1. Post #121
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,613 Posts
    No-one is getting socialist Ferraris okay, the material cost is too high for something that is inefficient for most driving

  2. Post #122
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Ferarris cost so much in part because of the demand for them. They're considered a luxury item so it allows companies to mark them up for profit gains. Under socialism the cost of a Ferrari would be much closer to the actual value of the labor that went into making it.
    Right, that's what I'm saying.

  3. Post #123
    I know. I was just agreeing and expanding on what you said.

  4. Post #124
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Since when is FP so receptive of socialism anyway? A few years ago this thread would have been full of clueless conservatives, a few token libertarians, and confused liberals all criticizing their own little idea of socialism.

    Not that I'm complaining.

  5. Post #125
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    Since when is FP so receptive of socialism anyway? A few years ago this thread would have been full of clueless conservatives, a few token libertarians, and confused liberals all criticizing their own little idea of socialism.

    Not that I'm complaining.
    A socialist system seems to be a rather sensible way of running things. It started to work in places like the Soviet Union, when at its economic height the wage difference between the highest paid and lowest paid job was 8 to 1. In contrast the American one is 470 to 1.

    Also in many ways its more efficient if the state has knowledge of everything going on in the country and can set to work on solving a problem much more quickly than a laissez faire system would.

  6. Post #126
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Im not sure why youre explaining how sensible socialism is to a marxist, but I'd disagree the soviet system was sensible. It essentially ran like one large corporation dominated by privileged bureaucrats. The problem with socialist planning back then was the state, as what it decided what it 'knew' and what it needed, thus the endless fetish with heavy industry and its exports to allies. Gosplan was the reason the USSR lagged behind things like computers and consumer goods, despite their massive usability.

    It was state capitalist. Youre right about one thing though, state capitalism is 100x more sensible than anarchic, unstrategic laissez faire capitalism.

    What do income differences have to do with anything anyway? Socialism provides equal opportunity, not equal pay.

  7. Post #127
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts

    What do income differences have to do with anything anyway? Socialism provides equal opportunity, not equal pay.
    Indeed, but I was merely pointing out there was a clear difference between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of how equal the people were.

  8. Post #128
    Gold Member
    Dr Magnusson's Avatar
    July 2008
    2,694 Posts
    Socialism is okay for services like fire-fighting, police, et cetera... things we need to function as a society at its most basic level. But places like hospitals, where the people who work there are highly trained, they need to be privately owned. The thing with government owned facilities is that the pay is not competitive, in other words it's godawfully low . Most people won't work as a surgeon out of the goodness of their heart, a person's got to have some money to survive.
    There's a lot of really stupid and baseless accusations about the functioning of socialism in this thread, especially from Americans, but this one takes the cake. If you look at Scandinavia you'll see that our entire healthcare system is nationalized, but without excluding the possibility of private hospitals. The standards set by the government for these hospitals are exceptionally high, and the minimum admission grade for universities(which are free, by the way) offering medical subjects are among the highest in the country, indicating a continuing popularity of the field, despite the high odds of government employment as opposed to private. Doctors are very well paid ~7250$ a month for a one fresh out of university (Did I mention they're free?).

    How do you explain that?

  9. Post #129
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    There's a lot of really stupid and baseless accusations about the functioning of socialism in this thread
    One of the biggest seems to be government ownership = socialism

    By this logic Bismarck was a socialist. Just goes to show how backwards lolbertarians have it

  10. Post #130
    Gold Member

    June 2005
    4,438 Posts
    The thing with government owned facilities is that the pay is not competitive, in other words it's godawfully low . Most people won't work as a surgeon out of the goodness of their heart, a person's got to have some money to survive.
    Actually at least some people work in healthcare because they want to help some people.

    Here in socialist hell government pays you a measily $800 a month to study in a free university, and then the government pays the surgeons a measily 100-500k (USD)
    I wonder how they can survive, they can't get a private jet with that money...

    And nothing stops a surgeon from working in the private sector. Govenment actually supports patients even when using private doctors.

  11. Post #131
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    Actually at least some people work in healthcare because they want to help some people.

    Here in socialist hell government pays you a measily $800 a month to study in a free university, and then the government pays the surgeons a measily 100-500k (USD)
    I wonder how they can survive, they can't get a private jet with that money...

