Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[CultureCitizen]

Allways pay employees enough by default?
No, they don't. They pay market prices which are not allways fair.
At some point of time employing kids was a sound business practice. This, of course , meant they couldn't go to school, which prevented them from getting better jobs.

Working part time doesn't mean you can't go to school.
As I explained before, employers have to pay their employees 'enough', or nobody can afford their goods or services, which damages the circulation. Federal aid allows them to pay their employees less, which forces people to obtain it. You can thank the government for that, businesses aren't at fault for taking advantage.

Lad, do some reading, we'll discuss later.

Child labor in Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

 

[phoenyx]

Working part time doesn't mean you can't go to school.
As I explained before, employers have to pay their employees 'enough', or nobody can afford their goods or services, which damages the circulation. Federal aid allows them to pay their employees less, which forces people to obtain it. You can thank the government for that, businesses aren't at fault for taking advantage.

Lad, do some reading, we'll discuss later.

Child labor in Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

I think Pumpkin's veering away from supporting child labour too much, but it's a fact of life for a lot of the Capitalist third world countries, and it's something that could return to industralized nations if we're not careful. Here's a song that I think exemplifies the problem, and even references the banks and the monetary system, which I think is at the root of the problem...

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

That a person is rich doesn't necesarily mean it has taken away something from the working class. A great innovation can make people rich making everyone else better off, but that is not allways the case.

Yes, it is always the case that the wealthy take nothing from anyone else by being wealthy.

So, let's just assume the situation is one in which a rich person has a successfull company that pays his employees an amount below the poverty level ( $10 per day at year 2000 ). He would then be robbing them the oportunity to have a healthier life and to have a new generation that is better educated an better off.

Straw man argument. A terrible one at that.

That business owner doesn't operate in a vacuum. Other surrounding businesses will pay better wages and draw the employees. In order to compete, your mythical skinflint business owner would have to raise his wages or suffer crummy employees, if he has any at all.

Moreover, you're trying to supplant the judgement of the person taking a particular job with your own. The only person fit to determine the value of their actions is that person themself.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Working part time doesn't mean you can't go to school.
As I explained before, employers have to pay their employees 'enough', or nobody can afford their goods or services, which damages the circulation. Federal aid allows them to pay their employees less, which forces people to obtain it. You can thank the government for that, businesses aren't at fault for taking advantage.

Lad, do some reading, we'll discuss later.

Child labor in Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

 

[CultureCitizen]

That a person is rich doesn't necesarily mean it has taken away something from the working class. A great innovation can make people rich making everyone else better off, but that is not allways the case.

Yes, it is always the case that the wealthy take nothing from anyone else by being wealthy.

So, let's just assume the situation is one in which a rich person has a successfull company that pays his employees an amount below the poverty level ( $10 per day at year 2000 ). He would then be robbing them the oportunity to have a healthier life and to have a new generation that is better educated an better off.

Straw man argument. A terrible one at that.

That business owner doesn't operate in a vacuum. Other surrounding businesses will pay better wages and draw the employees. In order to compete, your mythical skinflint business owner would have to raise his wages or suffer crummy employees, if he has any at all.

Moreover, you're trying to supplant the judgement of the person taking a particular job with your own. The only person fit to determine the value of their actions is that person themself.

For starters 7 dollars an hour is waaay above the poverty level. But that is not the minimum wage in the rest of the world.
Have you ever been in a third world country?
In many countries they earn $1 per day. And no, the alternative is between farming, a low paying industrial job or migrating. Why else do you think the US has so many millions of illegals from Mexico and South America ? For the thrill of the trip and the desert vistas? Uh?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

If the $1 a day is believed to be a better deal than dirt farming, then the person taking the job believes they're better off. That's their call to make, not yours.

 

[TNHarley]

one shouldn't use "bernies policies" and "efficiently run an economy" in the same OP..

 

[CultureCitizen]

If the $1 a day is believed to be a better deal than dirt farming, then the person taking the job believes they're better off. That's their call to make, not yours.

Or migrate, since none of the two options (dirt farming and low wage industrial jobs are not appealing options), right not my call to make, but then people start complaining about how illegals keep salaries down.

