Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

What on earth could have given you the idea that I was a Trump supporter?? Even Hillary would have been better than Trump. And that's saying something.

 

No, that's price. They are usually close, but can diverge widely. The price of a piece of land the last time it was voluntarily exchanged may be a tiny fraction of its value today.

 

And managers are workers. They don't own the business. Otherwise they are the "business owner". Managers take their marching orders from business owners or CEOs and COOs.

 

Sorry. Not Reagan. George HW Bush. He called supply-side economics "voodoo economics".

I'm so ignorant of these things. Explain to me how the last 10 years were "demand side economics".

- - - Updated - - -

Is our S.S. system "socialism"?
Would a national healthcare system be "socialism"?

 

The left and Obama are full blown Keynesian with overarching bureaucratic control.

Trump seems like he will follow a neoclassical model, which I fully endorse. It contains some Keynesian thought actually, like the infrastructure bill.

 

Collectivism always fails because only selfish people are drawn to it.

No one who is self reliant wants a system that sucks from them.

So obviously on the other hand, you have the people who want something from someone else.

Well, what do you get with those types? Narcissism.

Anyone who believes in it thinks their own version of collectivism is the true form of collectivism.

It gives the ideology the consistency of jello. Where it is impossible to flatten with a blow, forever sticking around, but allows no genuine house to build solely upon its principles.

You'll notice anytime you use a country to point out a flaw, you'll get met with a, "it isn't true socialism!"
Yet, anytime you point out something good about a nation, in comes the leftists to say, "that's the socialism showing!"

Seriously, it's all a joke.

 

Reasonable suggestion. The downside is it reduces the incentive for people to develop new health related solutions.



​

 

And they make decisions.

Your point being what, the STILL make decisions everyday.

Doesn't bely the fact they make decisions everyday, and the higher up the management chain the more critical decisions you make and CEO's and COO's are MANAGERS and not necessary owners and then there are owners who make NO decisions other than when they vote on matters before the stockholders.

So which decisions are you talking about the "workers" should be making that they do not now?

 

You can manufacture a competing product, there have been competitor products, they just went out of business.

Why is that an answer, when have price controls ever worked?

Why not, that is how we get better one goods and services.

How is it a conflict of interest when it requires a company to do a better job than the others else they go out of business?

 

Let's supposed that all attempts to implement socialism failed because it was taken over by greedy capitalists and ruined it. That says more about socialism than whatever took it over. If socialism is THE best system then it should succeed by default. It should be so good that human nature either falls in line with it or fail to currupt it.

 

Socialism succeeds in many countries. Canada, U.K., most of Scandinavia. Pure anything is what fails. Name a successful country that is pure capitalism. Lol

 

Wow. Your memory of history, . . . -or is it your sources of propaganda, . . . are waaaay off and divorced from reality! Let me offer some actual history on that....

In the 1970s oil prices went crazy and produced soaring inflation. Interest rate shot up too and the economy tanked. Employers were forced to cut back production, increasing unemployment. We learned a new word: “stagflation”. So we had conflicting conditions: high inflation needing higher interest rates and a cut in spending. But we also had high unemployment needing lower interest rates and an increase in spending.

At that point the solution was believed to be supply side economics .... cut taxes on the wealthy and the belief was that the wealthy would plow their tax savings back into investments in business and hire unemployed workers. And with more jobs, tax revenue would grow too. And then it would all repeat!

But it didn’t work.

Reagan cut the top tax rate from 75% to 38%. The economy shrank 2%, -worse than any other time since the Depression. Investments declined as a percentage of GDP. And Reagan created the biggest budget deficits in history.

Deficits:
Carter - $77 billion (seemed huge at the time)
Reagan’s first budget - $128 billion
Reagan’s second - $208 billion
Severe economic problems started to develop
Reagan’s last one - $300 billion

The 1980 debt was less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992 it was $4.35 trillion. The debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion but Reagan’s supply side economics quadrupled it. So much for supply side economics. The problem is that investing the savings was not tied to the tax cuts, so the investing never happened. The rich took advantage of the low taxes and took the tax cuts as an increase in income and saved it and got richer. In fact, “Supply Siders” vigorously resisted any tying of tax cuts to any business investment requirements.

Enter Demand Side economics.

Demand side = any tax cuts should go to those who earn the least amount of money because they will spend it all. Hence, a boost to consumer spending.

Clinton reversed Reagan’s “voodoo economics”. He raised taxes on the wealthy and cut them for the middle class. Evey republican voted against it.

The result? The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history and created 22 million new jobs, a record. Unemployment fell to the lowest in 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% and economic growth rose to 4%. For the prior 12 years inflation had averaged 4.7% and average growth had been 2.8%.

