The recent understanding of socialism is still suffering from the Cold War hangover, where socialism is deliberately confused with state capitalism. Its made worse by the erroneous 'government=socialism' drivel spawned by a non-economic approach to the subject. But can we refer to a genuine economic problem with socialism?
If you really want an economic discussion, provide a detailed description of "socialism". Describe the firm Describe the market Describe the role of government Describe how entrepeneurship is funded Describe what drives innovation Describe the level employment Describe productivity Describe "welfare"
That socialism in the United States would require centralized power, and all centralized power whether government, or private industry is inherently corrupting!
It wouldn't. We'd expect central government in the consideration of market failures (such as public good provision). However, we have that now. Where else is this centralised power? Sounds like you've created an argument based on the early days of the socialist calculation debate, where the notion of perfect competition could hypothetically be recreated through economic planning. That's old hat stuff. Worker ownership and control of the means of production only requires the protection of property rights, with firm ownership changed but the market maintained.
That sort of economics that you are describing was tried by Yugoslavia. It has problems. Look it up. I'll give you a summary. When workers control the factory, they are reluctant to hire new people because it means sharing the profits with more workers. The result is higher unemployment. The second problem is that over the long haul the economy start to fall behind with the rest of the world. A worker controlled factory will not allow labor saving devices because it means unemployment. For example, you might not introduce robots into the assembly line because that means unemployment. So workers will democratically reject robots and other labor saving devices The result is that products will not be produced at lower cost. If foreign competitors do adopt the labor saving devices, they can undercut the worker run companies. So then in order to survive, the country has to throw up trade barriers in order to survive. And that has problems all their own.
I'd always refer to post-Hayekian market socialism. And no, it hasn't been tried. That doesn't make sense. The decision would be profit-related. If more workers means more profit, then they'd go ahead. Indeed, in terms of criticisms, we'd expect overmanning (with a result with similarities to the 'efficient bargain' in trade union analysis, where preferences are related to compensation and employment) Love the inconsistency. We've gone from 'too few workers' to 'too many'. You'd again had to predict irrationality in decision-making, given the consequences of failing to innovate will be known to all workers. Though of course we'd expect now and then for firms to die, we'd also expect the firm to follow the protection of long term profits. If they do and others don't then they will find that their firm dies. To suggest that they don't take into account such factors is very anti-worker. Your whole argument is based on the worker being stupid.
Try to be relevant to the thread. Socialism doesn't require centralised power. So what on earth are you rambling about?
Nothing to do with socialism. Welfare is, for example, an integral part of capitalism. Teach yourself what socialism means and then get back to me
I'm sure it's great as a fantasy. Doesn't work so well in real life, though. It's either oppressive with too much government control or a total house of cards ready to collapse as a voluntary system. Personally, I don't ever want to be a part of any system that limits how much success one can enjoy.
Sounds like you've just taken false notions of socialism and used that to blinker your mind. Not a cunning idea! This is ignorant. Socialism eliminates class restrictions. It provides a means to achieve the success you deserve
And how did I know this was coming? Can't help but notice that all you've done is deride people for not knowing your definition of what you want us to think of as socialism. Would you care to explain it in detail and illustrate how it works, Dr. Reiver? Oh? So I could still be Bill Gates or Warren Buffett under your socialist system?
You've come out with the usual garbage. You can't blame me for that! Socialism provides for a vibrant political economic analysis. The definition is simple: worker ownership and control of the means of production. However, I favour a post-Hayekian analysis that celebrates individualism and the market (with government primarily motivated by protecting rational property rights). Did you misunderstand the notion of 'deserve'? - - - Updated - - - Worker ownership, with government focused only on protection of property rights. There is no centralisation. Indeed, given the likelihood of a more stable macroeconomy, the role of central government is actually restricted further
But people can already do that now voluntarily under a capitalist system. Why the need to force this on companies that don't want to be part of it? Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Would you like to explain your definition of "deserve?" I get the feeling you're about to drop a bombshell on me.
Capitalism is built on exploiting economic rents. The labour contract is, by definition, both exchange and coercion. Socialism eliminates the latter. And it needs force only in terms of protecting property rights (such that workers receive the value of their labour) Deserve would be associated with two factors: entrepreneurial spirit and supply/demand criteria. Capitalism doesn't do deserve, as shown by underpayment, underemployment and involuntary unemployment (and also social immobility where class, rather than individualism, dictates economic outcome)
It is clear you don't understand entrepeneurship. It isn't just information, it is the ability to see opportunities in that information that no one else does, and the risk tolerance to exploit it. Very few of those employed at Microsoft, could have created Microsoft. As a soon to be example, we will find out how Apple fares without the vision of Steve Jobs. I say sales start to slump in a year or less. And, as a matter of fact, Bill, Warren, and Steve got what they earned (deserved).
You just explained how this works, when we get to the end game. How is this implemented without centralized power?
I'm referring to Hayek's output. You just don't realise, given your blind attacks, that the notion of tacit knowledge is about creating opportunity. Did laugh at the "don't understand entrepreneurship" though, given my occupation. You still make me laugh! - - - Updated - - - Its merely about protecting property rights. I've already told you that haven't I?
So how do you take what other people already have, and give it to the workers and communities without centralized power? Who then is in charge of managing these assets without centralized power?
Again, you merely protect property rights. A firm is often worthless without workers (and actually with negative value in some cases). Compensation for entrepreneurial endeavor is all that is required.
You are such a tool! Do you really think people read your posts and think you have a clue what you are talking about? You don't ever say anything when challenged on the specifics of your claims!
I do expect a level of economics knowledge. Are you struggling with the notion of the protection of property rights? I know, I know, such a complex notion!
The fact that you think, forcing the conversation back to your point, without addressing mine, doesn't make you look foolish, is awe inspiring to me!
