Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lightfiend, Oct 21, 2009.
VIDEO: Joseph Salerno On Calculation And Socialism
Socialism/Communism never leads to "Sharing the Wealth" like they keep telling everyone. It instead only leads to Sharing the Poverty in the end. I don't understand why more people haven't figured that out yet. Hmm?
This is absolutely correct. Without a profit-and-loss system we have no way to rationally discover how to allocate resources, and as the problem persists the system eventually collapses. This is why Ludwig von Mises accurately predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Is anyone talking about the demise of a profit and loss system? What have we nationalized to draw that conclusion? Aren't the financial institutions that got huge bailouts once again operating by a profit and loss system? With emphasis on the profits, of course. MEGA profits. These wonderful people took our taxpayer loans, and when they finally had their pockets full again, returned some of the money with a memo saying Thanks, now fuck off. Capitalism will ever die, but I want to see robber baron practices and greedy capitalism end in death by strangulating regulations.
Well for one I wasn't speaking about anything in America. We were discussing the failures of socialism, and I mentioned the Soviet Union. America does not have an economic system of socialism, and I do not follow the Republican line that Obama is a socialist or a communist. I don't believe that he wants the government to take over the entire economy, I think he simply believes that the government running certain sectors temporarily will be better than the market. I don't agree with him, but I don't think he has plans to take over the entire economy for the sake of taking over the economy.
Now to addressing the meat of your post. If you want the robber baron practices stopped, and I agree that the bailouts constitute robber baron acts, then you need to look at the government, not the businesses. Those businesses wouldn't have been able to make those record profits then give people the finger without the government getting involved. They would have gone out of business, and rightly so. The bailouts also don't represent capitalism at all, but corporatism. In capitalism those institutions would have gone out of business.
The problem was that they would have taken down a major slice of private businesses, not to mention individuals, right along with them. And that couldn't happen. I HATE IT that it had to happen, but I continue to believe it was necessary.
Good arguments. Something to keep in mind if we actually find ourselves going to a socialist economy.
Well that would be where we disagree. I think it was absolutely necessary that those businesses fail, because propping them up is simply prolonging the agony and making things worse. This ties into the original post because it shows that only the market, once again, can efficiently allocate resources. The market tried to move resources out of those firms and force them out of business, and the government foolishly stopped this from happening.
On the other hand, if they go out, the fewer larger business which remain tighten their stranglehold, eliminating the the free-market competition that capitalists praise
That's not a good argument for propping up failed businesses, however. Competition is great, but not if it requires government to prop it up.
Separate names with a comma.