism: A market system, also refered to as "protectionism." The state attempts to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, promote exports, and reduce imports through the use of tariffs and quotas. Can be in terms of general trade balance (light) or specific protected industries (heavy).
Welfarism: A market system identified by high taxes and large-scale wealth redistribution.
Keynesianism: A market system identified by extensive government intervention in the economy through taxation and spending obsensibly to ensure full employment and supposedly mitigate the business cycle through government deficit spending during times of economic recession and high taxes during times of economic expansion. Left Keynesianism has the deficit spending benefit the lower classes and shares common traits with welfarism, while Right Keynesianism has the deficit spending benefit the upper classes and shares common traits with Mercantilism.
Fascism: A market system identified by strict controls of all aspects of the economy. While property is still nominally privately owned, the owners do not control the property.
True Socialism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all the means of production.
Communism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all goods.
Good stuff, thanks for the observations. One thing though, some communists would argue that not it's only capital owned by the state/collective. But since virtually anything could be considered capital...
Oooh, one more thing, I might also add something about mercantilism protecting inefficient domestic producers at the expense of the masses.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 593
Posted:
Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:33 pm
MockingGods wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Capitalism: No restrictions on what can be bought and sold. Money is selected by consumers in the market.
Very interesting Jason. Just a quick question because I don't have much time right now. What do you mean by "selected" in the statement "Money is selected by the consumers in the market"?
There would be no such thing as "legal tender", a currency defined as good by a government. Instead currency would be whatever people choose to accept. This is different from barter in that people do generally choose a few goods to use as currency absent government declaration, so therefore currency does exist unlike barter.
Countless times throughout history gold has been the money of choice, although silver is often used. It has all the characteristics of money - it is consistent in nature so that any ounce of gold is the same as any other ounce of gold, it is divisible into smaller quantities as needed, it is durable in that it doesn't decay like food, it has few other uses unlike food.
Many items have been used for currency. During the age of piracy, rum itself was considered a currency, as it was fairly consistent, durable, divisable, etc., but it really had other uses. Some people in history have used sea shells, but they aren't divisible at all, and gemstones have that same failing. What it has come down to time and again for more advanced economies currencies have been metals.
Absent any government intervention, you would probably buy and sell in gold, silver, and copper.
MockingGods wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Communism: An economic system identified by full state ownership of all goods.
One more... heh
I thought the ultimate goal of communism was No state, or all goods being owned by the public in a communal fashion; basically no individual private ownership, but no governmental ownership either.
There is a tendency among advocates of the
economic
system of communism to assume it automatically means a
political
system of anarcism. Now whie as libertarian I think they are speaking in contadictions, objectivity demands that I consider only the economics of the economic system of communism. The economics of communism is communal ownership, and that generally means government is the owner unless there is no government.
Well I'd say that, at the broadest level of consideration, all economic systems are capitalism, socialism, or some amalgamation of the two.
I think you kinda nailed it right here. There are only two ways to interact with other people, through force or voluntaryism.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:59 am
Andrew, you have a modified avatar of offspring's. Is it merely a coincidence or do you know each other?
andrewgreve Just Arrived
Joined: Jan 15, 2007
Posts: 9
Posted:
Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:50 am
The Libertatis Æquilibritas was created and designed by Per Bylund. ( www.perbylund.com )
From his site:
"This logotype for anarcho-capitalism, joining the three well-known symbols of the circle A (anarchism), the Yin & Yang (the spontaneous balance on the free market), and the dollar sign (capitalism/free markets), was introduced in 1999 through the web site Anarchism.net. Since then, it has gained recognition worldwide as a symbol for free market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism. The name is latin and stands for “the [natural] equilibrium of liberty.”"
My avatar is copied from Per's site. The other one commonly used can be found on the wikipedia page:
But to answer your question, no, I don't know offspring. The only thing I know about him is that he is a market anarchist, like me
carx Confident Learner
Joined: Jun 09, 2008
Posts: 60
Posted:
Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:45 pm
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
There would be no such thing as "legal tender", a currency defined as good by a government. Instead currency would be whatever people choose to accept. This is different from barter in that people do generally choose a few goods to use as currency absent government declaration, so therefore currency does exist unlike barter.
Countless times throughout history gold has been the money of choice, although silver is often used. It has all the characteristics of money - it is consistent in nature so that any ounce of gold is the same as any other ounce of gold, it is divisible into smaller quantities as needed, it is durable in that it doesn't decay like food, it has few other uses unlike food.
Many items have been used for currency. During the age of piracy, rum itself was considered a currency, as it was fairly consistent, durable, divisable, etc., but it really had other uses. Some people in history have used sea shells, but they aren't divisible at all, and gemstones have that same failing. What it has come down to time and again for more advanced economies currencies have been metals.
Absent any government intervention, you would probably buy and sell in gold, silver, and copper.
Interesting and complete fail :
1) Transportation is difficult with a lot of metals , try to buy a house in a distant place that costs 500 KG of gold.
2) Inflation and deflation basically in a gold based (or resource based ) system you have the risks of you getting very very pure if somebody produces more gold so you can get robed do to a other person manipulating market forces.
3) Fusion and fission you can make gold out of air water or dirt using fusion or turn led into gold removing some protons and electrons. The gold standard fails if somebody can start “printing” money like that and you cant locate or stop him. Consider also the discovery of new recourses or mining of metals in asteroids or moons.
Besides every capitalist system is based on barded today we have printed pictures that we exchange or virtual credits its still treating on thing agents another and gold is barded to you are exchanging a commonly accepted good “insert here the name of it” for another good
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:06 am
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
There would be no such thing as "legal tender", a currency defined as good by a government. Instead currency would be whatever people choose to accept. This is different from barter in that people do generally choose a few goods to use as currency absent government declaration, so therefore currency does exist unlike barter.
Countless times throughout history gold has been the money of choice, although silver is often used. It has all the characteristics of money - it is consistent in nature so that any ounce of gold is the same as any other ounce of gold, it is divisible into smaller quantities as needed, it is durable in that it doesn't decay like food, it has few other uses unlike food.
Many items have been used for currency. During the age of piracy, rum itself was considered a currency, as it was fairly consistent, durable, divisable, etc., but it really had other uses. Some people in history have used sea shells, but they aren't divisible at all, and gemstones have that same failing. What it has come down to time and again for more advanced economies currencies have been metals.
Absent any government intervention, you would probably buy and sell in gold, silver, and copper.
carx wrote:
Interesting and complete fail :
So the history of money is wrong?
Moron.
carx wrote:
1) Transportation is difficult with a lot of metals , try to buy a house in a distant place that costs 500 KG of gold.
And yet it happened.
carx wrote:
2) Inflation and deflation basically in a gold based (or resource based ) system you have the risks of you getting very very pure if somebody produces more gold so you can get robed do to a other person manipulating market forces.
And yet that rarely happened unless done by a GOVERNMENT.
carx wrote:
3) Fusion and fission you can make gold out of air water or dirt using fusion or turn led into gold removing some protons and electrons.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file