Socialism is great?

[Fletch]

So.. you are saying socialism contributed to the post war economic boom?

Would that make an answer to the question... USA?

Absolutely. The USA is the most successful socialist country. The problem is that it's unsustainable. We've managed to drag it out through various means, but it ends in the same place.

 

[BumpShadow]

You cannot name a country where socialism was tried and actually increased the standard of living for the people. It has failed every time it has been tried. The whole "It just didn't get implemented right" theory is why we can't get rid of it and it keeps going on and on like the energizer bunny.

Denmark, actually. But it works because because its a small country, and everyone in that counrty has basically the same needs. It won't work here because what works well in the city doesn't translate well to the counrtyside. Different needs.

 

[Fletch]

But so did China, and to an extend Germany, and the US during the wars...

No, these countries got where they are in spite of their anti-market policies. FDR's fascist socialism almost killed us. China is not generally pro-market, historically speaking, though they are improving -- slowly. Germany grew by literally growing -- invading other countries and confiscating their resources.

 

[Fletch]

It's important to remember that economic freedom is a spectrum, not a binary condition. It's not either "free market" or "socialism". There's a scale involved. Some markets are extremely free, some extremely unfree. Software is my favorite example of a largely free market. Healthcare is headed toward the other end of the scale. Utilities like electricity are almost completely unfree, though as I've noted, the lack of freedom is of a particular model of socialism.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Taxing citizens to bid contracts to selected companies to build roads controlled by the government is socialism. In that sense, socialistic policy does stimulate our economy.

I think the notion that it is not sustainable is spot on... but no monetary system is sustainable in the long term... Every system has to be changed at some point.

Most large industrialized countries are a mix of multiple forms of economic policy - free market and socialism. To attribute growth to only one form would be an over simplification.

 

[Fletch]

Taxing citizens to bid contracts to selected companies to build roads controlled by the government is socialism. In that sense, socialistic policy does stimulate our economy.

I think the notion that it is not sustainable is spot on... but no monetary system is sustainable in the long term... Every system has to be changed at some point.

Most large industrialized countries are a mix of multiple forms of economic policy - free market and socialism. To attribute growth to only one form would be an over simplification.

The things that government does can be said to have created growth and wealth, but they cannot have created growth or wealth beyond that which the market would have done. The question to ask is not "how much wealth did this government action create", but "how much more would have been created if government had simply allowed the people to keep their money and the market to work?"

 

[McKinney19D]

Socialism works when you take away the human element.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The things that government does can be said to have created growth and wealth, but they cannot have created growth or wealth beyond that which the market would have done. The question to ask is not "how much wealth did this government action create", but "how much more would have been created if government had simply allowed the people to keep their money and the market to work?"

So what do you believe the answer to that question is...

Would our market have grown and prospered as much without the international highway system?

Did that social policy stimulate economic growth?

Would those roads have existed without government intervention?

Since no governments are strictly "socialist" or "free market"... and each enacts to some degree socialist and free market policies... would it be fair to say that in both cases certain policies can stimulate economic growth?

 

[Fletch]

So what do you believe the answer to that question is...

Would our market have grown and prospered as much without the international highway system?

Economics tells us unequivocally that the nation would have created more wealth without that government program than it did with it. The wealth would undoubtedly have taken a different form, and many things that rose out of that program might not exist, but there is no doubt that we would be wealthier.

Did that social policy stimulate economic growth?

No, it retarded growth by some portion, and focused and redirected what was left into a system that the government thought was best. The negative impact is not just in confiscated tax dollars and what other wealth they might have been used to create, but also in the transportation and growth alternatives that were eliminated from consideration by the act of creating the system.

Would those roads have existed without government intervention?

Roads would have. "Those" roads, in their exact placement and configuration, likely would not. There was a relatively vast and sophisticated network of private roads in the 1800's, before the government took over the road business. There's little to suggest that this would not have continued and expanded had the government simply found something else to do.

Since no governments are strictly "socialist" or "free market"... and each enacts to some degree socialist and free market policies... would it be fair to say that in both cases certain policies can stimulate economic growth?

There are relatively few policies beyond backing private property and the right to freedom of exchange that can qualify as "free market" policies. 99+% of all policies pull in the direction of socialism, which destroys value and thus wealth. The only way to say that a particular policy "stimulated" growth is to compare it to a policy that would have destroyed even more wealth. Generally speaking, the best thing government can do to stimulate growth is step back out of the way of the market and do nothing at all.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

We may have to agree to disagree about the international highway system promoting growth. Personally, I believe the trucking industry has contributed to the free market in astronomical ways that no other infrastructure for the cost could (especially taking into account available widespread technology at the time of implementation).

