Why is socialism so bad?

[GoldenBoy812]

There is nothing as scarce as you think it is, GoldenBoy.

There is a finite limit to everything. Theoretically, the universe will come to an end when the total amount of helium is exhausted. Stars use helium, so we have about 50 billion years until there is nothing.

Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that

True capitalism is operated on the concept of opportunity cost. When competing against another firm, the essence of time itself is scarce. You have to utilize your strengths and weaknesses, so that you can effectively lower OTC, and in doing so will be able to realize real growth.

For example, if a firm spends 50 hours a week aquiring material A, 100 hours to produce product X(s), time is then represented as a scarce resource. Without a quantitative limitation (function of time), i can produce an infinite amount of goods in zero time. Hence time is a scarce resource. What the firm can do is attempt to lower the amount of hours spent producing at the most minimal cost.

Abundance

and Sustainability

are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.

Open market operations outproduce central planned markets... End of story. If you do not believe me, than why does china produce 5 times its growth only 10 years from the previous? Answer: They opened up their markets. Now, they have a middle class that is greater than or equal to (in population) what we have in the US.

Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.

Lets go back to my example with time. Time is a scarce resource. When computers, cell phones, and the internet were implemented into the business world, something truly remarkable happened. OTC were reduced in regards to time. Firms had an abundance of time relative to when technology did not allow it. Did they fail? Of course not, because it allowed for the possibility of growth. With higher growth potential, firms had an easier time attracting capital, hiring employees, and securing loans. This allows for real growth represented in profit, although it is not a guarantee. The firm has to actually make it happen.

Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?

Again, this all goes back to opportunity costs. When energy source A becomes more expensive to produce than energy source B, which one will fetch both the smaller price, and hence the greatest potential sales? It would be source B, as long as the quality is similar.

If a firm decided not to produce source B, and instead stuck with source A, we then can observe the OTC of the situation. This firm is allocating more time and capital to produce an energy source that represents less potential profit. Therefore, this firm can be thought of as weak, and will not be able to compete with firms offering source B at a cheaper price. Rationality will call for the majority of firms to stop producing source A, lowering overall competition along with total production of source A. As more and more firms restructure to produce B, competition automatically pushes the price down as firms attempt to absorb market share by increasing their overall volume.

Is there an opportunity cost for over abundance? Absolutely! A firm that produces more than the market demands will have excess inventory. Inventory that faces potential risk of depreciation as well as cost of upkeep. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense, whether you are government or private business, to over shoot your demand capacity. You create waste, inefficiency, less potential profit.

I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.

There is still only one slightly free market, it is known as the internet.

By eliminating profit incentive, you lower overall production and quality. During the Russian revolution, as the Red's took control, Vladimir Lenin enacted the NEP. Instead of complete state control of production which was the current, Lenin allowed peasant farmers to sell their surplus. In doing so Russia's agriculture segment began to eclipse the industrial production segment, as prices continued to decrease in food while the prices for manufactured goods (still controlled by the state) increased. Prices increased because of the limited production (supply side), while prices decreased in agriculture.

NEP

The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life.

As my previous example proves, centralization of these industries creates a higher OTC to consumers whether it is higher prices, limited availability, or lack of quality.

If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.

European nations tend to have higher social safety nets (besides the UK), and with it higher unemployment. By providing such necessities, you crowd out employment, and thus you stagnate growth.

And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.

I like government for certain things that cannot be efficiently provided by private industry. Such things include fire and police, military, roads (to a point), and periods of infrastructure renovation. As the evidence clearly shows, abundance and quality are a product of capitalism.

[JakeMartinez]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

[GoldenBoy812]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

I was waiting for this comment. I disagree, and will provide an example.

Say it takes me 10 hours to build a retaining wall. I can only work 5 days a week, and 10 hours per day (i can produce 1 wall in 1 work day). If i get a contract to produce 522 retaining walls in one year, under your asertation "Time is not a resource i can buy", i am unable to fullfill my contract. Since i cannot do anything to slow down the passing of days, my only other option is to purchase someone elses time.

Now say i hire another guy for 10 hrs per day, 5 days per week, and he produces a wall at the same speed as i do. I will now be able to fullfill my contract. You know how? Because i was able to purchase time from someone who was willing to sell it...

Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

You could make the argument that abundance and sustainability are the enemies of a monopoly. You could make the argument that they are the enemies of an individual firm. You cannot however make the argument that they are the enemies of free markets because; in a free market, i can run my firm as i please. Therefore business profit is optional.

Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Care to provide an example of what i said that lead you to this conclusion?

Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You cannot expect me to accept your opinions and beliefs as fact.

You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

Communism is a political system, where socialism is the economic system used under a communist government. MY example of the NEP was in response to your assertion that nobody should profit from working in the food/housing industries, combined with your belief that abundance and sustainability are counterintuitive with capitalism.

It is the opposite though. Socialist systems have never outproduced capitalist systems. Until you offer some sort of proof otherwise, you are wrong.

The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Care to provide an example?

Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

Because you are absolutely wrong. If you are not wrong, than please provide some sort of evidence (other than an opinion) to strengthen the stance of your argument...

[psychocat]

I see it as simply as this
I don't much like people so to give some perspective I will admit that if 90% of the worlds population were to vanish overnight I would see it as a good thing.
The world we live on is an island and at some time in the future mankind is going to have to wake up and realise the only way forward is to unite as one .
The whole system as it stands is counterproductive and obsessed with the pursuit of the ridiculous
Unfortunately for mankind I do not believe it is possible for everyone to "just get along" and the whole joke we know as society will crumble

Mankind is mankinds worst enemy :thumbsup:

[thcbongman]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

The socialistic countries that are successful utilize a mixed economy while socializing some industries. Switzerland, Norway, Germany, China is figuring it out. China is still authotarian but they moved away from straight-up communism. They figured out how to use the free market and grow economically while still maintaining a lot of their socialistic policies.

