The best and most successful economic system

This is a very interesting topic to me. What economic system(capitalism, socialism, etc.) is the most successful and best for us?

Bi0Hazard: Best at achieving what metric?

admin: Best at serving every individual. An economic system best at lifting everyone's living standard and making life better for all individuals, with less in poverty.
Obviously no economy can be perfect at doing this but what one do you think is the best at doing this?

Bi0Hazard: By that particular metric, socialism no doubt.

admin: Also, best at achieving economic efficiency.
A broad term that implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each person in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. When an economy is economically efficient, any changes made to assist one person would harm another. In terms of production, goods are produced at their lowest possible cost, as are the variable inputs of production.

Read more: Economic Efficiency Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp#ixzz48E1WWntu
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Bi0Hazard: By that metric, capitalism is better.

admin: Which do you favor overall, capitalism or socialism?
and what variety of socialism are you talking about(state ownership, cooperative ownership, etc.)

Bi0Hazard: It depends on the goals of the country at the time, but in the long term socialism is more sustainable. Most economies work best with some mixed model.

I don't think ownership model matters a lot provided that the community ultimately has the biggest say in resource allocation, from which nobody may be excluded.

admin: It depends on the goals of the country at the time, but in the long term socialism is more sustainable.

I disagree, i think capitalism is more sustainable. Capital accumulation forms the basis of capitalism which makes it the most sustainable. Socialism is not designed to accumulate capital. Socialism has a lack of emphasis on capital accumulation but rather an emphasis on more pleasures in society. This isn't to say that socialism can't have emphasis on capital accumulation but is isn't desirable in socialism.
Nations that have been more capitalistic have prospered more than socialist states. However, i am not exactly sure what you mean by socialism because there are different varieties. If you mean economic democracy, then i can see what you mean but if you mean state ownership, i think the opposite is true.

Bi0Hazard: I think the emphasis in socialism is more on equitable distribution, not maximal utility, while you're right in saying in capitalism it's on maximizing gross product. Socialism assumes capital accumulation is the product of economic development, or otherwise, that people develop technology organically. In capitalism, capital accumulation is the product of conscious design, ie people develop technology to meet particular customer demands. This is not to say having more stuff through economic development is undesirable in socialism, socialism just argues there doesn't need to be a market incentive to do so. So I'd say socialism is designed to accumulate capital, just on a different premise. In capitalism technology is never developed without a market incentive, while in socialism it might be. An especially pernicious example is "big pharma", where drugs are routinely not produced if they would not be profitable. Some would argue however, that socialism doesn't prioritize technological development that more people actually need, and there's certainly merit to that. If a lot of people want something but nobody can be bothered doing it, then in socialism it will never get done.

Ultimately the reason why pure capitalism is unsustainable compared to socialism is inequality. The capital accumulation capitalism produces is not necessarily divided equitably, as is necessary for socialism. This leads to non-economic, social conflict. The usual way capitalist countries solve for this problem is with a complicated system of loans to the poor and middle class, like student loans to allow them to have a decent education, or home loans so they don't live on the street. This system however cannot generate wealth indefinitely and eventually either borrowers miss out (and thus the economy slows to a halt and, usually, people revolt) or interest rates drop to virtually nothing until the whole economy collapses. This is compounded by the effect of speculation, because more loans means more inflation in the economy. Speculation is the cause of the well-known "bubble" effect in capitalism. This totally ruins all but the very rich (who can hide their wealth) in the long run.

"The best" economic system depends on the needs of a society at any given time. For instance, a country may be at a point where there are plenty of available resources but very little development of these resources for human consumption or use. At this point inequality in less relevant so long as the "scraps" given to the working class are sufficiently large. In this situation, economic development is key. However, once a country has finished exploring the pie, there's no more room for growth and then make sure that the resources are distributed fairly becomes a top priority.
Socialist policies in a capitalist society is designed to "boost" capitalism or reduce the effects of the inequality it breeds while still allowing for growth to occur.

What about communism?

Bi0Hazard: It's a political system, not an economic one

Dassault Papillon: Largely agree. It's all about the metric, ie what people want the economy to do. That's a moral decision.

admin: Its an economic system too, although it requires a particular form of government to support it.

Bi0Hazard: What would you say is the difference between communism as you understand it an socialism?

admin: The best definition of socialism i know of is that socialism is social ownership of the means of production. There are many different varieties of socialism, such as public ownership and cooperative ownership. There is also market socialism and non-market socialism.

Communism is a social, political, and economic ideology that proposes to establish a communist society. A communist society is an order structured upon common ownership of the means of production and is classless, moneyless, and stateless.
You could consider a communist state economy a variety of socialism(common ownership) but communism has stages and socialism is one of the early stages. In communism, you get paid according to, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
So what I am really asking is, what do you think of a communist society?

Bi0Hazard: I think it is economically socialist. If you want to have a broader discussion of communism I don't see how it relates to the OP.

admin: What do you prefer, market socialism or capitalism when it comes to economic sustainability?

Bi0Hazard: Market socialism for sure. The threat of stagnation is more sustainable than the threat of social stratification.