Germany is 1/5 the size of the US and yet has the second highest trade surplus in the world (after China). They’ve accomplished this while having higher rate of unionization and higher pay. According to conservative ideology, socialist practices and union power should destroy the economy and destroy innovation and yet the complete opposite is the result.

Which is more favourable; capitalism or socialism

I brought this up because it’s another comparison of US and Germany.
In the US, children have a lot of aspiration and yet have less opportunity to fulfill that aspiration (because of income inequality and low rate of social mobility). In Germany, children have less aspiration and yet are more likely to achieve further beyond the socio-economic status they were born into.
This goes against commonsense. To be a working class in America and never striving to better yourself means that you aren’t living up to your potential and therefore are in some sense a failure. To be a working class in Germany, on the other hand, is considered worthy. The American ruling elite told average Americans that working class jobs were undesirable and so sent most of our manufacturing jobs overseas, but Germany maintained it’s manufacturing jobs and through unionization made sure those jobs had good benefits.
Sadly, the American Dream will forever remain a dream for most Americans… and yet few Americans seem to understand why the American Dream has been dying

jejet: Germany is 1/5 the size of the US and yet has the second highest trade surplus in the world (after China). They’ve accomplished this while having higher rate of unionization and higher pay. According to conservative ideology, socialist practices and union power should destroy the economy and destroy innovation and yet the complete opposite is the result.

Which is more favourable; capitalism or socialism

Trade surplus doesn't say much. In the very least, you should analyze the balance of payments based on individual drivers. If an economy is shrinking and household consumption is falling, average imports may fall well below exports and the country might end up posting a trade surplus.


You should look at per capita income when comparing these countries. This is a better determinant of the quality of life enjoyed by citizens of these country. Nigeria, a developing country (and i use that term, loosely), posted a trade surplus of 68 billion as at last year, the US posted a deficit of 784 billion, Yet Nigeria ranks below average on a world scale when compared with per capita income.

Of what use then is your trade surplus if your citizens cannot feed properly or live decently by worldwide standards?

America's economy is dominated by 70% of businesses that are sole proprietorship. It is hard to argue that the Americfan dream is simply a Myth!

Of course, the German economy is not shrinking, but I won't say German household consumption is rising (rather say stable). Germans are not high consumers and it really depends on the EU and USA to consume the product it produce. That does not deny the fact that the economy is expanding even when domestic consumption is not increasing. American is losing manufacturing because it can’t compete against cheap Chinese labor. But Germany has remained a manufacturing giant notwithstanding the rise of East Asia, making high-end products with a workforce that is more unionized and better paid.
The typical German company has a long-term relationship with a single bank — and for the smaller manufacturers that are the backbone of the German economy, those relationships are likely with one of Germany’s 431 savings banks, each of them a local institution with a municipally appointed board, that shun capital markets and invest their depositors’ savings in upgrading local enterprises.

@Bookface,
No, I'm not comparing the National GDPs, Reserves and political strength of this two countries. I'm concerned about the impacts of the two different systems on their citizens. Of course, Germany will never rival super power with the US; moreover, the US military is in Germany and Japan since WW2 after bombing them into into oblivion, the US funded the rebuilding of these countries (Marshall Plan) which led to their present state of economic prosperity. Germany and Japan hasn't had to spend their own money on military to any great extent because the US has militarily protected them. May be the world has good reasons to be a bit wary of Germany’s (and Japan’s) ability to build threatening militaries.
The question is; Does capitalism prevail over socialism?

There's been several pages of arguments written on this subject that if rolled up in boxes, could fill the earth. I personally favor a mixed economy, but will probably lean more towards capitalism than socialism. Free market works best if everyone else practices the same. The US emerged as a superpower more than a hundred years ago due to a well defined rule of law, an adequate education system and a free market economy that facilitated the growth of a middle class.

The formula is really simple:
Free markets + rule of law+ education + fiscal responsibility + resources = sustainable success
Socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature.

In reality the debate is not between socialism and free enterprise. Rather it’s between two forms of corporatism, America-style and European-style. You get the idea. “German socialism” and “social democracy” would not be effective scare words in American politics if people understood that they mean “free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments — while their white-collar American counterparts struggle to pay for the same.”

jejet: In reality the debate is not between socialism and free enterprise. Rather it’s between two forms of corporatism, America-style and European-style. You get the idea. “German socialism” and “social democracy” would not be effective scare words in American politics if people understood that they mean “free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments — while their white-collar American counterparts struggle to pay for the same.”

Naturally, I may be biased because I have lived all my adult life in the UK but I feel the devotion to social responsibility ,underpinning the character of some European nations, promotes more effective nationhood that , representatively, meets the basic needs of more citizens than overt devotion to capitalism will ever be able to do. I think it would probably be more accurate to categorize the leanings of some European nations as socio-capitalism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism

Social capitalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social capitalism (Socio-capitalism), as a theory or political or philosophical stance, challenges the idea that the capitalist system is inherently antagonistic to the goals of socialism.[1] The essence of social capitalism is that markets work best and output is maximized through sound state management of the macroeconomy. Social capitalism posits that a strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. Social capitalism also posits that government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation.[2]
In early 2009, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called for a new economic approach that he termed "social capitalism" which includes "a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate."[3]
The scholarly roots of social capitalism seem to be in Kees van Kersbergen's landmark study of European economies, entitled Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State.[4] Van Kersbergen identifies social capitalism as the "common kernel" of the European welfare state and situates social capitalism as a "middle way" between socialist collectivism and neo-liberal individualism.[5] The text of Kees van Kersbergen's "Social Capitalism" is available on google books.[6]
Another exposition of social capitalism is Robert Corfe's three volume set entitled Social Capitalism: In Theory and Practice.[7] Corfe's vision of social capitalism is fully consistent with the above sources: he decries "untrammelled capitalism;" he calls for policy based upon empirical evidence instead of the ideological speculation; and he views a core value of social capitalism "to realise the full potential of those from every background according to their ability and inclination." He therefore "repudiates any measures influenced by class bias."[8]
Concurring with the recession beginning in 2008, increased activity of the terms Social capitalism and "socio-capitalism" occurred on the internet and in the blogosphere.

I agree with you. I will say European style would fit the term social-capitalism because of its contribution towards welfarism. I'll like to use the term agressive capitalism for the American style of economy.

Gbawe:

Naturally, I may be biased because I have lived all my adult life in the UK but I feel the devotion to social responsibility ,underpinning the character of some European nations, promotes more effective nationhood that , representatively, meets the basic needs of more citizens than overt devotion to capitalism will ever be able to do. I think it would probably be more accurate to categorize the leanings of some European nations as socio-capitalism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism