Socialism made simple, why it doesn't work

Page 5 of 6 [ 81 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

11 May 2009, 3:09 pm

mikemmlj wrote:

The highest standards of living in the world according to the UN and the happiest people on Earth are all from Socialist countries

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland,

Those are countries with a mixed economy: On one side you have a capitalist economy, with private enterprise and markets - on the other you have a strong state run sector regarding health, education, social services, transport etc. Those countries are based roughly on the idea that the capitalist system is the most effective system to run a economy, but does lack a social component, so the the surpluses gained with a capitalist system are used up to certain point to pay for the state run system, which in the other way around supports the capitalist system - e.g. in avoiding high costs for health care insurances, providing well educated and trained employees, infrastructure, etc.

Those economies are quite successful, but are in a constant process of re-adjusting public and private task and costs (taxes etc.).

ducasse
Velociraptor

Joined: 9 Jun 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 460

11 May 2009, 3:17 pm

Henriksson wrote:

Dianitapilla wrote:

[ooooo yeaaaah?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

THEN WHY most if not All of the countries before USA in the list of human development index are socialists (already for like the last 60 years or more) and have better life standards than america.

Rank Country HDI
2006 data[3][nb 1] Change compared to 2005 data[nb 1][3]
1 Iceland 0.975 ▲ +0.001
-* Norway 0.972 ▲ +0.001
3* Canada 0.967 ▲ +0.002
4* Australia 0.965 ▲ +0.002
5 Ireland 0.962 ▲ +0.002
6* Netherlands 0.958 ▲ +0.002
7* Sweden 0.958 ▲ +0.001
8* Japan 0.956 ▲ +0.003
9* Luxembourg 0.956 ▲ +0.002
10* Switzerland 0.955 ▲ +0.002
11 France 0.955 ▲ +0.002
12 Finland 0.954 ▲ +0.004
13* Denmark 0.952 ▲ +0.003
14 Austria 0.951 ▲ +0.003
15 United States 0.950 ▬
16* Spain 0.949 ▼ -0.003
17* Belgium 0.948 ▲ +0.003

To be honest, those aren't really socialistic countries, there's capitalism too.

Those majority of those countries could only be called socialist by the standards of shrill, right-wing, American t.v. demagogues.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 May 2009, 4:58 pm

Dianitapilla wrote:

THEN WHY most if not All of the countries before USA in the list of human development index are socialists (already for like the last 60 years or more) and have better life standards than america.

Rank Country HDI
2006 data[3][nb 1] Change compared to 2005 data[nb 1][3]
1 Iceland 0.975 ▲ +0.001
-* Norway 0.972 ▲ +0.001
3* Canada 0.967 ▲ +0.002
4* Australia 0.965 ▲ +0.002
5 Ireland 0.962 ▲ +0.002
6* Netherlands 0.958 ▲ +0.002
7* Sweden 0.958 ▲ +0.001
8* Japan 0.956 ▲ +0.003
9* Luxembourg 0.956 ▲ +0.002
10* Switzerland 0.955 ▲ +0.002
11 France 0.955 ▲ +0.002
12 Finland 0.954 ▲ +0.004
13* Denmark 0.952 ▲ +0.003
14 Austria 0.951 ▲ +0.003
15 United States 0.950 ▬
16* Spain 0.949 ▼ -0.003
17* Belgium 0.948 ▲ +0.003

The leading countries have very few Afro types. That may account for the differential in healthy births and health in general.

There are also cultural factors. The U.S. has terrible eating habits. To much fat, not enough exercise.

ruveyn

sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

11 May 2009, 5:27 pm

Dussel wrote:

mikemmlj wrote:

The highest standards of living in the world according to the UN and the happiest people on Earth are all from Socialist countries

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland,

Mix master topic

In Canada we have a mixed economy with banking controlled by government. No economy based solely on socialism or capitalism works for very long because of inherent weaknesses.

The eclectic approach to politics also works for the best, as well. Sweden is the best example and a role model for the world, but hard to duplicate.

What happened to Kibbutzim?

I guess bad things happen to good practices.

_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

11 May 2009, 5:31 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The discrepancy between African Americans and the rest of the country is only part of the story when it comes to HDI; specifically, the United States has one of the highest wealth inequalities in the civilized world, which I would expect is part of the driving force of the ranking. The US of A ranks as high as possible in the GDP(PPP) per capita index in the 2006 HDI calculations, but is brought down by a mediocre education index number, life span and education enrollment ratio, all of which it trails the average of the top 20. The fact that the United States has is ranked as less developed is a reflection of every level of the HDI's calculations except the GDP(PPP) per capita.

