hello one question…is it true that in a capitalist economy there can never be full employment? a certain number of unemployed are needed to keep wages and inflation down?
ummm, I don’t see the connection between your poll and your post
so i’m not the only one then
Well there doesn’t have to be unemployment in a capitalist economy, but there always will be. It’s called natural unemployment and includes people who are unemployable, those who do not wish to be employed (but still say they are searching for a job on surveys so they can get social security), people who work less than 5 hours a week or whatever the cut-off number is, and those who are between jobs.
But yes, the greater the level of employment, the higher the wages are going to be (supply/demand) and thus higher inflation (as the labour costs are passed onto consumers).
Good to see I’ve found some use for those 2.5 years of studying economics then…
there was not supposed to be any connexion between the post and the poll. the poll was an afterthought.
but i guess the higher wages dont matter coz the company’s production is also being maximised at the same time…and coz of a lack of labour force to call upon its not like any other company will be able to pay less wages in competition? hmmm in full employment wouldnt the economy stagnate? coz…there will be no competition…there would be just enough workers to spread around…companies couldnt grow and take on new workers coz there arent any new workers unless they steal them from other companies…in that case…the other company would grow smaller and have to…ok im lost…dont shoot me i dont know anything about economics…not my speciality…
… so does this also mean, capitalism is not perfect and communism is in terms of job proficiency… and only less favorable in aspects of conditions and efficiency? However, their is also such a thing as the theory of pure capitalism where everyone works their way up the money ladder and in the process tries to surpass capabilities in a highly competitive environment, and thus leading to motivated performances of the society, wherein their is the maintainance of captilistic loopholes.
Yeah, you answered your own question there.
If we were in a position of full employment competition would be even more fierce. The workers would be paid more (as if the company refused there would be enough demand on the job market for them to move to another company) and thus the business supply-side costs would increase. Less efficient businesses would be forced to pay workers more than they could afford (and thus forced out of business or into bankruptcy) or learn to be more efficient in other areas, thus gaining a new edge on the market.
It’s all about supply and demand. If you can get your head around that, then the rest is easy. 
It could be argued that employment (by necessity) is much higher in a communistic environment, but the efficiency is always going to be sharply lower than the efficiency in a capitalistic market. So long as there is no competition, there is little incentive to be efficient or innovative, and thus - quite simply - less is likely to get done.
But no, capitilism certainly isn’t perfect either.
Theoretically, pure capitalism would offer the greatest supply-side efficiency of any economic system (it’s economic Darwinism here - efficiency = financial fitness, and only the fit survive) but the social trade-offs are immense (hospitals, schools, roads and other low profit areas would be ignored, or if they weren’t then they would be made prohibitively expensive to ensure greater profits for the private owners).
I suppose you could call that the “opportunity cost” of pure-capitalism.