So what is it capt'? Free movement of capital goods and services? or the whole thing: capital ,goods , services and labour?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Lad, do some reading, we'll discuss later.

Child labor in Factories During the Industrial Revolution

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Children don't currently work, how is this relevant? Children also likely didn't negotiate, businesses knew they wouldn't, and they weren't considered consumers.

You failed to address my other point, which still stands, especially since child labor has been banned for many years. You clearly don't know how the economy works.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

I was referring to here specifically. Other countries have even worse economies, due to Liberal ignorance.

 

[phoenyx]

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

So you think people dying of starvation and/or malnutrition should just stay put and die quietly?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

So you think people should just die of starvation and/or malnutrition quietly?

No, I think they should come to the country legally, but dying of starvation works for me if they're willing to become criminals instead.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

I was referring to here specifically. Other countries have even worse economies, due to Liberal ignorance.

Yes, but it has done so because rules were introduced in the market system which regulated child labour.
Which is my point. The fact that the US has a functional society that is because rules and regulations exists.
You want to know how unfettered capitalism looks? Well , take a look at the working conditions of the early industrial revolution.
And no, at that time companies didn't have to pay their employees enough, because england was going through and export boom and companies were not interested in having their products bought by their employees.

Now, given the oposite situation: IF ( and this is a big if) employees have enough to buy a home, feed their children, educate them and give them medical care, and have some vacations then I have no problem with some people getting richer.

I do have a problem when this doesn't happen and when household debt rises and average wages and employment ratios start to fall.

If their products aren't bought by their employees, they lose money, and also if employees aren't paid enough, they can work for their competition. Any way you look at it, they have no reason to treat employees badly.

The government didn't need to abolish it, it at least helped keep their family out of debt when needed, the parents just needed to help negotiate pay.

Hey great!!! Let's do that again: if kids wan't to get an education let them buy it by themselves, same goes for food and shelter. Let's expose those lazy toddlers to the market forces since the age of 6 or 5 !!! Hah, they probably wan't to live of welfare until the age of 18.
Way to go pumpkin!!

You know, starting from that age, and even working an entrance level job, they'd be able to retire pretty early~

Again , where ? South Africa, China, Mexico ? The entry level in these countries is probably $4 per day.
So now you see why migration is becoming a big issue in this century?

I was already aware it was a "Big issue", that doesn't make border hopping okay.

I was referring to here specifically. Other countries have even worse economies, due to Liberal ignorance.

Liberal ?
Well , I certainly can see why you would think that of Bolivia or Brazil... but Mexico and Chile have been following the IMF recomendations by the book and I don't see them getting any richer. Correction: their corporations are actually getting richer its just their inhabitants that continue to be poor.

But , back to the US of A. Well, actually corporate greed is also fueling another migration ( legal as far as I know ) to no other country than Mexico. As US health services are too expensive many migrate south to improve their living standard. Eventually this could dampen the spiraling prices of healthcare ( or make the prices spiral up there too , its too early to know).

4 Reasons Why Americans Retire in Mexico | Investopedia

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Liberal ?
Well , I certainly can see why you would think that of Bolivia or Brazil... but Mexico and Chile have been following the IMF recomendations by the book and I don't see them getting any richer. Correction: their corporations are actually getting richer its just their inhabitants that continue to be poor.

But , back to the US of A. Well, actually corporate greed is also fueling another migration ( legal as far as I know ) to no other country than Mexico. As US health services are too expensive many migrate south to improve their living standard. Eventually this could dampen the spiraling prices of healthcare ( or make the prices spiral up there too , its too early to know).

4 Reasons Why Americans Retire in Mexico | Investopedia

You can thank an even more corrupt government for that.Also the fact that poor people continue to do what it is that makes them poor, and the rich continue to do what it was that made them rich. Countries will always have poor people, there are people who just are incapable of learning.

Maybe that's why they haven't failed, like all of the Socialist Nations have. The main problem with Mexico is corruption and drug wars. I suspect they're coming over here for two reasons; To sell drugs where it's illegal because it's worth more, and because our money is worth more over there.

