Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Socialism Fails
This topic, which has been debated before, is presented in an audio file. It is a guest lecture at the Prague School of Economics in the Czech Repubic, by Dr. Richard M. Ebeling, who is the president of the Foundation of Economic Freedom(FEE).

It is a great lecture, but can be a bit hard to hear when he moves about the classroom. If you listen, headphones will work best.

anyway, he does a wonderful job of explaining why Socialism is unable to work within society. He also discusses the consequences of this failure, ie the casualties of the system, but also he economic mechanical failure.

Anyway, if you get a chance, and are interested, I highly recommend it.

If the link does not work properly, simply copy the address, past it to the address window, and tap go to access the file.

Why Socialism Failed
Have a Gneiss Day!
For some reason, I cannot get the link to work outright on this phpBB software. It works fin on the Bear Pit, but not here.

Just cut and paste the address and it will take you to the Mp3 file.
Have a Gneiss Day!
This should work:
(I changed the exclamation point to its ASCII equivalent.)

Currently downloading the file.
Great mp3, John. Please post the subsequent lectures about interventionism and the welfare state. I'm starving for the knowledge this guy is dishing out.

Was the name of the man who made the argument about the need for prices Nessus?

For anyone else who is going to listen, the meat starts at the 28 minute mark. The first bit, while good, wasn't anything to new (to me at least). But, at 28 minutes in, he starts remaking a very good argument that I hadn't heard put together so effectively.
They are all right here at FEE. Unfortunately, the audio is not the best, but what the good professor has to say is worthy of attention, none the less. S1
Have a Gneiss Day!
Why Socialism Fails? Let us count the ways. First an example:

Quote:Why Socialism Doesn't Work

Within a free economy, societal equality means everyone starts the same. Within socialism, societal equality means everyone finishes the same. Economics students at one well-known university learned the hard way why socialism doesn’t work.

The course was on comparative economic policies. The instructor asserted that finishing the same under the socialistic model would remove incentives to excel and the risk of failure and would ultimately lower the overall quality of life in a society. Some students asserted that without incentives to excel or the risk of failure, people would give their best effort and altruistically excel to advance the greater good. So, the professor proposed an experiment: on individual exams in the course, all students would receive a score equal to the average score of all students. Students would finish the same. The students agreed.

On the first exam, the average score was a B and all students received a B. On the second exam, the average score was a C and all students received a C. After successive exams in the course, the average score dropped to an F. At the end of the course, all students received a cumulative grade of F.

Why did this happen? The instructor learned from the lower performing students that they saw no reason to study at all. The top performing students related that their hard work was for naught, so they studied less.

And, then what happened? The students complained to the university’s administration that they each received an F and not a higher grade. After confirming that the students agreed to the grading methodology and that the students chose to apply themselves less, the university’s administration left their grades unchanged.

Government must not remove the ability of the individual to excel or fail. Similarly, government must not remove the ability of companies to excel or fail. A company that is “too big to fail” presents threats to an economy not dissimilar in magnitude than the threats posed at the individual level. In spite of all of the gnashing of teeth, nothing meaningful has been done about the corporate socialism that continues to exist in the United States. Dodd-Frank is an abysmal failure.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said that socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. We find that Lady Thatcher’s wisdom has greater applicability than she first thought.

[Image: 300px-Margaret_Thatcher.png]
Have a Gneiss Day!
And Secondly:

Quote:7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism
by John Hawkins

Given what we know in 2012, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. Yet, a recent Gallup poll shows that more liberals have a positive view of socialism than capitalism.

[Image: galluppoll.jpg]

This is only possible because there are so many perverse incentives that drive the promotion of socialism. If you're a politician, socialism puts power in your hands while capitalism takes it away. If you want to use the government to control people's lives, socialism is a wonderful vehicle to do just that while capitalism robs you of that opportunity. If you would rather live off the dole than to work or alternately, prefer to make money off "who you know" instead of "how good a service you provide," again socialism works better for you. Now take into account the fact that there are no pure socialist or capitalist economies left and it becomes very easy to muddy the water and keep people from realizing the obvious economic superiority of capitalism.

1) Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is superior to capitalism in one primary way: It offers more security. It's almost like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as Winston Churchill once noted, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

2) Capitalism encourages entrepreneurship while socialism discourages it: A government in a capitalist economy can quite easily give everyone equality of opportunity with a few basic laws and regulations, but socialism strives to create equality of results. This should frighten people who value their freedom because ultimately, as F.A. Hayek has noted, "A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." You can see this happening in America as our efforts to reduce "inequality" have led to an ever expanding government and a vast regulatory tangle that is almost unexplainable despite the fact that it is certainly enforceable. Capitalism encourages people to start a business and build a better life for themselves while socialism lays in wait with IRS agents, nooses made of red tape and meddling bureaucrats looking for businesses to control and loot.

3) Capitalism leads to innovation: Coming up with new products is often time consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they'll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their "good fortune."

4) Capitalism produces more economic growth: Capitalism produces considerably more economic growth than socialism and as John Kennedy said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." A fast growing economy produces more jobs, more wealth and helps everyone. Many people assume that capitalism isn't working if there are still poor people, but that misses the point. In many parts of the world, poverty means living in a hut with a dirt floor while in America, most poor Americans have TVs, refrigerators and cell phones. The rich may take home a larger share of the pie in capitalism, but the poor also benefit tremendously from living in a growing, thriving economy.

5) Socialism is too slow to adapt: Capitalism is extremely good at allocating capital to where it's most valued. It has to be. Either you give people what they are willing to pay for or someone else will. On the other hand, socialism is slow and stupid for a variety of reasons. Because the government is spending someone else's money, it doesn’t get particularly concerned about losing money. Political concerns about appearances often trump the effectiveness of a program. Moreover, even if politicians and bureaucrats are intelligent and competent, which are big "ifs," they're simply not going to have the specific knowledge needed to make decisions that may impact thousands of different industries. This is why capitalism may have its share of troubles, but when there are really colossal economic screw-ups, you'll always find the government neck deep in the whole mess.

6) Socialism is inherently wasteful: Milton Friedman once said, "Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own." This is very true and it means that the more capital that is taken out of the economy and distributed, the more of it that will be wasted. The market does a considerably better job of allocating resources than the government because there are harsh penalties for failure. A company that makes products no one wants will go out of business. A poorly performing government program that wastes a hundred times more money will probably receive a bigger budget the next year.

7) Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it: Ayn Rand said it well, "America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way," but Adam Smith said it better, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A man will work much harder to take care of himself, his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren't working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.

Have a Gneiss Day!
This would be a great article if the term "Capitalism" was left out and "Free Enterprise" used to replace it.

No article on Socialism and Capitalism should miss the opportunity to reflect that the term "Capitalism" was popularized by the KGB as a way to lessen the positive acceptance of it.

The historian Tom G. Palmer Wrote:...Because of the influence of Marx and his follower Sombart, the term “capitalism” came into general use. It’s worth remembering that the term was popularized by people who not only confused productive entrepreneurship and market exchange with living off of taxes taken from others, but who advocated the abolition of property, markets, money, prices, the division of labor, and the entire edifice of liberalism: individual rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and constitutionally limited democratic government.

Not uncommonly, like many terms of abuse, “capitalism” was taken up by some of those intellectual advocates of free markets against whom the term was wielded. As a result of its history, those who adopted the term “capitalism” for what they advocated, or even simply as a neutral term for social scientific discussion, were disadvantaged by the facts that (1) the term was used equivocally (to refer to both free market entrepreneurship and to living off taxes and government power and patronage), and (2) that it was almost always used in a distinctly negative manner.

According to files made public via Peristroika under Gasnost, when the USSR fell into cold war with the USA, the KGB engineered an effort to use "Capitalism" as a negative brand.
And here is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a former self-professed Marxist himself, who discusses the lessons that Obama is just not able to learn concerning the failures of Collectivism within China and India.

Quote:‘Forward’ to the Past?