    And nothing stops a surgeon from working in the private sector. Govenment actually supports patients even when using private doctors.
    In fact, how many surgeons really become surgeons simply because they want to get paid a lot and have no care for helping people? Most people who enter professions to help people generally have an interest in the helping people part of it, regardless of how big their paycheck is.

  12. Post #132
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    I can't at all understand why it would matter why a doctor became a doctor. It dictates nothing regarding the quality of the doctor.

  13. Post #133
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    I can't at all understand why it would matter why a doctor became a doctor. It dictates nothing regarding the quality of the doctor.
    Somehow I doubt someone doing a job they don't like just for the money isn't going to affect their work. Doctors coming in drunk comes to mind.

    Surgery, for example, is a very long and tedious process. Do you think someone hating every minute of it is always going to do as good a job as someone who enjoys it? Who would you trust with your health more: A doctor who just wants to clock his hours and gtfo, or a doctor who is ecstatic with producing healthy people?

    You might not understand, but employers do. There's a reason why people who appear unmotivated are less likely to get hired.

  14. Post #134
    Benstokes's Avatar
    October 2009
    1,848 Posts
    The thing I have the biggest problem with here is that so many people are claiming that socialism doesn't work in practice.

    1. Finland
    2. Sweden
    3. Switzerland
    4. Australia
    5. Luxembourg
    6. Norway
    7. Canada
    8. Netherlands
    9. Japan
    10. Denmark

    Anybody who has high school-level awareness of the world has probably seen that list before. Those are the top countries in the world, rated by literacy, life expectancy, GDP per capita, etc. What do you notice about them? Sure, some of them aren't completely or don't claim to be socialist, but I'm fairly certain that all of them have significant socialist elements in their political structure.

  15. Post #135
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,613 Posts
    Ah but you see Benstokes, if the guiding hand of the anarcho-capitalist free market...

  16. Post #136
    Gold Member
    Grim Joker's Avatar
    January 2009
    4,743 Posts
    anarcho-capitalist free market...
    No.

    I don't care what you think of any other political system, anarcho-capitalist is the dumbest system in the world.

  17. Post #137
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    No.

    I don't care what you think of any other political system, anarcho-capitalist is the dumbest system in the world.
    This x1000. Private property without a state to protect it is lulzworthy.

  18. Post #138
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,613 Posts
    No.

    I don't care what you think of any other political system, anarcho-capitalist is the dumbest system in the world.
    It was a joke

  19. Post #139
    Proudly supporting the JIDF
    Dennab
    July 2010
    22,111 Posts
    This x1000. Private property without a state to protect it is lulzworthy.
    The closest example I can possible think of is a neolithic village that has just exited hunting-gathering and the day prior they divided up land between various members of the tribe to share. Even then hunter-gatherer tribes still have a government themselves.

    Anarcho-Capitalism is very silly.

  20. Post #140
    I can't at all understand why it would matter why a doctor became a doctor. It dictates nothing regarding the quality of the doctor.
    how does someone who seems to know so much about economic theory fail to understand one of the most basic concepts of motivational theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

    I got taught this when I was 14

  21. Post #141
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Somehow I doubt someone doing a job they don't like just for the money isn't going to affect their work. Doctors coming in drunk comes to mind.

    Surgery, for example, is a very long and tedious process. Do you think someone hating every minute of it is always going to do as good a job as someone who enjoys it? Who would you trust with your health more: A doctor who just wants to clock his hours and gtfo, or a doctor who is ecstatic with producing healthy people?

    You might not understand, but employers do. There's a reason why people who appear unmotivated are less likely to get hired.
    Why ignore the motivational affect of money? Why do people get jobs? Why do people try to get raises? Why do people take higher paying jobs as opposed to lower paying ones? Is the motivation to acquire money simply just that, or does someone intend on trading the money they acquire and save for some good in the future? Perhaps the motivation to acquire more money is to aid the homeless, or maybe it is to buy a new product, or perhaps it is to fund their child's college education, maybe the person is just greedy. Why isn't it possible for someone to choose their profession because they like the pay and like the job? Why wouldn't job preferences correlate with monetary wants? Would someone who became a doctor to help people be more likely turn down a raise? Why wouldn't they just work for the minimum amount needed to live? Does this notion you bring up also apply to other jobs, such as butchering, fast food, electrical engineering, and so on?

    how does someone who seems to know so much about economic theory fail to understand one of the most basic concepts of motivational theory

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

    I got taught this when I was 14
    A management theory on how to manage certain subjective preferences? Can you explain how this correlates with an individuals own preferences?