It's because Socialist policies in the US discourage success. All the Liberals here shouting "Tax the rich" should make that fairly obvious. There's also the fact that Mexico has a lower Corporate Tax Rate, and that US Dollars are worth more in Mexico than here. The reasons retirement in Mexico seems attractive to some people.

 

[kroot]

In my opinion, to answer the question OP original stated, the most EFFICIENT way to run an economy is through almost pure capitalism. If you understand supply and demand it is almost irrefutable to try to say anything but pure free markets create the most EFFICIENT means of an economy. I think the reason this scares peoples is because pure capitalism is quite literally survival of the fittest, and slavery for those who can't think of a way to rise up. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that pure capitalism is practical in all cases. There are regulations in certain industries such as child labor, indentured servitude, and other markets for a variety of factors, mostly good ones.

Child labor creates issues where the child is unaware of the potential risks, as are parents. They are typically also desperate which makes their decision making process unreasonable, and unjust. Indentured servitude is much the same way along with others. Even with pure capitalism, it should theoretically sort these issues out over time, such as giving consumers choices about where to employ their children, and the companies that are providing the most unsuitable conditions for children (mining) would eventually be forced to abandon such a tactic as consumers boycott them, and other options for child labor arrive that provide more suitable conditions. There is a flip side to child labor in many poorer countries that isn't being discussed, and that is some of these citizens are quite literally so poor they NEED their children to make some income to help the family.

On the flip side, in favor of capitalism, look at what it has brought us. Even the poorest of poor families today, the homeless, and others, have a standard of living that is leaps and bounds what it was even 50 years ago. The internet has prospered, given us quite literally access to the same learning opportunities as anyone who goes to college. There is something to be said with how this marvelous invention, the internet is being used in a society such as the US today. People use it for Facebook, Twitter, etc. These uses provide almost no benefit to society, YET the citizens that have access to the internet DO have the opportunity to learn through Khan academy, numerous articles, journals, and many many other ways. They choose to remain ignorant, and that is mostly their own fault.

To take a look at socialism, and socialism like policies, those are in my mind the LEAST EFFICIENT way to run an economy. The destruction of incentives through free money is a horrible idea. It is worse slavery than even capitalism creates in many scenarios. People who are subjected to this type of indirect servitude become submissive. They don't want to move on to potentially better ideas as they are afraid of losing out on the free goods and services that were provided to them before. That is the free side of socialism, to look at the other side, the government mandated side, it is also highly inefficient. Much more so than any rational free market could be. Where are the incentives for drug companies to produce new medicines, if they know that the government will pay them less than cost to research, develop, and market this new drug? It drives innovation way down as the movers and shakers that actually make things happen in an economy are incentivized to do the exact opposite. Why would I start a business in Socialist Russia when I know for a fact I can make more money doing the same business in America? No rational person is going to opt to do that. It also affects supply and demand in a horrible way, the government mandating creation of houses in an area happens BEFORE the actual market transactions happen. The affect? Either the government produces to little, or too much and creates inefficiency in the supply and demand curve.

I'm not advocating pure capitalism, I am in favor of some regulations, but I hope a few examples I provided might sway opinions on socialism at least. I truly do not understand the liberal fascination with this idea that has become so prevalent as of late. It is horribly ineffective at driving an economy, especially a partly capitalist economy. Do you really think that by artificially letting every student in America go to college for free that there isn't going to be a rubber band effect? It will happen in the form of jobs paying less for students with degrees as everyone has one. It will also mean the less driven, less motivated become the future generation of teachers who in turn create less and less efficient teachings for the students that are supposed to be getting a QUALITY education. There is a cause and effect for everything.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In my opinion, to answer the question OP original stated, the most EFFICIENT way to run an economy is through almost pure capitalism. If you understand supply and demand it is almost irrefutable to try to say anything but pure free markets create the most EFFICIENT means of an economy. I think the reason this scares peoples is because pure capitalism is quite literally survival of the fittest, and slavery for those who can't think of a way to rise up. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that pure capitalism is practical in all cases. There are regulations in certain industries such as child labor, indentured servitude, and other markets for a variety of factors, mostly good ones.

