Why is Communism So Opposed?

The free market will always correct itself, and the only time there is ever a problem within the free market is when government tries to interfere.

No economist believes that the free market always corrects itself.

already familiar. monopolies are not problems unless they always buy out their competitors. However; large businesses usually trip over themselves so if they ever really try to take advantage of the consumer there will always be someone willing to offer a product a consumer wants. I think this aspect gets neglected.

Thomas wrote:

No economist believes that the free market always corrects itself.

I guess you have never heard of Peter Schiff.

No---because the legal system does not protect the buyers of drugs against fraud. It does protect the buyers from legal merchandise against fraud. So, once again, you're trying to illustrate the workings of capitalism with a departure from the normal workings of capitalism.

Typically, yes. And even in cases where it wasn't, their footing is certainly more nearly equal than the alternative in this thread. If the encounter happens in North Korea, between a communist party official and an ordinary citizen, the footing is most certainly less equal.

And as China and North Korea prove just because a country claims to follow communist principles doesn't mean they actually follow communist principles.

Fair enough. Then let me answer this: which countries in the world do follow communist principles? And in which way are those countries economically and socially successful?

PS: Judging by Wikipedia's article on Peter Schiff, he's a businessman and a TV personality. Sorry, but that doesn't make him an economist---any more than being a bird would make him an ornithologist.

Quote:

Fair enough. Then let me answer this: which countries in the world do follow communist principles? And in which way are those countries economically and socially successful?

Fair enough. Then let me answer this: which countries in the world do follow capitalist principles? And in which way are those countries economically and socially successful?

He was the ONLY economist that was warning about the economic collapse that we found ourselves in.

Well, for example, England Canada and Australia all have socialized medicine so they are socialist as far as that goes.

Also, I prefer to distinguish Corporate Capitalism from Classical Capitalism. Will you agree to make that distinction?

Do you prefer the former or the latter?

Which form of capitalism do you think is most deserving of the title "capitalism"?

True---but we were talking about countries, not individual economic sectors. And Webster only requires that the country be "characterized by" private property etc. It doesn't require that all property, all decision-making, and the entire income distribution belongs to the private sector.

No difference. Private ownership is private ownership, and capitalism is capitalism.

No economist believes that the free market always corrects itself.

Examples of the restrictive nature of monopolies, I gave him, but with no acceptance its dangers. I debated for weeks on social health care, proving over and over again its benefits ..

In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their "paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences" of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.
Which brings us to President Obama's many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.
This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.
....Either way—self-deception or deliberate deceit—health reform is going to turn out far differently than was promised. And because more workers will be dumped into subsidized coverage, taxpayers are likely to pay much more than the $1 trillion-plus price tag claimed by ObamaCare advocates for its first 10 years.......
ObamaCare generates more bad news every month. On top of sluggish job creation, burgeoning deficits, out-of-control spending, and a miserable response to the Gulf oil leak, the Obama presidency may be reaching a tipping point. His competence is being called into question and his credibility undermined. Either one is bad for any president. Both can be politically lethal.