By Thomas Sowell

Obama remains oblivious to lessons China and India learned the hard way.

The political slogan “Forward” served Barack Obama well during this year’s election campaign. It said that he was for going forward, while Republicans were for “going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place.”

It was great political rhetoric and great political theater. Moreover, the Republicans did virtually nothing to challenge its shaky assumptions with a few hard facts that could have made those assumptions collapse like a house of cards.

More is involved than this year’s political battles. The word “forward” has been a political battle cry on the left for more than a century. It has been almost as widely used as the left’s other favorite word, “equality,” which goes back more than two centuries.

The seductive notion of economic equality has appealed to many people. The pilgrims started out with the idea of equal sharing. The colony of Georgia began with very similar ideas. In the Midwest, Britain’s Robert Owen — who coined the term “socialism” — set up colonies based on communal living and economic equality.

What these idealistic experiments all had in common was that they failed.

They learned the hard way that people would not do as much for the common good as they would do for their own good. The pilgrims nearly starved learning that lesson. But they learned it. Land that had been common property was turned into private property, which produced a lot more food.

Similar experiments were tried on a larger scale in other countries around the world. In the biggest of these experiments — the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao — people literally starved to death by the millions.

In the Soviet Union, at least 6 million people starved to death in the 1930s, in a country with some of the most fertile land on the continent of Europe, a country that had once been a major exporter of food. In China, tens of millions of people starved to death under Mao.

Despite what the left seems to believe, private property rights do not exist simply for the sake of people who own property. Americans who do not own a single acre of land have abundant food available because land is still private property in the United States, even though the left is doing its best to restrict property rights in both the countrysides and in the cities.

The other big feature of the egalitarian left is promotion of a huge inequality of power, while deploring economic inequality.

It is no coincidence that those who are going ballistic over the economic inequality between the top one or two percent and the rest of us are promoting a far more dangerous concentration of political power in Washington — where far less than one percent of the population increasingly tell 300 million Americans what they can and cannot do, on everything from their light bulbs and toilets to their medical care.

This movement in the direction of central planning, under the name of “forward,” is in fact going back to a system that has failed in countries around the world — under both democratic and dictatorial governments and among peoples of virtually every race, color, creed, and nationality.

It is one thing when conservative leaders like Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain declared central planning a failure. But what really puts the nails in the coffin is that, before the end of the 20th century, both socialist and communist governments around the world began abandoning central planning.

India and China are the biggest examples. In both countries, cutbacks on government control of the economy were followed by dramatically increased economic growth rates, lifting millions of people out of poverty in both countries.

The ultimate irony is that the most recent international survey of free markets found the world’s freest market to be in Hong Kong — in a country still ruled by communists! But the Chinese communists have at least learned, the hard way, a lesson that Barack Obama seems oblivious to.

We are going “forward” to a repeatedly failed past, following a charismatic leader, after a 20th century in which charismatic leaders led countries into unprecedented catastrophes.
Have a Gneiss Day!
EXCLUSIVE: Major Publisher Pitches Professors to Teach Textbook on Making USA Socialist

Forward™ comrades!
They never can learn from history, can they?
The United Social States of America -- perhaps it's time to create an environment where professors are afraid to open their mouths for fear of losing their jobs. It's also time to boycott this publisher.
I'd like to see more of this before jumping up and down. Harper-Collins right?
Have a Gneiss Day!
The idea that "Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, civil rights activist Angela Davis, incarcerated journalist Mumia Abu Jamal, and economist Rick Wolff" are worthy of scholarly attention in itself is not terrible. The idea that the apologists' view gets taken seriously, is. Why not add Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao?
This is the Greatest Excuse of all time. Enjoy. S13


