Why socialism is bad

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I do say it is relevant. No, capitalism isn't based upon that assumption, that is either ignorant or a strawman. There are fields such as informational economics that are based upon the assumption that people do not have complete and accurate information, and the capitalistic argument against socialism was one based upon lacking information and the idea of capitalism as an information finding process. Not only that, but even when that assumption is upheld, it is upheld as an assumption based upon the model in question.


500 years ago? 500 years ago we had sporadic cases of the black death roaming around? Accidental? I doubt that, there would not be these measures if there weren't economic growth. Not only that, but Cuba had a good health care system before the revolution and puts effort into that health care system.

You are blaming capitalism for the provision of public goods and a lack of government work? I am not sure that I really see the argument as necessarily that valid. Economic profit is not going to be useful if you have non-profit provision of resources. Frankly, I would argue that most of the systems that you mention have significant non-profit based elements to them which would lead them to not reflect capitalism necessarily, as health care is heavily regulated(I believe an economist article I can't find at this point, found that there were about a hundred billion or so dollars lost from bad regulatory policies) and insurance is effectively subsidized, and essentially the system just has been mangled.

There's nothing moral or efficient about designing products to fall apart quickly, but there is definitely something profitable about it. There's nothing moral or efficient about buying patents to prevent the need for existing services becoming obsolete but there is definitely something profitable about it. Child labour isn't moral but it is profitable. Cigarette advertising, well thank heavens for small mercies but you can see where capitalism goes unfettered.

That the world is more productive now is down to a combination of technological advances and a significant increase in the number of hours worked per capita. Benefits to the quality of life are squandered, as increases in efficiency result in a creation of more meaningless work (society is not benefitted from advancements in market research). If we must grow towards where production is really desired then we should do away with all the systems designed to subvert desires.

Socialism works for me. Except for the "social" part of it.

All I "Desire" is pretty much what I'm already doing - minus people talking to me when I'm annoyed.

Subjective opinion - for what it's worth.

I live in Sweden, in case you didn't notice.

False. In case you haven't noticed, no one suffers from smallpox today, which was endemic 500 years ago. And Cubans are healthier than Americans (if at all) only because we have unhealthy lifestyles in America (little exercise, fatty diet, etc). And when have we made any attempt to destroy Cuban infrastructure? The trade embargo attacked their economy, but any action taken against their infrastructure would have been an overt act of war and I'm sure I would have heard about that by now.


Yes, but most of what has been said is demonstratably false and largely inspired by the anti-American socialist propaganda of Michael Moore. America has the best doctors in the world. We have the best medical treatment in the world. Feel free to compare cancer mortality rates in America to those in Great Britain. Read, and find out what happened to 13000 elderly French during a heat wave in the summer of 2003 when their medical system wasn't prepared to help them. Find out about the long waits to receive medical care, often until it is too late, in many socialist medical systems. There are flaws in our medical system, but not nearly so many as Moore makes out and not as many as in other countries.

Yes it is. That is the fundamental premise of capitalism, as exemplified here:

Capitalism is the only economic system to frankly acknowledge the imperfections of human nature and turn those flaws to the betterment of society. Socialism imagines a virtuous and nonexistent person to be the norm, and bases all of its analysis on that.

Capitalism is the only economic system to frankly acknowledge the imperfections of human nature and turn those flaws to the betterment of society. Socialism imagines a virtuous and nonexistent person to be the norm, and bases all of its analysis on that.
Wrong, Capitalism is unusual precisely because it does not make allowances for the imperfections of human nature. In Capitalism we work for the benefit of others and when it is no longer in their interest to keep us alive we starve to death, these things have happened before, are happening now and will happen again. The point of socialism is precisely to ensure it is always in the farmers best interest to provide food, if people starve then that is a failure, in Capitalism it's profit. In Capitalism it is better for food to be scarce which is why people are employed to destroy it.

Ok, you are right, there is nothing moral or efficient about it, that is why some products have warranties. I would even argue that it would not be product, if I got a shoddy product somewhere I would sure as heck go to the competitor. I am not sure that such would really be that profitable, if you had a better way to do something then you could do it and charge extra. Child labor is questionable, I will not go either way on its morality, but in the areas where it is profitable, children usually don't have better opportunities and the money is necessary, so I would not necessarily blame capitalism for that. Cigarette advertising is advertising, it can't force people to buy a product.


In all of the nations involved?? No, the last part is false, we have had many nations decrease the number of hours worked significantly. It is mostly technological advances and improvements in capital. Unless you are including the newly developing nations in your assessment, but they cannot be responsible for the economic output of developed nations.

I would say that society is benefited from market research, it allows for advertisement to better suit the audiences.