The comments of the above posters about the use of the term socialist are seconded (fourthed? nthed?).

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

11 May 2009, 6:06 pm

sartresue wrote:

In Canada we have a mixed economy with banking controlled by government. No economy based solely on socialism or capitalism works for very long because of inherent weaknesses.

Historically there is no capitalist system developed without state inference or guidance (exception perhaps the US). The initial momentum came from the state by allocating moneys: In France via the redistribution of wealth during the revolution, in England via the destruction of the monasteries. The state was also instrumental via the establishment of capitalist institutions (bourses of Antwerp and London in 16th century. the foundation of the Dutch and British East India Companies, founding of banks), the establishment and development of an appropriate legal system (the adaptation of Roman Law in Europe and the alterations to the Common Law in England).

The idea of an "ideal capitalist system" just does not stand the reality test.

---

An other issue is the social stability of a society: The capital needs stable conditions. If too large parts of the population are impoverished this stability can't be granted, thus of the revolutionary potential of such people. Up to a certain point a system of social security is in the interest of those how pay for it, even they will not directly benefit.

---

But there is also a problem: Such systems had to paid via the output of the capitalist system. If taxes (and other contributions) are too high they will cap the main motor of capitalist system: The human greed. Therefore you have in western European states a never ending debate regarding the extent of social services.

sartresue wrote:

What happened to Kibbutzim?

I can speak for those, but to organize a real socialist system with a group small enough that each one knows each other is easier than within our modern states of millions of citizens. In such a small group inter-human ways of disciplining human work well by day-to-day contact.

Hector
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

12 May 2009, 4:30 pm

"Socialism" in this case is a dangerous word bandied about by right-wing Americans who want to throw in wealthy social democracies with poor countries run by fear. It's vague enough to apply to a plethora of governments, and it appears to have forced people into debating the relative merits of Reaganomics and Castro's Cuba, a false dichotomy.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

12 May 2009, 8:30 pm

Hector wrote:

There is perhaps an important cultural difference of the USA and Western Europe: In the most western European countries the people are used since centuries to paternalistic bureaucracy - which one the side disciplines its citizens, on the other side takes care of their needs. The being of such systems goes also back in 16th century (e.g. the Poor Laws of Elizabeth I, Poor Regulations in German states, etc.).

The USA does not have such history of a care taking state.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 May 2009, 7:53 pm

This is from The Short Reign of Pippin IV by John Steinbeck:

Quote:

"I've never understood America," said the king.

"Neither do we, sir. You might say we have two governments, kind of overlapping. First we have the elected government. It's Democratic or Republican, doesn't make much difference, and then there's corporation government."

"They get along together, these governments?"

"Sometimes," said Tod. "I don't understand it myself. You see, the elected government pretends to be democratic, and actually it is autocratic. The corporation governments pretend to be autocratic and they're all the time accusing the others of socialism. They hate socialism."

"So I have heard," said Pippin.

"Well, here's the funny thing, sir. You take a big corporation in America, say like General Motors or Du Pont or US Steel. The thing they're most afraid of is socialism, and at the same time they themselves are socialist states."

The king sat bolt upright. "Please?" he said.

"Well, just look at it, sir. They've got medical care for employees and their families and accident insurance and retirement pensions, paid vacations--even vacation places--and they're beginning to get guaranteed pay over the year. The employees have representation in pretty nearly everything, even the colour they paint their factories. As a matter of fact, the've got socialism that makes the USSR look silly. Our corporations make the US government seem like an absolute monarchy. Why, if the US government tried to do one-tenth of what General Motors does, Gneral Motors would go into armed revolt. It's what you might call a paradox, sir."

Pippin shook his head. He got up and went to the window and looked down on the tree-shaded Avenue George V. "Can you explain why they do these things?"...

"They don't do it out of kindness, sir. It's just that some of them have found out they can produce and sell more goods that way. They used to fight the employees. That's expensive. And sick workers are expensive. Do you think my father likes to feed his chickens vitamins and cod-liver oil and minerals and keep them warm and dry and happy? Hell, no! They lay more eggs that way. Oh, it wasn't quick and it's far from finished, but isn't it strange, sir, that out of the most autocratic system in the world the only really workable socialism seems to be growing? If my father heard me say that he'd string me up by the thumbs. He thinks he makes the decisions." ...

The king sipped his drink. "These changes didn't come easily?"

"Hell, no. It took about a hundred years and a lot of fighting, and some of it is still going on."