Have a Gneiss Day!
The basic failing of socialism is that it is based on and depends on coveting--desiring to have what belongs to our neighbor. This also is the reason for its popularity with many. But coveting breeds envy, jealousy, theft, and even adultery. It is also the cause of war. And murder. This is why the tenth commandment explicitly forbids coveting anything that belongs to our neighbor (including his wife). The Bible teaches that covetousness is the root of all other sins. Colo. 3:5 says that covetousness is idolatry--in other words, making a god out of material possessions which the covetous person worships. Look how close 2 Peter 2:3 comes to an explicit description and condemnation of socialism: "By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber."
[Image: 23844829_1524234837662343_86453799162364...e=5A9C7D9F]

File no longer on Internet
Ben Shapiro, who is an independent like myself, clearly shows us that he understands Socialism, and why it Never Works.  Too bad there are so many here in the US, who are unable to use logic, by looking around for Socialism's many successes.  Happy hunting, little children.  S6

Quote:Being a Socialist Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry

"So, how are you planning to pay for that?"

This should be the first question asked about any political program. Unfortunately, it's not. And that's why Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., are thought leaders for their parties.

Take Sanders. He has been promoting his "Medicare for All" slogan for years. The left loves it. Among the top Democrats who have embraced this slogan are Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. Most of those senators want to run for president. So they understand that Sanders' bumper sticker policy is popular on its face.

There's only one problem: Nobody asked that first question. This week, Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released a study taking a look at the cost of Sanders' preferred program. The total: $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Over that same period, our total federal spending is projected at $56 trillion -- and we're already racking up debt like there's no tomorrow on that budget. That means that we could double our taxes at every level and still not come close to covering Sanders' program.

Sanders responded to this unfortunate news by attacking the study, blaming the nefarious Koch brothers for sponsoring Blahous' basic math. There's only one problem: The Urban Institute, a left-leaning outlet, estimated the cost at $32 trillion. So this isn't a right-left problem. It's a basic math problem. Sanders doesn't understand basic math.

Or, more accurately, he doesn't care about it. And he's not alone. Ocasio-Cortez recently embarrassed herself on this same topic. When asked about how she would pay for her program of free Medicare for All, college tuition and housing, she explained that we could just raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and close some loopholes, and "that's $2 trillion right there." Which would pay for ... approximately seven months of Medicare for All. Then, Ocasio-Cortez explained that she'd find money by cutting the defense budget ($700 billion per year), which would still not cover Medicare for All. And she'd create a carbon tax, which could crush industry, leading to lesser tax revenue.

But Democrats aren't interested in who pays for things, because their ultimate solution is that nobody pays for things. Yes, really. According to Stephanie Kelton, professor of public policy and economics at Stony Brook University -- and a Sanders 2016 advisor -- we can simply pay for things by paying for things. She says the only limit on spending is inflation. Even Paul Krugman of The New York Times has called this idea foolhardy: Inflation is inevitable once people realize that the government is literally just printing money to spend it, and once people begin socking away cash in order to avoid the exorbitant taxes they're sure will come.

The good news for Democrats is that nobody asks the key question. Even Republicans don't, which is why they spend trillions of dollars of their own. And so long as nobody is asking the question, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez will be the future of the country ... until we run out of money.
[Image: cjones07292018.jpg?w=620]
Have a Gneiss Day!
And in the "No Schist Sherlock" category, why are you idiots now surprised that confiscating property is NOT the sure fire way to correct all wrongs, AND grow the economy into some "Heaven on Earth"?

Personally I'm surprised that anyone would even bother leaving a safe land, such as Australia, and going back to what they fled, knowing they are just begging for another beating on down the road, from more 'so called' geniuses.

Racist Zimbabwe pleads for the white farmers it brutalised to come back and rescue its economy.

Just to show everyone how utterly Stupid these Collectivists are, even the idiots in South Africa are determined to do the exact thing, while the perfect example of the coming failure is staring them in their faces. Socialism is clearly a disease of the brain. Spiteful
Have a Gneiss Day!
And here's more on this stupidity.  Those Zimbabwean farmers, who haven't moved to Australia have moved to surrounding countries, invited to help those countries increase their own productivity.   I wonder how long it will take South Africa to learn things the hard way?

South Africa, have you learned NOTHING from Zimbabwe?

Have a Gneiss Day!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)