Personally, I believe a minimally regulated free market system can lead to more production and demand stimulation than socialist slanted markets... but I believe a stigma exists where growth in socialist economies is not attributed to their market policy.

China is in many ways very much more socialist in market policy than the US - yet everyone talks about how well off their market is comparative to ours. Although I think China will in time create it's own problems - I think attributing growth in free market societies to the free market, and then writing off growth in socialist markets as being "in spite of" their market policies... is somewhat biased of a comparison.

 

[Fletch]

There's no doubt that it is biased. It's biased by my study and knowledge of economics. You might be able to assert that smoking every day is good for a person because look at these smokers who ain't dead yet, but I'm here to tell you that they'd be healthier without it.

 

[indyk]

.

ooops...delete

 

[dross]

Three things, and these are nothing Fletch hasn't already explained.

1. All economies are mixed, to some degree.

2. Looking around and seeing what is, is easy. Seeing what isn't, because of what is, is much more difficult. To see what isn't, you must understand certain proven principles.

3. People constantly fall into the trap of thinking that their version of whatever system they're trying will do better than the same system in the past, because their hearts are more pure and they'll do it better. Any system that requires people to be better than human nature is destined to failure at best.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

There's no doubt that it is biased. It's biased by my study and knowledge of economics. You might be able to assert that smoking every day is good for a person because look at these smokers who ain't dead yet, but I'm here to tell you that they'd be healthier without it.

Asserting that the transportation industry has helped aid economic growth is not the same as asserting that smoking is healthy.

The assertion that the economic policies a country enacts does not attribute to their economic success is unreasonable.

China applies more socialistic policies to their market than many large industrialized countries. Considering the population of China, it is reasonable to say that they do not fall into the category of "small" countries... Yet their market growth is "in spite" of their market policies? Maybe biased is not the best phrase... maybe double standard fits the mold better.

 

[gvbcraig]

ENOUGH

Most of you have not lived under a socialist government where you are considered a criminal because you own land or believe in Christ. Where your grandfather is shot in the head for refusing to turn over his home for the common good, where your father goes to prison for ten years for reading a poetry book about freemen that the government considers subversive to their existence.

You can speculate all you want, but until you and your family have experienced the horrors of such a system, please do not even consider any type of socialism as viable. It simply does not exist.

I am sorry but Americans are sometimes very gullible in thinking that others see right and wrong, and that evil can be negotiated with and is willing to compromise. That does not exist. In a socialist state people are more greedy than in a capitalist environment. In capitalism what is mine is what have worked for, and I have the freedom to achieve anything within my capabilities. In socialism what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine because I said so and I have a gun and you don't.

Sorry for the rant, but obviously these postings hit too close to my heart. My family has been there and we don't want to go back to that type of lifestyle.

God Bless America

 

[right winger]

Socialism is great, until we run out of OTHER people's money. Ya know, the "theory" of socialism is great, it just doesn't work in reality, and that is where most of us live.

I get tired of the "recipient" class always demanding more from my family to support their family.

Just soo tired of all their whining.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Socialism =/= fascism, even though they are commonly mixed...

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Socialist countries give equal treatment to all citizens, regardless of income, race, gender or creed, in medicine, education and culture.

So do we.

 

[Manan]

I don't know if this story is true or not, but it illustrates very well my thoughts on socialism.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A….

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise…..they all failed, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I don't know if this story is true or not, but it illustrates very well my thoughts on socialism.

Did not happen, but illustrates the idea of incentive well.

It does, however, overlook incentive systems in place in socialist models.

If this held perfectly true, socialist countries would not have professionals that studied hard....

Many socialist countries academic standings would prove this idea incorrect.

Not everyone gets the same grade... Grades are still given out, and therefore competition with others existing yields drive. Making publicly known each student's scoring on the test, for example, brings ridicule to those that tested low - creating another reason to study.

People are not told "you can grow up and be anything! An astronaut, a doctor, anything! You are a special snowflake!"... They are mostly told "How you perform will dictate what job we decide you will be worthy of."

Still, a great way of explaining the concept of capitalistic incentive.