I recently had a political discussion with a few people that believed Socialism would be a superior system in the United States than Capitalism. The people were extremely left-wing, but I would like to ask TWW to weigh in on the subject...would, or could, the USA benefit from switching to a socialist government, or any other type of government for that matter?

5/17/2007 5:36:55 PM

dear god

5/17/2007 5:38:46 PM

^that's what I said.

5/17/2007 5:39:14 PM

if an american wants to live in a socialist country, they ought to move out of america to a socialist country

5/17/2007 5:40:37 PM

unless of course most americans want to live in a socialist country.

5/17/2007 5:41:40 PM

which they dont

5/17/2007 5:43:37 PM

that's arguable

regardless of what most of them would say if directly asked

5/17/2007 5:48:05 PM

i just figure most rational people would prefer the US over say Syria, North Korea, Libya, etc

5/17/2007 5:53:30 PM

^what does that have to do with the discussion?

and socialism isn't a form of government. It's a type of economic system.

5/17/2007 6:00:33 PM

Apparently most of the population wants "free" healthcare.

So that's where we are headed.

5/17/2007 6:05:33 PM

^^they're socialist countries...can you name me one socialist country that appeals to you to live in?

and its an economic system that is significantly intertwined with the govt...you cant just say it "isn't a form of government"

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 6:06 PM. Reason : ^^]

5/17/2007 6:06:05 PM

Syria and Libya aren't socialist countries.

here are a few socialist countries for you to put your teeth into

Germany, France, Belgium, UK, Sweden, Norway, etc.

Get the point?

5/17/2007 6:11:46 PM

Quote :

"here are a few socialist countries for you to put your teeth into Germany, France, Belgium, UK, Sweden, Norway, etc."

Odd, not one of the countries you listed would be classified as "Socialist" by anyone knowing the definition of the term. They are best described as "Welfare States", since more than 80% of their respective economies are dominated by free enterprise agents, what you might call "the private sector", operating in self-directed product markets.

If your definition of "Socialism" includes any of the countries you listed then your definition of "Socialism" must include the United States of America. Our "Public Sector" constitutes a larger share of national production than many of those you listed. Specifically, some have privatised education, some have privatised postal services, etc. etc.

There are many countries that have a dominant public sector; such as Cuba, North Korea, Mexico, and most of the third world.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/17/2007 6:20:04 PM

I think people collude communism and socialism too easily. I believe that ^^ is right in that there are a lot of good western european countries with socialized programs and also much more fair and representative political systems.

5/17/2007 6:26:59 PM

^^^Germany - has aspects of a socialist economy but also promotes competition and free enterprise

France - highest % of GDP spending of G-7 countries, huge deficit, sky-high unemployment

Belgium - half of Belgium is socialist, the other half is not...guess which half has an unemployment rate of ~20%

The UK hasnt been socialist since the 1940s

Sweden and Norway are the only true socialist countries you named...of course Sweden is privatizing a lot of their largest industries, and Norway's taxation and cost of living are through the roof

and Syria and Lybia are most definitely socialist

i figure anyone who understand the Tragedy of the Commons realizes that socialism is another utopian ideal that sounds good but doesnt work

5/17/2007 6:30:08 PM

But really, it doesn't even sound good...

5/17/2007 6:45:29 PM

TreeTwista10, you have made the exact same error nutsmakr did.

Let me put it another way. In the United Kingdom, government spending makes up a large share of GDP, but the majority of that money is spent purchasing private sector goods. From the perspective of employment, Britain has a labor force of 31.1 million, 5.831 million of which work in the public sector. As such, Britain's public sector employs only 18.7% of the nations workforce.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=407

And what do we get when we compare this to the United States? It isn't that different, just under 15%. So, please, stop calling Europe socialist unless you are willing to lay the same title upon the United States of America.

http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,2340,en_2649_37457_2408769_1_1_1_37457,00.html

5/17/2007 6:54:19 PM

Quote :

"i figure anyone who understand the Tragedy of the Commons realizes that socialism is another utopian ideal that sounds good but doesnt work"

only because they have to compete with capitalistic countries that outsource industry, look the other way on illegal labor, cut benefits, manipulate policy and skirt environmental regulations (in essence cheating our citizens to grow unsustainably).

5/17/2007 6:58:50 PM

^^By socialist, I imply socialized programs.

you cannot deny a true state pension program, a real healthcare program etc.

I don't lump socialism and communism together because they shouldn't be.