Demand side economics of Clinton even reversed the deficits as he paid down the Reagan deficits.

GWBush returned to Supply Side economics. He cut taxes on the rich giving 45% of the benefits of the cut to the top 1%.

The result? GDP growth since the bottom of the 2001 recession to 2006 averaged 2.8% which was lower than the average 3.5% of the prior 6 recoveries since WWII. In that same time period private sector jobs were up only 1%. Investments were up ony 3.6% compared to the 2.8% average for the previous 6 rebounds. By every measure it was the weakest recovery ever. Meanwhile, Bush turned Clinton’s $136 billion surplus into a $158 billion deficit in his first year.

Obama wanted to return to Demand Side economics but the republicans wouldn’t let him. So this recovery has been sluggish and the middle class hasn’t gained anything in Obama’s two terms as a result.

But the righties still rave about the invisible “benefits” of Supply Side economics.

 

Capitalist innovators, inventors, and entrepreneurs wanted patents for protection. They hardly constitute "regulations".

 

Development costs which include the costs of meeting FDA requirements have nothing to do with the ultimate cost of production which must be amortized over the expected lifetime of the product.

Competition prevents prices from going up unchecked. Improved productivity does not mean inferior products. The entire history of increases in the standard of living is the result of increased productivity. And the best way to increase productivity is via the capitalistic economic system.

- - - Updated - - -

Supply side economics.

 

Bush 41 as Reagan's VP was fully on board with supply side economics when he actually understood it. He labeled in voodoo economics in 1980 (actually he only labeled the tax cuts part of supply side policy) when he was running against Reagan for the nomination to run against the incumbent Jimmy Carter. Supply side economics reduces the gov imposed costs of production and lowers tax rates but expands the tax base. Demand side economics transfers wealth from those who create it to those who do not in an attempt to go the economy - it didn't work for Obama and never has worked for anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Bill Clinton's economic policies in his second term were supply side. His chief economic advisor Joe Stiglitz so stated.

 

Nope. Not supply side. No tax cuts for the wealthy. He raised the top dollar tax bracket to 39.6%. The only tax cuts he did were for the middle class. Demand-side economics.

https://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html

http://ampr.gs/2ihJ09h

 

You know more than Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner in economics) ??

Clinton cut cap gains tax rate from 28% to 20%, reduced the size of government (the days of big gov are over), implemented sound monetary policy, implemented free trade (NAFTA), championed welfare reform, and balanced the budget (thanks in part (~25%) to the explosion in fed tax revenues after the cap gains tax rate was lowered).

All of that is itemized in the link you provided. The problem is that you don't know what supply side economics is.

 

Of course they're regulations. They are rules made by the government that are backed by force. They are antithetical to capitalism. You're blaming capitalism for a failure due to regulations.

 

Patents are hardly the cause of our economic slump.

 

Right, always tell a person how little they know.

Supply-side economics is mainly income tax cuts for the rich, hoping they will invest that extra money and boost the economy. It doesn't work because jobs are not created because of having extra money to spend.

Dropping the capital gains tax incentivizes investment in securities that are promising because more of the gains are retained. But investing in stocks doesn't help the economy or business.


But the bottom line is that Reagan's supply-side economics did damage. But Demand-side economics actually worked very well.

I know no rightie can sit still for this truth but will have to spin and dance and lie to oppose facts.

 

But since socialism is not a "settled science" but is still being figured out, it stands to reason that it would not be found in any pure form yet. In the end (maybe 200 years from now?) I do believe it will eliminate capitalist private profit business.

 

This is all just nonsensical spin and BS. People are drawn to a socialist model because of a desire to work together and share in their conscious participation in their own lives. The cooperative and social spirit of the human being is released in socialism.

 

Are you claiming that you know more about economics than Joe Stiglitz ??

Supply side economic policies reduce gov imposed costs of production. These were implemented by Reagan through Bush 43 including Bill Clinton. Individual tax rate cuts are actually a Keynesian policy but when combined with the simplification of the tax code allow consumers to keep more of their hard earned money. There is no example of demand side economics which can match the growth record of the Reagan, 41, Clinton, 43 years. Obama's record shows one third the growth rate per capita and stagnant median household income.

Capital gains tax reductions allow greater mobility of capital resources. Capital is much more than stocks. Reduction of the tax rates stimulates economic growth by reducing the tax penalty for moving capital from declining to ascending corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

Pollyanna much ??

Human beings in large groups do not act in the ways which are required to make socialism/communism successful. Strong leaders are needed to force compliance. What could go wrong ??

 

Strong leaders like in scandanavia? Lol

 

Democratic socialism is not communism.