  22. Post #142
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Why ignore the motivational affect of money?
    Actually studies show that doing something for money causes the person to not like a task even if they were going to do it normally and instead do the least amount they can get away to get money. So basically person who does it because they like the job>someone who does it for money.

  23. Post #143
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Why ignore the motivational affect of money? Why do people get jobs? Why do people try to get raises? Why do people take higher paying jobs as opposed to lower paying ones? Is the motivation to acquire money simply just that, or does someone intend on trading the money they acquire and save for some good in the future? Perhaps the motivation to acquire more money is to aid the homeless, or maybe it is to buy a new product, or perhaps it is to fund their child's college education, maybe the person is just greedy. Why isn't it possible for someone to choose their profession because they like the pay and like the job? Why wouldn't job preferences correlate with monetary wants? Would someone who became a doctor to help people be more likely turn down a raise? Why wouldn't they just work for the minimum amount needed to live? Does this notion you bring up also apply to other jobs, such as butchering, fast food, electrical engineering, and so on?
    Answer a question with 20 unrelated questions in a paragraph, fantastic. Is this how you always respond? Just so I know.

    The closest example I can possible think of is a neolithic village that has just exited hunting-gathering and the day prior they divided up land between various members of the tribe to share. Even then hunter-gatherer tribes still have a government themselves.
    Feudalism is much more reminiscent of anarcho-capitalism, just replace feudal lord with land-owning corporation, vassal with private military, and serf with dispossessed, possibly indebted worker.

  24. Post #144
    HUGE RACIST
    TH89's Avatar
    January 2005
    16,347 Posts
    Really sick of people nodding along sagely in socialism threads and saying "it works great on paper, just not in real life" as if that's some kind of insightful comment.

    It doesn't mean anything! ANYTHING "works great on paper." I could say let's have an economic system where we use sea cucumbers for currency and everybody works as a sea cucumber trainer and it would work great on paper because I'm the one who wrote it. If an economic model doesn't work in real life, it's not "good in theory," it's just not good, period.

  25. Post #145
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Actually studies show that doing something for money causes the person to not like a task even if they were going to do it normally and instead do the least amount they can get away to get money. So basically person who does it because they like the job>someone who does it for money.
    I think my claim is a bit lost. I am making the claim that subjective preferences are the deciding factor in productivity and choice of job. It is entirely possible for someone to value the pay of job more than their enjoyment of a job. The person is still likely to be productive to attain a higher wage as they value the money more than the job. Due to the law of diminishing returns, there will be a value at which a higher wage isn't valued nearly as much, meaning there is little no incentive to be more productive. This value is different for every person and changes according to circumstance.

  26. Post #146
    Gold Member
    Devodiere's Avatar
    November 2009
    10,798 Posts
    "Law of diminishing returns" is just a classy way of saying they get bored of money and need more to feed the addiction. Buy a Mercedes but after a while you get used to it and it's just your stupid old car again, so you need a Lamborghini.

    It's not good to motivate people through money as by your own words, it's unsustainable. Giving people a good wage, taking the issue of money off the table so they always have enough and don't need to worry about it. Then try and motivate them through other factors, even if they are initially motivated by money it's possible to keep them going for other reasons.

  27. Post #147
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Really sick of people nodding along sagely in socialism threads and saying "it works great on paper, just not in real life" as if that's some kind of insightful comment.

    It doesn't mean anything! ANYTHING "works great on paper." I could say let's have an economic system where we use sea cucumbers for currency and everybody works as a sea cucumber trainer and it would work great on paper because I'm the one who wrote it. If an economic model doesn't work in real life, it's not "good in theory," it's just not good, period.
    Are you specifically saying that Socialism doesn't work, or just pointing out the error in "it works on paper, but not in life"?

  28. Post #148
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    "Law of diminishing returns" is just a classy way of saying they get bored of money and need more to feed the addiction. Buy a Mercedes but after a while you get used to it and it's just your stupid old car again, so you need a Lamborghini.
    I don't quite think you understand it as it is saying quite the opposite. It is saying rather the more money you have, the less valuable it becomes. Certainly it is based on the individual, and some might work quite hard to attain a very monetary wage. Some people value leisure over monetary gains, which isn't to say that they'd deny a raise or a high paying job, but more that they aren't as likely to work hard to attain a very high wage. There is nothing wrong with either case as they are both subjective preference.