I think you make profit like it's a bad thing. Too much profit can just be greedy, but profit within an acceptable scope is healthy. With profits, it leads to further growth in a company, innovation, benefits for employees, every company uses it's profit differently. Profits are good because the government collects on them. Why is this a concept that a lot of people do not understand? Some greed is good. Otherwise, how could an economy grow?

You say Goldenboy doesn't listen, but what he describes is basic economic concepts that he explains clearly like a college professor. Someone once told me the more you learn and understand finance, the more you understand the world and clearly this man understands the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against socialism at all. I'm against too much socialism because it is detrimental to society. Take France for example. You talk about affordability, but they're hit with a 19.6% sales tax on all goods that isn't basic food and medicine. You talk about sustainability, To hire and fire an employee is a vastly complex process due to overt job protectionism. The ability to combat waste is the most important control for sustainability. A job as simple as a bank teller for a french bank like BNP for example, it's a stringent interview process and if they get a bad employee after they pass a small probationary period, they are stuck with them. The employee can go to work, do the minimum and not worry about getting laid off. "At-Will" employees provide the most incentive to not only the ability for companies to grow, but for individuals as well. You can't manage resources if you are completely stuck with them.

[JakeMartinez]

That's why I think we should be looking at this and thinking "How can we make this work?"

A lot of people, Golden Boy included, look at it and say "It'll never work".

Like I said, I'm a straight-up socialist. However, I'm perfectly willing to make compromises and hash out what'll be best for all of us. After all, isn't that the theory behind socialism?

[GoldenBoy812]

That's why I think we should be looking at this and thinking "How can we make this work?"

A lot of people, Golden Boy included, look at it and say "It'll never work".

Like I said, I'm a straight-up socialist. However, I'm perfectly willing to make compromises and hash out what'll be best for all of us. After all, isn't that the theory behind socialism?

Its not that it will not work. Ideally, you are desiring a system that rewards everyone in an equal manner. As i have proved before, everyone is not equal. Therefore rewarding everyone equally will create inefficiency because there is not a finite incentive to perform better than the average or accepted.

Fredrick Taylor observed something extraordinary in the early 20th century. He found that when workers are receiving equal pay, performing the same job, they will work only as hard as the least hard working employee. Reason be, they are not receiving any extra incentive to work harder than their equally compensated co-workers. Logically, at the end of the day someone who worked harder than the rest would be more fatigued, and will feel a lesser amount of gratitude when receiving compensation as time progresses. A continuation will have an effect on the long run productivity of this worker.

It is a matter of efficiency at the end of the day. Capitalism is more efficient than socialism. Unless you can prove otherwise, you must except this as fact.

[JakeMartinez]

That was early 20th century. This is now. Times change, GB. Our society should reflect that.

We can't prove otherwise because the countries that flew under a socialist banner were, in reality, communists.

Don't bring that stuff up in here, GB. I told you in the other thread, we act the way you describe because it's the way we've been taught since the Industrial Revolution. It's not necessary anymore, or at least won't be within the next century.

Read up on your psychology. Humans are products of their environments, not their genes.

You and I, and everyone who grew up in this capitalist society, were taught from the beginning that the status quo is the way things "should" be. We're on a marijuana board for God's sake. You can't believe that society is fine the way it is.

[JakeMartinez]

Were you refering to this Frederick Winslow Taylor?

"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."

That's either fascistic or communistic. Take your pick.

"I can say, without the slightest hesitation,'' Taylor told a congressional committee, ''that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron."

The delusion that only the dregs of society sink to the bottom in a free market. Oh, and workers are stupid. These are some amazing theories.

"With the triumph of scientific management, unions would have nothing left to do, and they would have been cleansed of their most evil feature: the restriction of output. To underscore this idea, Taylor fashioned the myth that 'there has never been a strike of men working under scientific management', trying to give it credibility by constant repetition. In similar fashion he incessantly linked his proposals to shorter hours of work, without bothering to produce evidence of "Taylorized" firms that reduced working hours, and he revised his famous tale of Schmidt carrying pig iron at Bethlehem Steel at least three times, obscuring some aspects of his study and stressing others, so that each successive version made Schmidt's exertions more impressive, more voluntary and more rewarding to him than the last. Unlike [Harrington] Emerson, Taylor was not a charlatan, but his ideological message required the suppression of all evidence of worker's dissent, of coercion, or of any human motives or aspirations other than those his vision of progress could encompass."

The man sounds like a Nazi to me.

Oh, and by the way, the USSR took a look at Taylor's findings before his disciples forced it down manufacturers' throats.

"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an important condition for his system's success."[22] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different. "Because work is so unrythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be 'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary Mc Auley has suggested under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official norms."[23]

The man came up with his theories during the first kicks and sputters of the industrial revolution. If you remember history class, workers weren't motivated by pay. Men like Taylor inflicted cruel and unusual practices on workers, which led them to forming unions.

[zeitgeist]

I love capitalism, but like anything it isnt perfect. There are some things out of socialism that we can use to make our society better. Im not down with just giving out free handouts left and right but I do believe in free healthcare. I mean ive seen it a hundred times, hard working middle class people that a pretty well off until they or a family member has a serious illness. Then hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills stack up causing people to go bankrupt. Situations like this are rediculous. We can spend billions of dollars on unnecesarry defense but we cant spend it to help our own people.
And for education im really not sure if that should be completly free but if the gov. helped pay for alot more then more people would be able to go to college. With more university educated people in a country I see no reason why a country wold not benefit in the long run