5/17/2007 7:05:01 PM

So you are just making up your definition of socialism as you go along?

lets try wikipedia:

Quote :

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production. "

5/17/2007 7:07:15 PM

check the definition of broad array.

5/17/2007 7:08:15 PM

Quote :

"lets try wikipedia:"

let's not.

anyone who uses wikipedia as a serious reference is either stupid or insane.

talk about "making up [shit] as you go along"








[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2007 7:16:20 PM

Since when is the soap box serious?

I'm not writing dissertations in here.

5/17/2007 7:17:45 PM

you're the one challenging him on his definition.

if thats the best you got, go back to chit chat.




[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 7:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2007 7:18:14 PM

Quote :

"i figure anyone who understand the Tragedy of the Commons realizes that socialism is another utopian ideal that sounds good but doesnt work"

haha I guess you learned a new term

too bad you didn't learn how to use it right

common goods exist in any economic system and the tragedy of the commons and failure to account for externalities are just as big of a problem in capitalist societies as they are in any other economic system

but I apologize if I ruined your chance to feel smart, continue

5/17/2007 8:42:46 PM

no i learned about the tragedy of commons years ago in school

your communist socialist views dont allow you to realize that theres more incentive to maintain something thats privately owned (in a capitalist economy) than something that everybody (nobody) owns in a socialist economy, but please, try to convince yourself otherwise

5/17/2007 8:46:03 PM

haha

you think a capitalist system doesn't have common goods

what class did you hear that term in, and why didn't you attend anymore than that one class so you could learn what relationship totc has on economics and common goods?

5/17/2007 8:54:28 PM

who is saying a capitalist system doesnt have common goods? a capitalist system obviously has less common goods than a socialist system

or you can just try to make more dumb jokes

5/17/2007 8:58:46 PM

I wouldnt mind a little bit of socialist programs and aspects adopted in the United States. Obviously, not full out socialism, but there really arent too many countries that have 100% socialism. More of hybrid socialist/capitalist society wouldnt be bad, however.

5/17/2007 9:11:06 PM

People who are for socialism are either...

A) Too lazy to provide for themselves
B) Too stupid to provide for themselves

or, in a much smaller group...

C) Really, Truly, are not capable of providing for themselves

5/17/2007 9:24:50 PM

Quote :

"They are best described as "Welfare States"

I think L-Snark has got it pegged here. I see socialism as when the means of production are privately owned, but their course is set by the gov't. That is the gov't regulates your industry so tightly that you cannot do anything the fearless leader doesn't want you to do.

So since the "People" own the trees, gov't regulates timber. If your newspaper starts printing pro-liberty op-eds Surprise! no paper for you!


The welfare state is much closer to what Europe and the U.S. are spiralling into. Once people realize that they can vote themselves goodies from the gov't, you've got yourself a welfare state. Soon..fewer and fewer people are producing while more and more people are consuming.

Eventually Atlas will shrug, and you'll have to come up with a new country.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 9:30:46 PM

^^ Idiot!

5/17/2007 10:14:06 PM

Quote :

"a capitalist system obviously has less common goods than a socialist system"

Well obviously there must be some way we deal with handling these common goods, correct?
But just to help you out, what you are trying to talk about is called the "Free Rider Dillema". It's just a problem that must be solved by any economic system, it's not any kind of end-all-be-all.

Quote :

"People who are for socialism are either... A) Too lazy to provide for themselves B) Too stupid to provide for themselves or, in a much smaller group... C) Really, Truly, are not capable of providing for themselves"

There are also those of us that feel that if properly managed, we could take full advantage of economies of scale.

5/17/2007 10:39:48 PM

ahhh yes. "properly managed." aka, pipe dream. it'll never be properly managed, because power of any sort corrupts. thus the problem w/ socialism.

5/17/2007 10:43:28 PM

wouldn't that problem exist with democracy as well?

if so, why is it so prevelent?

5/17/2007 10:50:31 PM

eh, easier to get rid of something that doesn't control you 100% yet... yet...

5/17/2007 11:11:57 PM

Quote :

"There are also those of us that feel that if properly managed, we could take full advantage of economies of scale."

You mean you and these fellows?

5/17/2007 11:28:48 PM

Quote :

"There are also those of us that feel that if properly managed, we could take full advantage of economies of scale."

Kris has yet to be introduced to the concept of "diseconomies of scale"


It is why in a free enterprise system monopolies cannot be maintained; and why a state-run monopoly impoverishes the whole nation.