Child labor creates issues where the child is unaware of the potential risks, as are parents. They are typically also desperate which makes their decision making process unreasonable, and unjust. Indentured servitude is much the same way along with others. Even with pure capitalism, it should theoretically sort these issues out over time, such as giving consumers choices about where to employ their children, and the companies that are providing the most unsuitable conditions for children (mining) would eventually be forced to abandon such a tactic as consumers boycott them, and other options for child labor arrive that provide more suitable conditions. There is a flip side to child labor in many poorer countries that isn't being discussed, and that is some of these citizens are quite literally so poor they NEED their children to make some income to help the family.

On the flip side, in favor of capitalism, look at what it has brought us. Even the poorest of poor families today, the homeless, and others, have a standard of living that is leaps and bounds what it was even 50 years ago. The internet has prospered, given us quite literally access to the same learning opportunities as anyone who goes to college. There is something to be said with how this marvelous invention, the internet is being used in a society such as the US today. People use it for Facebook, Twitter, etc. These uses provide almost no benefit to society, YET the citizens that have access to the internet DO have the opportunity to learn through Khan academy, numerous articles, journals, and many many other ways. They choose to remain ignorant, and that is mostly their own fault.

To take a look at socialism, and socialism like policies, those are in my mind the LEAST EFFICIENT way to run an economy. The destruction of incentives through free money is a horrible idea. It is worse slavery than even capitalism creates in many scenarios. People who are subjected to this type of indirect servitude become submissive. They don't want to move on to potentially better ideas as they are afraid of losing out on the free goods and services that were provided to them before. That is the free side of socialism, to look at the other side, the government mandated side, it is also highly inefficient. Much more so than any rational free market could be. Where are the incentives for drug companies to produce new medicines, if they know that the government will pay them less than cost to research, develop, and market this new drug? It drives innovation way down as the movers and shakers that actually make things happen in an economy are incentivized to do the exact opposite. Why would I start a business in Socialist Russia when I know for a fact I can make more money doing the same business in America? No rational person is going to opt to do that. It also affects supply and demand in a horrible way, the government mandating creation of houses in an area happens BEFORE the actual market transactions happen. The affect? Either the government produces to little, or too much and creates inefficiency in the supply and demand curve.

I'm not advocating pure capitalism, I am in favor of some regulations, but I hope a few examples I provided might sway opinions on socialism at least. I truly do not understand the liberal fascination with this idea that has become so prevalent as of late. It is horribly ineffective at driving an economy, especially a partly capitalist economy. Do you really think that by artificially letting every student in America go to college for free that there isn't going to be a rubber band effect? It will happen in the form of jobs paying less for students with degrees as everyone has one. It will also mean the less driven, less motivated become the future generation of teachers who in turn create less and less efficient teachings for the students that are supposed to be getting a QUALITY education. There is a cause and effect for everything.

Welcome to USMB, and congratulations on making the smartest post in the entire thread.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Liberal ?
Well , I certainly can see why you would think that of Bolivia or Brazil... but Mexico and Chile have been following the IMF recomendations by the book and I don't see them getting any richer. Correction: their corporations are actually getting richer its just their inhabitants that continue to be poor.

But , back to the US of A. Well, actually corporate greed is also fueling another migration ( legal as far as I know ) to no other country than Mexico. As US health services are too expensive many migrate south to improve their living standard. Eventually this could dampen the spiraling prices of healthcare ( or make the prices spiral up there too , its too early to know).

4 Reasons Why Americans Retire in Mexico | Investopedia

You can thank an even more corrupt government for that.Also the fact that poor people continue to do what it is that makes them poor, and the rich continue to do what it was that made them rich. Countries will always have poor people, there are people who just are incapable of learning.

Maybe that's why they haven't failed, like all of the Socialist Nations have. The main problem with Mexico is corruption and drug wars. I suspect they're coming over here for two reasons; To sell drugs where it's illegal because it's worth more, and because our money is worth more over there.