    Are you specifically saying that Socialism doesn't work, or just pointing out the error in "it works on paper, but not in life"?
    It doesn't even work on paper as there are no realistic means of determining price and worth. This leads to the mis-allocation of resources and time. This has quite a few affects that are not so obvious, such as the quantity of natural resources to produce. This has the inevitable affect of over and under production because of the inability to plan which in turn leads to surpluses and shortages. Furthermore, the lack of prices stifles innovation as it is impossible to make any accurate judgment regarding effective and ineffective uses of capital goods. This defect was attempted to be fixed through basing prices off of the prices of other nations, yet this leads to massive price distortions and isn't sustainable over the long run.

  29. Post #149
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Are you specifically saying that Socialism doesn't work, or just pointing out the error in "it works on paper, but not in life"?
    I think hes sick of the "blank works on paper/theory but not in practice/real life" comment we see a million times in theses threads. I don't like them either because its not really making a point and it shows that you don't know what theory means.

  30. Post #150
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2006
    3,001 Posts
    Here we go with the long-debunked calculation problem which applies more to an all-encompassing corporation than a scenario of workers' self-management.

    It doesn't even work on paper as there are no realistic means of determining price and worth.
    Yes there is. It's called the value of the labor spent producing a good, which translates to the entire cost of production, even in capitalism. Products which take a longer time to produce translate to more labor-time spent on it, which means more time society spends supporting the laborer's existence as he produces the good that is presumably socially-necessary. According to your argument, the working class in a self-management situation would be paving their roads with gold and building factories out of paper, which just goes against common sense. Also according to your argument, people in hunter-gatherer societies would be incapable of differentiating between the value of easily acquired turtle meat and dangerously and work-intensively acquired mammoth meat. There is such a thing as objective value, do you see it now?

    Labor determines availability, availability determines price. If it took you 2 minutes to produce a full jug of milk you're not going to be paid enough for it in labour voucher to buy a car which took a day's worth of multiple mens' labor to produce.

    Ironically if we took your argument as true, you could never determine value in capitalism. Prices would be determined completely arbitrarily, with 'loss' and 'gain' having no meaning whatsoever. Value has always been grounded in labor costs, and for a long time capitalist economics accepted this as true until the vulgar economics of the subjectivist neo-classical school reared its ugly head.

    I suggest you get your information on marxism and resource-based economies outside of mises.org

    You can start with this

  31. Post #151
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Yes there is. It's called the value of the labor spent producing a good, which translates to the entire cost of production, even in capitalism. Products which take a longer time to produce translate to more labor-time spent on it, which means more time society spends supporting the laborer's existence as he produces the good that is presumably socially-necessary. According to your argument, the working class in a self-management situation would be paving their roads with gold and building factories out of paper, which just goes against common sense. Also according to your argument, people in hunter-gatherer societies would be incapable of differentiating between the value of easily acquired turtle meat and dangerously and work-intensively acquired mammoth meat. There is such a thing as objective value, do you see it now?

    Labor determines availability, availability determines price. If it took you 2 minutes to produce a full jug of milk you're not going to be paid enough for it in labour voucher to buy a car which took a day's worth of multiple mens' labor to produce.
    The entire premise of it is based on a misunderstanding of the work of Hegel. Normally that wouldn't at all logically impact the validity of such a theory, yet the entire idea is predicated on the idea that everything in the universe has a counteraction, and the conclusion is that profits are foreign to exchange between labor and goods and services, therefore profits are not needed. In order to argue with the theory, you have to accept that premise.

    Ironically if we took your argument as true, you could never determine value in capitalism. Prices would be determined completely arbitrarily, with 'loss' and 'gain' having no meaning whatsoever. Value has always been grounded in labor costs, and for a long time capitalist economics accepted this as true until the vulgar economics of the subjectivist neo-classical school reared its ugly head.

    I suggest you get your information on marxism and resource-based economies outside of mises.org

    You can start with this
    No, in a market economy prices are determined by many factors. It is easier to see how prices are determined first by analyzing a barter economy as the monetary aspect seems to throw people off. Profits play a large role in prices and the allocation of resources, and the majority of economic models are based on this principal.