5/17/2007 11:43:27 PM

Quote :

"It is why in a free enterprise system monopolies cannot be maintained; and why a state-run monopoly impoverishes the whole nation."

Why is that? The only thing that I can think of that would cause the reverse in efficiency is that the monopoly would either be spending money to actively keep others out, which would be dumb, if they could maintain their monopoly by continuing to innovate.

In a socialist society, they wouldn't have to actively keep others out, and could produce as much as they needed without running in to those extra costs.

5/17/2007 11:51:49 PM

haha gg, b

5/18/2007 1:02:09 AM

5/18/2007 1:21:24 AM

Quote :

"The people were extremely left-wing. . . ."

MisterGreen

/thread

5/18/2007 2:02:32 AM

Quote :

"if an american wants to live in a socialist country, they ought to move out of america to a socialist country"

It may be a good system in theory, but the human element of greed makes it a practical impossibility.

5/18/2007 2:06:28 AM

Rings true of pure capitalism as well.

5/18/2007 2:27:41 AM

Quote :

"eh, easier to get rid of something that doesn't control you 100% yet... yet..."

But I thought power corrupts, or perhaps it doesn't neccesarily?

Quote :

"Kris has yet to be introduced to the concept of "diseconomies of scale""

Oh I know diseconomies of scale, I also know how few industries actually have diseconomies of scale, additionally I know that many of the components to diseconomies of scale, like cannibalization, would not apply to what I am discribing.

Quote :

"It is why in a free enterprise system monopolies cannot be maintained; and why a state-run monopoly impoverishes the whole nation."

How long have we had a diamond monopoly? Or I suppose you could always say that it can't be maintained.

Quote :

"It may be a good system in theory, but the human element of greed makes it a practical impossibility."

A very simplistic idea.

5/18/2007 2:55:15 AM

Salisburyboy, I mean, hooksaw, you are hopelessly trolling again. The "Green" in my name is not in reference to any political party.

5/18/2007 3:06:31 AM

Quote :

"How long have we had a diamond monopoly? Or I suppose you could always say that it can't be maintained."

Technically we don't have a diamond monopoly. If you are willing to accept artificial diamonds then there are hundreds of manufacturers competing fiercely on price; the problem is most consumers want the real thing from the ground. That said, I will concede that resource monopolies are possible given the right circumstances if you concede that production monopolies, requiring little more than land/labor/capital, cannot be maintained much beyond the point of optimal size.

Quote :

"Why is that? The only thing that I can think of that would cause the reverse in efficiency is that the monopoly would either be spending money to actively keep others out, which would be dumb, if they could maintain their monopoly by continuing to innovate."

Not at all. The most obvious source of dis-economy is technical: a single automotive assembly line can only move so fast, limiting the possible production. Once this point is reached you have no choice but to duplicate it, doubling production but not gaining any additional economy.

But once this happens, the company owners must now divide their attention between the two lines; or four lines; or ten. Where-as if the company only owned one assembly line the owners could dedicate their attention to overseeing the workers are happy and working hard, now they must employ managers to manage each floor; as the scope and scale of the company grows ever larger bureaucracy will be needed, to varying effect. First is the actual cost of employing company bureaucrats to manage the different divisions, second is the principle agent problem; managers do not reap the benefits when productivity increases; while the owners do not possess the information available to the managers.

This is where economists get the theory of optimal firm size. A restaurant is one extreme, where employees are usually low paid and low skill, requiring constant supervision. This drives the average firm size way down, since a restaurant usually only operates at peak quality and efficiency with a motivated owner/manager on-site. As such, most restaurants operate as franchises such that there is one owner for each restaurant (with exceptions; in my home town all five burger kings were owned by one family, with one family member managing each one). Firms which try to manage dozens or hundreds of restaurants soon find themselves losing business to smaller competitors better able to provide the attention demanded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/buseconomics/diseconomies.htm

[Edited on May 18, 2007 at 8:54 AM. Reason : lnks]

5/18/2007 8:51:25 AM

Quote :

"Technically we don't have a diamond monopoly. If you are willing to accept artificial diamonds then there are hundreds of manufacturers competing fiercely on price;"

that's not a diamond, now is it

5/18/2007 11:19:23 AM

De Beers has a worldwide diamond monopoly...wtf does that have to do with an individual country's economy

5/18/2007 11:25:36 AM

if you don't like Amuurica you can GET OUT!

5/18/2007 11:45:06 AM