Oggleleus
Deinonychus

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 349

20 May 2009, 2:28 pm

twoshots wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Well then, guess we will have to get the Government run school system to act more like a socialist government run organization for better results so that the USA has a better standing amongst the world. I'm joking of course.

Some may not have a clue about public education here in the US, but it is run by our Govt. and it is a very socialist organization. So much so that, it costs on average $150,000+ to fire a teacher. Along with the recent results of a Mass. teacher exam for new teachers that found only 27% of the test taking teachers could pass the Math portion of the test, then you might start to see the wonders of socialized public education. This is one reason why some have issues with the US Govt. running anything better that the private sector. I stopped going to public school in 6th grade and as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for."

Since, my social security will not be there for me when I need it (theft of property, 5th amendment, what constitution, smonshtitution) the best game in town is working for ye 'ole govt. By the time I am ready to retire, Civil Servants may have the only pension fund that has not been tampered with by the statists...I mean socialists.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

20 May 2009, 2:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

1, the list seems old. Iceland was a nation that really hit the crapper in this economic downturn.

True, but the human development index is based on things like literacy, infant mortality, calorie deficiencies, etc ... the economic downturn in Iceland resulted in more unemployment, but literacy didn't drop precipitously, nor are people starving to death there.

You are also right about the definition of socialism - but it does seem that social democracy or tempering the capitalist system with some redistribution does result in better HDI outcomes than pure market capitalism ideology.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

20 May 2009, 5:05 pm

Oggleleus wrote:

Question: Has this not more to do with the specific way the USA are organizing their state school system: There are numerous countries in which the state run school system out performs the US-System (including the private schools)? It seems more an argument against the US-system than against state run school systems generally.

ChukoTheWarlike
Hummingbird

Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 21

25 May 2009, 2:12 am

heeeeeeelllllllllllllllllppppppppppppppppppppppppp

how can aspies be this stupid

is there an austrian economist in the house

(i guess i'll have to do)

Socialism was utterly defeated by Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics in 1920. All socialist systems that do not incorporate markets or price systems will fail to calculate the value of goods and services, or to efficiently allocate them to those people who need them. Without a price system (and money as a means of extrapolating simple barter transactions into complex economies), an economic system will mismanage resources, leading to massive distortions in the economic structure (for example, Cuba has too many doctors and not enough of everything else), and the resultant inefficiencies will eventually bring down the system.

No socialist system has been able to overcome the calculation problem.

In the case of Latin American socialism, US intervention has kept it on life support; it has provided socialist and nationalist leaders a convenient scapegoat for why their economic policies have been a dismal failure. They can blame their problems (albeit with some justification) on "capitalist USA" meddling in their affairs. If the US had never set foot in Latin America, socialism would have been wholly discredited. But because the US is "capitalist" (hahahaha if you think Bush was a free marketeer you weren't really paying attention), people flock to "socialism".

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

25 May 2009, 4:48 am

ChukoTheWarlike wrote:

heeeeeeelllllllllllllllllppppppppppppppppppppppppp

how can aspies be this stupid

More to the point how can someone can be so f*****g stupid to write this. Oh I forgot Aspies are the next major step forward in evolution :roll:

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

ChukoTheWarlike
Hummingbird

Joined: 26 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 21

25 May 2009, 8:11 am

exactly so why am i walking into a thread and 75% of the posters apologizing for a regressive medievalist philosophy based on a value theory that is to economics what the earth-centric universe is to astronomy (labor theory of value is worthless - do not argue this - marginal utility made Marx quit writing Das Kapital)

and i was joking about that; i thought it was obvious

also if anyone mentions the scandinavian nations as socialist i will laugh as i point out as they are mostly more economically free than the US (more welfare spending but i don't think they have the alphabet soup of bureaucracy we do, and they actually have a semblance of brains when they centrally plan, not that it works there the same way capitalism would)

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

25 May 2009, 9:42 am

Dussel wrote:

The silly original posting does ignore that in real groups the control can be done via social pressure.

True and false.

Social pressure is determined by the majority. In a welfare state, more and more people are getting something for nothing. Those who make that possible shrink to fewer and fewer numbers.

In time, the whole system implodes, and then you revert to fundamental survival where if you don't work, you don't eat, and if you try and take what belongs to the guy next to you, you'll be killed.

In a welfare state (which is socialist in structure), every man has a "right" to what he gets, and there will be no punishment for not being a productive citizen.

Page 5 of 6 [ 81 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Socialism made simple, why it doesn't work Post Reply New Topic

Socialism made simple, why it doesn't work