    I'll read the book and try my best to open minded.

  32. Post #152
    SomeRandomGuy16's Avatar
    August 2011
    939 Posts
    Capitalism also stunts technology by usage of patents, sabotaging enemy companies and lobbying that results in slowed development.

    In a socialist system these can be avoided. For example if a improvement was discovered in one factory then it could be applied in every other factory in the state. This is impossible under capitalism due to heavy competition, patents, etc slowing progress.

    If you invented a process to produce lumber 3% more efficiently you can apply that to the entire country, lumber production is up 3%.

    And a socialist state never suffers from economic depression in the way a capitalist one would. Whilst a socialist state can maintain a steady rate of growth a capitalist one will have highs and lows. Eventually the socialist state will accelerate and overtake the capitalist one. The USSR in the 1930s was the only country which GDP went up during the depression.

    The capitalist one moves piecemeal and is concerned only with the creation of goods for profit rather than use. You could create goods out of nothing by simply reorganising the entire factory, then the factories in a city, then the entire country. More is created with the same input of labour. You can have people working on not just a single factory, but the entire world.
    Yes but socialism removes the incentive to innovate

  33. Post #153
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    Yes but socialism removes the incentive to innovate
    Let me guess, you're of the mindset that Socialism is "everyone gets the same pay"?

  34. Post #154
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Yes but socialism removes the incentive to innovate
    Denmark has more innovations per capita then America. I guess its because the average person gets better education.

  35. Post #155
    SomeRandomGuy16's Avatar
    August 2011
    939 Posts
    Denmark has more innovations per capita then America. I guess its because the average person gets better education.
    Denmark is not socialist

    Edited:

    Let me guess, you're of the mindset that Socialism is "everyone gets the same pay"?
    No, I'm of the mindset that socialism means all industries will be government monopolies

  36. Post #156
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Denmark is not socialist
    Its mixed but its definitely leaning towards the socialist side.

  37. Post #157
    SomeRandomGuy16's Avatar
    August 2011
    939 Posts
    Its mixed but its definitely leaning towards the socialist side.
    Its economy is not even close to socialist

    http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Denmark

    it ranks 8 in the world for economic freedom

  38. Post #158
    imasillypiggy's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,851 Posts
    Its economy is not even close to socialist

    http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Denmark

    it ranks 8 in the world for economic freedom
    Well if your counting socialism (like most people seem to do) as taxing and redistribution of money its definitely more "socialist" then a lot of countries counting america.

  39. Post #159
    Gold Member
    Lonestriper's Avatar
    September 2008
    5,613 Posts
    I'd avoid using a conservative think-tank as a source on leftism

    Edit:

    Sorry, a source on socialist policy

  40. Post #160
    HUGE RACIST
    TH89's Avatar
    January 2005
    16,347 Posts
    Are you specifically saying that Socialism doesn't work, or just pointing out the error in "it works on paper, but not in life"?
    My problem with "it works on paper but not in real life" is that it's one of those kneejerk, middle-of-the-road responses that a dozen people will post in the thread that allows them to pretend they know better than both sides of the argument. It's like when people go in climate change threads and say "it's a natural cycle, but we're speeding it up"--it doesn't make any sense, but people say it anyway because it sounds like a reasonable compromise.

    As for socialism itself, I'm distrustful of any political/economic system that tries to sell itself as a magic bullet. Libertarians and anarchocapitalists will say "yeah, there's monopolies and injustices caused by corporations, but if we took away ALL government regulation and committed to a TRULY CAPITALIST economy, those injustices would disappear and society would become a balanced utopia!" Socialists say "yeah, every government ever to call itself socialist in the history of the world has ended up as a politically repressive, economically stagnant nightmare, but they weren't TRUE socialists. If you let us create a TRULY SOCIALIST country it'll work out great!" Neither of those is very convincing to me.

    I think the "ideal" political system is like the perpetual motion machine--people want to believe it exists, and that even though it's never worked before, THEIR idea is the One, THIS time it'll work, if people will just try it! But it never works, because it turns out that governing a country, like generating energy, takes work. In governance that work takes the form of tough decisions and judgment calls--what works for one country might not work for another. But constant, carefully planned, and prudent government oversight is what keeps a country on the right track, not mindless adherence to political dogma.