Which socio-economic system is best?

[Amator Veritatis]

Please choose the system which you feel is best and expand upon any specific distinctions in that system in your response. If you favour a different system than those listed, please state it and provide the same details. I should simply say, for now, that I favour distributism essentially in the manner articulated by Belloc and Chesterton. Though, of course, this debate could become congested with the practical matters involved with implementing a system and whether the system itself be practically possible, I would prefer that the discussion, at least initially, be based on which theoretical system--with its specific traits distinguishing it from others of the same name, if there be any--is most suitable and, if and when this be agreed, afterwards might be discussed the practical routes which might be employed to achieve such a system.

N.B., this thread does not concern itself with governmental systems; thus, there are no distinctions in that field made for any of the choices. The discussion, if possible, ought remain focused, at least primarily, on the economic and social questions and not the governmental.

N.B., while I believe the third option necessarily falls within the fourth, I conceived that some would either be confused without a clearer choice for capitalism listed or would be offended that the only representation of capitalism be its pure form. In any event, because a mixed economy could certainly favour socialist principles more than it favours those of capitalism, I thought it expedient not to include it merely within the third option, which is definitively marked as a form of capitalism. In any event, I suppose the fourth option might simply serve as a restricted form of socialism, for the purposes of this thread. Either way, please answer accurately and be sure to clarify any possible distinctions in the overall system when responding.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[OLAM Dad]

The only disagreement I have with you is how you spell favor. :

[Ora et Labora]

Hi dad.

[Paphnutius]

I would love to post and comment on this, but economics is not my strong point at all. I actually try to stray away from political and economic issues. C.S Lewis was on to something when he spoke of the need for "Christian economists" and the like. I will leave such topics up to them.

[3n1]

What exactly constitutes "Distributism". I voted before reading your post. At initial glance, I thought it was some disguised form of socialism. What books by Belloc and Chesterton make mention of this system?

[Socrates]

I am familiar with the "distributist" arguments against a free-market economy, and I have not found them persuasive.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., an economist who is is also a devout traditional Catholic, gives a very solid and thorough critique of distributism in his excellent book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739110365/sr=8-1/qid=1140750662/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2323353-4496057?%5Fencoding=UTF8"][i]The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy[/i].[/url]
He devotes an entire chapter of his book to answering distributist arguments - "Answering the Distributist Critique."

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into all the problems here, but I would strongly recommend that anyone at all interested in this topic read this book.

Besides "distributist" policies being likely to substantially decrease most people's material well-being, there is the problem that in order for "distributism" to actually be enforced in the real world, it would require strong central government regulation and an increase in government power - one of the very things distributists claim to be opposed to.

From Woods' book:
[quote]The very logic of the distributist position makes any attachment to subsidiarity, however sincerely held, almost certainly unstable and short-lived.  Suppose Community A should wish to put distributism into practice, and gives special tax breaks to small and medium-sized businesses, while imposing punitive taxation on larger businesses.  We shall leave aside the arbitrary nature of such designations, a problem made still worse by the fact that property holdings that constitute "large" business in one industry may amount to a small business in another, given the greater capitalization that its product requires.  We shall assume that all such disputes would be solved by government officials in a completely impartial manner and that no bribery or political manipulation would take place.

Suppose further that people eventually begin to make certain purchases one community over, in Community B, where larger firms are able to offer budget-concious members of Community A substantial savings on some products.  Let us also suppose that these purchases reach a level that begins to jeopardize the solvency of certain firms in Community A.  If this process were to continue, Community A's experiment in distributism will be seriously shaken.  Businessmen in the affected firms, could of course, simply move into some other area of production, where they might be able to produce less wastefully, but this would run counter to the kind of conservatism distributists appear to seek.

For as time goes on, the people living in Communities A and B, whose economic activities have been homogenized by state authority at the demand of Community A, will certainly repeat the process.  People from Communities A and B, increasingly skeptical that the Catholic Fatih requires them to pay a 40 percent premium on all goods, and certain that local businessmen (who are not exempt from original sin) are taking advantage of thier privileged status to extort unreasonable prices from their hapless nieghbors, being to patronize firms in Community C.  (Distributists might claim at this point that distributist communities would work to prevent unreasonable prices from being charged, but this would only multiply their difficulties, as it would introduce yet another arbitrary grant of power to the community's government, and it is far from clear on what basis they would decide such questions.)  And so action is now demanded against Community C for what will inevitably be described in such lurid terms as "cutthroat competition" and "survival of the fittest economics."[/quote]


[quote]Though, of course, this debate could become congested with the practical matters involved with implementing a system and whether the system itself be practically possible, I would prefer that the discussion, at least initially, be based on which theoretical system--with its specific traits distinguishing it from others of the same name, if there be any--[/quote]
This is a very serious issue I have with distributionist arguments. Economics is by its very nature a practical science, and therefore must deal with what works in the real world. Distributionists have dismissed me as a "pragmatist" for insisting on dealing with practical issues of implementation. However, it is rather pointless to discuss the economics of an unfallen paradise.
What does and doesn't work in the real world should be very much a part of any economic discussions. Economics considered as purely theoretical, detached from reality, is pointless and silly.

[Snarf]

As stated before, I think it depends entirely on historical context. If a society is capable of sustaining a pure free market with the only taxations going to operation of government (Libertarianism wouldn't work at all, but that's another point) and the only government regulations being held to prevent exploitation, sure, go for it. But I have never been convinced that this would work in the present condition of the United States. Abosulute equity in redistribution of wealth is going too far, doing nothing at all about it isn't going nearly far enough.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 23 2006, 11:35 PM']As stated before, I think it depends entirely on historical context.  If a society is capable of sustaining a pure free market with the only taxations going to operation of government (Libertarianism wouldn't work at all, but that's another point) and the only government regulations being held to prevent exploitation, sure, go for it.  But I have never been convinced that this would work in the present condition of the United States.  Abosulute equity in redistribution of wealth is going too far, doing nothing at all about it isn't going nearly far enough.
[right][snapback]896351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


All societies are capable of free markets, all people want to be free. Any kind of goverment inforced redistribution is a joke, and close to stealing. If some one wants to give their money to someone else thats one thing. But in the real world you must work to gain anything.

[Snarf]

What if there are no viable forms of work available? Who's job is it to step in and provide work? I've read Wealth of Nations cover to cover, the most relevant areas several times. History shows that "universal opulence" only grows when it's allowed to, which hasn't been much of history.

You should read what the Catechism has to say about laissez-faire capitalism, I've posted it elsewhere.