Yeah, I guess I am more cynical towards the notion that advertisement has a lot of impact on true preferences.

Sweden isn't socialist.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_e ... ic-freedom
If you'll note on this ranking, originally compiled by the conservative Heritage institution, Sweden is #11 on the most economically free nations and beats out much of Europe and the rest of the world.

EDIT: heh, forgot the link.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 08 Mar 2008, 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is there much of a difference? If society works for the benefit of others under a system where work keeps us alive, then it would seem superior.

No, the point of socialism really has very little to do with incentives and everything to do with distribution. People don't profit from goods that haven't been sold. Frankly, you are confusing ideas by people such as FDR with capitalism. In corporate welfare it is the best that products be made to be destroyed, in capitalism they are made to be sold, frankly, we could get scarcity if we chose to never have the subsidized overproduction in the first place.

1. We have not increased the number of hours worked per capita. We have decreased it significantly, hence the rise in leisure.
2. Those technological advances are due to capitalism. Edison didn't invent stuff for the good of society, he did it for his own personal gain. And yet he did end up benefitting society greatly. Score for Capitalism.

You clearly do not understand capitalism. Under capitalism, it is in the farmers best interest to provide food- otherwise they would not be able to purchase the goods and services they need. We work for the benefit of others in return for them working to our benefit- this mutual exchange entices both parties to provide for the other. When it is no longer in "their" interest to keep us alive- we find someone else to whom we can be of use, and they ensure that we are kept alive. This is what normal people call a "job." We work for someone, they pay us, we use the money for whatever we need. Our employer no longer needs us, we get fired, we look for a new job so that we will still have money.

Economics is not a science



What's surgery but a number of precision steps following an algorithm?

In other words, given a programmed automaton following a decision tree what's the difference between a dumb machine and a surgeon?



Is it? Economics is like solving an academic puzzle without actually asking whether the puzzle has anything to do with reality. As said before it entirely stupid because it doesn't take into account anything beside production quantity at an average.

Prove to me that economics isn't a scholastic exercise like finding the number of angels on the head of a pin by giving me the equation that genocide and the recycling of human meat for consumption isn't also economical. From stories I've heard, human meat tastes like chicken so however the future may develop, I get to taste some great teriyaki.



Proof?

I've heard of some math doctorates and physics doctorates that believe in creationism and searching through the torah for secret messages from God. They must really be geniuses.

Well, I think the mentality expressed by the video is that social sciences aren't sciences.


No, it is a number of precision steps with heuristics involved. Not all people cut the same, nor do all people have the same precision. If surgery were so simple than anyone could do it.


It really depends on how well the machine is programmed. If we program it right then they could be perfect substitutes.


This is because that is what economists had decided to do as a basis for their statistics. Frankly, the problem you note is not necessarily a problem with economics itself but rather with the methodology used and an expression of a desire for better statistics taking.


Honestly, I think that all academic exercises are full of pointlessness. If you are speaking of a relationship to reality, once again, I point to statistics and the desire to create predictive models. We can say that some of these models fail, but so long as there is the desire to use empirical data that seems relevant to the problem at hand and a desire to do so fruitfully then it seems the real of pseudo-science is not one that economics falls into.

No, you disprove. I cannot prove that there are no technocrat/economists, however, I can claim that 3 of the major founders/leaders of technocracy don't have an economics background. I can claim that I have not seen a good, deep, meaningful critique of the neoclassical model from a technocrat. And I can claim that it is not a right-wing movement.


Ok. I did not argue about the intelligence of those individuals, however, you do criticize economists for not being engineers and scientists, but having a background in those fields would seem to indicate that the economists do have a background in a hard science, but still find meaning in economic theory. This seems especially true given that most of the people listed were major economic theorists.

what?

sorry my bad, carry on.

Good point. I guess my only issue is who gets the benefits, which is ultimately going to end up being a thorny issue for any society.



No, not really, yes corporate welfare further incentivises this but corporations will perform these actions without government incentives. They wouldn't be destroyed at the same point or in the same scale but it would still happen. And while corporate welfare is a ill conceived solution, it's an ill conceived solution to something that should be a benefit not a problem.



Cartelism reduces the power to punish companies for making shoddy goods somewhat, the benefit of confusing media noise copes with the rest. Which brands of razor aren't designed to go blunt after a couple of months?




Abusing people because of their place of birth is something I just consider intrinsically wrong.



I don't draw any moral line between deceiving someone into a course of action and forcing them into it. No-one is forced to join pyramid schemes, or any one of a million scams out there. Does that make them right? If not how is this any better?




Uh, so? Advertisements suit the audience better, so it is cheaper for comapnies to target ads. Ultimately this means more of your purchasing decisions will be down to what advert you have seen. Where is the benefit?