Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

Thank you for accepting, and good luck. Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Socialism - a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies Competition between private owners of production creates lower prices, greater efficiency, and improved quality. People are motivated to do their best when they see the results of their effort. Capitalism aligns the incentives, and people thus are motivated to work hard and overall help the economy. People have economic liberty. Socialism removes these incentives. Capitalism has lifted far more people out of poverty, and raised standards of living higher than any other economic system. The evolutionary force of the market inspires innovation and ingenuity. Over time, this system ensures economic liberty, prosperity, and human progress. Capitalism is inescapably better than socialism. If you want to have a successful economy, you need to have competition between small business. The redistribution of wealth, a key socialist idea, allows businesses to stay in operation, allowing for cheaply made products and a poor work ethic. This, in turn, eliminates the idea of business competition because of the fact that if a business is faltering, the government will take care of them. Without government protection, however, it results in better quality goods more readily bought by private citizens, and spending is good for the economy. Socialism is inescapably inferior to capitalism. Capitalism helps the people to choose what they want to. Thus making the producers to compete with their rivals to gain the trust by increasing the quality/quantity or by reduction of cost or various strategies. The same would be influenced by the demand rate of a particular product of a particular company. Economic expansion can be achieved under the capitalistic economy thus helping in economic growth. The Governments have minimal authority to regulate what, when, how to produce goods. Socialism is based off the assumption that humans are inherently productive, and that workers will, given the opportunity, labor for society as a whole, rather than just themselves or their families. In a perfect socialist utopia, production is set at the needs of society and wages are distributed equally. The rulers of society are really just administrators, overseeing the distribution of resources. Not bad! There would be no more division of classes. Every child would have access to the same education and opportunities. There would be equality in access to health care. Unemployment would be ancient history and workers would have greater rights and representation. UTOPIA! Here lies the first, and perhaps the greatest flaw in socialism: we do not live in a perfect world. One of the most important fundamentals of modern economics is that people respond to incentives. If one wakes up every morning content that regardless of the quality of his work that he will be provided the same compensation, what is his incentive to perform to the best of his ability? Where is the individual's incentive to innovate, increase efficiency, and in doing so, drive economic growth if he will not see the fruits of his labor? Due to lack of incentive, socialism breeds laziness, and acceptance of the status-quo. Capitalism, on the other hand, breeds entrepreneurship and innovation. Competition in free markets forces suppliers of goods to increase the quality of their product and/or decrease price to stay relevant. Now, a socialist society provides for its citizens according to need. Who is it determines the needs of the individual? The answer is a large, powerful government: the second major flaw of socialism. Should it be the governments prerogative to determine the needs of the individual? This restricts the individual's quality of life to whatever the government determines. Humans are not perfect, and no single entity should decide if a product is needed for society or not. The decisions should be made the demand of the people. Imagine a world where a totalitarian bureaucracy determined that the internet, cars, or electricity did not constitute the "needs" of the individual. Are the needs of every individual the same? In a large nation with many diverse communities, the requirements, and problems faced by each community are unique, and it is unrealistic to believe that one massive bureaucracy can understand the specific situations of all of its population. When times are good and essentials like food and water are plentiful, perhaps we can trust the socialist government to provide for everyone, but this is not always the case. When resources are too scarce to provide for the needs of the entire population, the socialist state will have to pick and choose which citizens to leave behind. Scenarios such as this would obviously constitute a major cause for corruption. During these times of shortfall capitalist governments need only provide relief while market mechanisms adjust. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " (Sir John Dalberg-Acton). Another way of defining socialism is "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies," (Definition of SOCIALISM ). The third flaw in socialism: a single entity, without checks and balances, controlling every aspect of a nation's production and distribution of resources to its citizens certainly constitutes absolute power, and this absolute power breeds tyranny. The largest socialist governments in history have fallen prey to wide spread corruption and human rights abuses (U.S.S.R. under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, etc.). Many may argue that these governments were not socialist as dictatorships, by definition, do not maintain the most sacred socialist principle of equality, which is undoubtedly correct. The absolute control of the socialist state's bureaucracy, however, provides a vehicle for tyrannical parties to take over. The governments of Capitalist societies are often smaller and have more checks on their power to limit their ability to interfere with free enterprise. As the government of a socialist state is the only source of employment, education, medical care, food, water, (everything). The individual has no choice but to attend the school, do the job, eat the food, etc. that the government has to offer. The Fourth flaw of socialism: it restricts the individual's personal freedom. Though, unlike in a capitalist system, these services are available to all in a socialist society, the cost of this is often a decrease in quality of welfare provided, as well as forcing individuals to deal with bureaucracies and long waits whenever government services like health care are required. Without competition in open markets, there are no other sources of consumption to choose from but what the government has to offer. Socialism takes rights from the individual and family and gives them to the government. One final point: Maintaining a socialist state is expensive. And a socialist society is less sustainable than a capitalist one which is supported by private corporations, small businesses, competition, international trade and free markets. Regardless of the political ideological system of government, every nation in its lifetime is bound to experience a period of economic crisis. Capitalist or socialist, it is One final point: Maintaining a socialist state is expensive. And a socialist society is less sustainable than a capitalist one which is supported by private corporations, small businesses, competition, international trade and free markets. Regardless of the political ideological system of government, every nation in its lifetime is bound to experience a period of economic crisis. Capitalist or socialist, it is inevitable that factors like national debt, natural disasters, trade deficits, famine, war, or simply bad policy will cause any nation to experience a period of time where either the free markets or socialist government will be unable to provide citizens with the resources they need to prosper. It is how the nation plans for and responds to these difficult time periods that determine whether or not it will last the test of time. No organization is infallible, whether it be government or corporation. The argument can be made, however, that a capitalist government is better equipped to deal with times of economic stress than a socialist one. Besides the flaws stated above, when faced with a shortage of essential goods or funds to purchase them globally, not only does the socialist government need to provide more resources than the government of a capitalist society, but there is no free markets to "ease adjustments." Additionally, citizens of a capitalist society have more responsibility for their own well being, rather than relying on governmental aid. The government of a capitalist society is then only needed to provide relief when absolutely necessary, in non-governmental-organizations and private non-profit companies, at much less cost than the socialist government. Why is socialism bad for society? It does not foster the innovation and increased efficiency driven by the competition in the free markets of capitalism, leading to slower economic growth. It is prone to corruption. It requires a large unchecked powerful government with complete control over the state's production, and the distribution of resources to its citizens, providing an avenue for tyrannical rule. It restricts the individual's freedom and quality of life by only providing state products for consumption. It is less equipped to respond to periods of shortfalls and economic crises.