Why Socialism Is Not Just Undesirable, But Impossible

[Lightfiend]

VIDEO: Joseph Salerno On Calculation And Socialism

The economic calculation problem is a criticism of socialist economics, or more precisely central economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek. The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work. The debate raged in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by economic historians as the The Socialist Calculation Debate.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

 

[EriktheRed]

VIDEO: Joseph Salerno On Calculation And Socialism

The economic calculation problem is a criticism of socialist economics, or more precisely central economic planning. It was first proposed by Ludwig von Mises in 1920 and later expounded by Friedrich Hayek. The problem referred to is that of how to distribute resources rationally in an economy. The free market solution is the price mechanism, wherein people individually have the ability to decide how a good should be distributed based on their willingness to give money for it. The price conveys embedded information about the abundance of resources as well as their desirability which in turn allows, on the basis of individual consensual decisions, corrections that prevent shortages and surpluses; Mises and Hayek argued that this is the only possible solution, and without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work. The debate raged in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by economic historians as the The Socialist Calculation Debate.

Good arguments. Something to keep in mind if we actually find ourselves going to a socialist economy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[xÞx]

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[xÞx]

Nearly all businesses that exist today are in some way propped up by the fed. It's been that way since they broke (most of) the monopolies and trusts when they realized that unbridled capitalism is a highway straight to tyranny, corruption, and oppression. It's those same laws, designed to protect small businesses and limit personal success, that make competition possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nearly all businesses that exist today are in some way propped up by the fed. It's been that way since they broke (most of) the monopolies and trusts when they realized that unbridled capitalism is a highway straight to tyranny, corruption, and oppression. It's those same laws, designed to protect small businesses and limit personal success, that make competition possible.

"Unbridled capitalism" does not lead to monopolies, however. It's government intervention that creates monopolies.

 

[paperview]

Nearly all businesses that exist today are in some way propped up by the fed. It's been that way since they broke (most of) the monopolies and trusts when they realized that unbridled capitalism is a highway straight to tyranny, corruption, and oppression. It's those same laws, designed to protect small businesses and limit personal success, that make competition possible.

"Unbridled capitalism" does not lead to monopolies, however. It's government intervention that creates monopolies.

I suggest you look up the Robber Barons.

 

[xÞx]

Wrong. Government intervention broke up the monopolies. Is a true capitalist society, personal/business success leads to the largest companies assuming control of the majority of resources and keeping the ma&pop shops from being able to compete as the big boxes can buy in bulk and sell their goods at lower process while still making a profit. Capitalism is highly predatory and exploitative in nature and is ultimately self-destructive (see the USA and the outsourcing of goods in search of more profit and the resulting impact on the American economy.) Such corporations can then purchase politicians and the cycle of corruption really begins. The US went through this all once before

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nearly all businesses that exist today are in some way propped up by the fed. It's been that way since they broke (most of) the monopolies and trusts when they realized that unbridled capitalism is a highway straight to tyranny, corruption, and oppression. It's those same laws, designed to protect small businesses and limit personal success, that make competition possible.

"Unbridled capitalism" does not lead to monopolies, however. It's government intervention that creates monopolies.

I suggest you look up the Robber Barons.

I'm well aware of the so-called "robber barons."

The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

 

[paperview]

Oh where oh where are the old fashioned republicans, like Teddy, the Trust Buster?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wrong. Government intervention broke up the monopolies. Is a true capitalist society, personal/business success leads to the largest companies assuming control of the majority of resources and keeping the ma&pop shops from being able to compete as the big boxes can buy in bulk and sell their goods at lower process while still making a profit. Capitalism is highly predatory and exploitative in nature and is ultimately self-destructive (see the USA and the outsourcing of goods in search of more profit and the resulting impact on the American economy.) Such corporations can then purchase politicians and the cycle of corruption really begins. The US went through this all once before

Government regulation keeps small businesses out of the market by making it nearly impossible for them to comply while their larger competition can afford to abide by the regulations. Thus leading to a true monopoly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh where oh where are the old fashioned republicans, like Teddy, the Trust Buster?

Yes, exactly what the Republican Party needs, more neocons.

 

[paperview]

"Unbridled capitalism" does not lead to monopolies, however. It's government intervention that creates monopolies.

I suggest you look up the Robber Barons.

I'm well aware of the so-called "robber barons."

The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

You really think a link to the Mises Institute is somehow a persuasive rebuttal?

 

[xÞx]

"Unbridled capitalism" does not lead to monopolies, however. It's government intervention that creates monopolies.

I suggest you look up the Robber Barons.

I'm well aware of the so-called "robber barons."

The Truth About the "Robber Barons" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute

Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at

Tell that to the unions who had to fight (and use the law) to get safe work environments and wages that could sustain them. Unbridled capitalism leads to sharecropping and feudalism, as those who have resources can demand near anything from those without. The bargaining table is almost never level, despite what idealist captialists (naive fools) are led to believe by those who have.