It's because Socialist policies in the US discourage success. All the Liberals here shouting "Tax the rich" should make that fairly obvious. There's also the fact that Mexico has a lower Corporate Tax Rate, and that US Dollars are worth more in Mexico than here. The reasons retirement in Mexico seems attractive to some people.

Some countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweeden don't really have poor people.
There is a correlation between inequallity and social inestability : the US has the largest incarceration in the world and a very high rate of violent crimes within the developed countries.

And you ar wrong about immigrants : they leave their country because of the difference between the minimum wage in the US ($60 per day ) and that of their countries ( $5 per day). So just imagine Canada had a minimum wage of $480 per day.

And yes, evidently some retirees are beter off in Mexico where food and housing and social security are cheaper than in the US.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Liberal ?
Well , I certainly can see why you would think that of Bolivia or Brazil... but Mexico and Chile have been following the IMF recomendations by the book and I don't see them getting any richer. Correction: their corporations are actually getting richer its just their inhabitants that continue to be poor.

But , back to the US of A. Well, actually corporate greed is also fueling another migration ( legal as far as I know ) to no other country than Mexico. As US health services are too expensive many migrate south to improve their living standard. Eventually this could dampen the spiraling prices of healthcare ( or make the prices spiral up there too , its too early to know).

4 Reasons Why Americans Retire in Mexico | Investopedia

You can thank an even more corrupt government for that.Also the fact that poor people continue to do what it is that makes them poor, and the rich continue to do what it was that made them rich. Countries will always have poor people, there are people who just are incapable of learning.

Maybe that's why they haven't failed, like all of the Socialist Nations have. The main problem with Mexico is corruption and drug wars. I suspect they're coming over here for two reasons; To sell drugs where it's illegal because it's worth more, and because our money is worth more over there.

It's because Socialist policies in the US discourage success. All the Liberals here shouting "Tax the rich" should make that fairly obvious. There's also the fact that Mexico has a lower Corporate Tax Rate, and that US Dollars are worth more in Mexico than here. The reasons retirement in Mexico seems attractive to some people.

Some countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweeden don't really have poor people.
There is a correlation between inequallity and social inestability : the US has the largest incarceration in the world and a very high rate of violent crimes within the developed countries.

And you ar wrong about immigrants : they leave their country because of the difference between the minimum wage in the US ($60 per day ) and that of their countries ( $5 per day). So just imagine Canada had a minimum wage of $480 per day.

And yes, evidently some retirees are beter off in Mexico where food and housing and social security are cheaper than in the US.

A country's success isn't measured by just their amount of 'poor'. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are on the fast track to failing, the the successes people cite are from Unions and welfare at the cost of low productivity, and high taxes, or high national debt.

You're going to have to prove that one, I highly doubt our minimum wage is what attracts the illegals, because for that they can easily just come here legally.

 

[CultureCitizen]

You're going to have to prove that one, I highly doubt our minimum wage is what attracts the illegals, because for that they can easily just come here legally.

You have to get out of your fantasy world. Getting a work permit is not as easy as it sounds , many ( 50%) enter the US legally using their tourist visas.

Regarding successfull economies, I'll quote Joe Stiglitz:
"The purpose of an economy is not producing GDP it's increasing the welfare of most citizens."

There is no way in which I can consider having 1% of the adult population in jail a success.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You're going to have to prove that one, I highly doubt our minimum wage is what attracts the illegals, because for that they can easily just come here legally.

You have to get out of your fantasy world. Getting a work permit is not as easy as it sounds , many ( 50%) enter the US legally using their tourist visas.

Regarding successfull economies, I'll quote Joe Stiglitz:
"The purpose of an economy is not producing GDP it's increasing the welfare of most citizens."

There is no way in which I can consider having 1% of the adult population in jail a success.

The illegals are okay with border hopping because they're intending to break the law, anyway. They're here to sell drugs, because you make far more money when it's illegal.

And Joe is a Liberal whackjob. Only Socialists think that way, and let's face it, they're inherently wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously BECAUSE they're socialists.

That just means we need to introduce the death penalty for more crimes.