Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 5:35:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
duh socialism doesn't work, people can't comprehend that because they haven't researched it enough.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 7:16:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Canada is considered a welfare state, yet we have one of the best living conditions in the world. Our society is very liberal, and our prevention crime system is the reason for the decrease of crime over decades. Unfortunately, our idiotic Prime Minister is sending us on an American path to hell. Anyway, when liberals in the U.S want to back their positions, all they need to do is look at Canada.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 7:32:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 7:16:42 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Canada is considered a welfare state, yet we have one of the best living conditions in the world. Our society is very liberal, and our prevention crime system is the reason for the decrease of crime over decades. Unfortunately our idiotic Prime Minister is sending us on an American path to hell. Anyway, when liberals in the U.S want to back their positions, all they need to do is look at Canada.

2010 GDP in US was $46,860 per capita. In 2010 in Canada, GDP was $39,171 per capita.

That American path to hell sounds pretty good to me.
President of DDO
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 7:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 7:32:19 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2010 GDP in US was $46,860 per capita. In 2010 in Canada, GDP was $39,171 per capita.

That American path to hell sounds pretty good to me.

Re: standard of living

"The United Nations Human Development Index ranks the United States (fourth) higher than Canada (eighth)[26]. Other independent groups, such as the Economist have ranked each of Canada's four largest cities as better places to live than any American city. In their 2005 ranking, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa ranked within the top 10 livable cities while the highest ranked American cities, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, were tied at 26th place"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Canada is growing slower than the US, only 0.9% for Canada: http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

America grew 2% that's slightly over twice as fast. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

So people in america are richer, and our economy is growing faster. So America economically is better.

Also American healthcare trumps Europe's healthcare:

Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers than Europe. Take prostate cancer: 91.9 percent of men live through it, versus 73.7 percent in France and just 51.1 percent in Britain.

Or that every year Britain's National Health Service cancels about 100,000 operations. Think of it this way: When you're counting on a procedure that means life or death, you don't want to have some bureaucratic bonehead who's only counting dollars and cents. And you certainly don't want to be standing in a long line, like the one million Brits currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital and another 200,000 just hoping to get on a waiting list.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.

Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
read this for more info on how socialist healthcare sucks: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...

Also the Nazis had that system, and their healthcare was terrible. So economically America trumps socialism, and medically it does too.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:31:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 7:55:12 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 12/16/2011 7:32:19 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

2010 GDP in US was $46,860 per capita. In 2010 in Canada, GDP was $39,171 per capita.

That American path to hell sounds pretty good to me.

Re: standard of living

"The United Nations Human Development Index ranks the United States (fourth) higher than Canada (eighth)[26]. Other independent groups, such as the Economist have ranked each of Canada's four largest cities as better places to live than any American city. In their 2005 ranking, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa ranked within the top 10 livable cities while the highest ranked American cities, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, were tied at 26th place"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The point is that Canada's welfare state has slowed growth and their HC sucks.
President of DDO
LeoL
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart. At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later. In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:36:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart. At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later. In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.

That is definitely an idea "borrowed" from Canadians... worring about paying for it later....to the tune of trillions! :D

Sing it $eline Dion!
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:39:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart. At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later. In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.

Go have fun waiting six months for hip surgery in Canada.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:39:49 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart. At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later. In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.

Go have fun waiting six months for hip surgery in Canada.

I have allies here :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 8:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart.

It's been falling apart since 1966 when the universal system was established.
42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.

At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later.

Same in America, only we don't pay more in taxes to cover the cost.

In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.
You don't pay upfront, you get a bill after treatment.
Also you can buy insurance.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart. At least in Canada, if you need a surgery to live, you can get it and worry about paying later. In America: give us the money, then we'll save your life.

This is just to argue with your signature.

The richest, most educated, and most involved with the economy are republicans. Also it was found that the more economics classes you take, the more likely you become a Conservative. So conservatives are smarter. I take that back, you cant link an ideology to intelligence, but your signature is ill thought out.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:08:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If conservative Republicans are smarter, why is their party so sh1t?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:09:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 8:55:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:32:16 PM, LeoL wrote:
At 12/16/2011 8:06:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
more healthcare (Canada now)

Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists.



Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages.

Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

Lol. The only reason our public health care is falling apart is because of our stupid conservative government that favors jets over the health of it's citizens. Our prime minister has been showing signs that he is weakening our public healthcare to eventually privatize it. That's why it's falling apart.

It's been falling apart since 1966 when the universal system was established.
42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.

meant to say that Studies by the Commonwealth Fund found that 42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:13:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:08:10 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If conservative Republicans are smarter, why is their party so sh1t?

There is a difference between smart, and popular.

The Left wing has been indoctrinating for years. I'm not saying it's some left wing conspiracy, only that the Left tend to promote their ideals more through the media, when teaching students, and when having everyday conversations.
Most Americans consider themselves Conservative, yet there is a perception that conservatives are in the minority, because Liberals are louder.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Before I tear your definition of socialism to shreds, I want to ask you one question: have you read the Communist Manifesto? If not, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:20:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:17:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Before I tear your definition of socialism to shreds, I want to ask you one question: have you read the Communist Manifesto? If not, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

I shot it once :p
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:23:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:08:10 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If conservative Republicans are smarter, why is their party so sh1t?

Did you ever go to high school?

Were the smart kids very popular?
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:25:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:17:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Before I tear your definition of socialism to shreds, I want to ask you one question: have you read the Communist Manifesto? If not, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

Socialism predates Marxism. The Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei wasn't written until 1848
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:26:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:17:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/16/2011 3:58:21 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Socialism suffers from many problems. One big problem is the "free rider", or "incentive" problem. When everyone is rewarded equally, regardless of work, many people simply don't work or work less than they normally would. In many socialist countries that force everyone to work, people would clock work hours but work very little and be very unproductive while at work. In the Soviet Union, a well known saying was "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Another problem is "brain drain" and the related "adverse selection". Basically, in socialist communities, everyone is rewarded equally, so high skilled individuals will not see near the rewards they could see elsewhere. Likewise, low skilled individuals could get more rewards, for less work, in these socialistic communities. For this reason, high skilled individuals will likely emigrate from socialist areas to more capitalistic areas. This is called "brain drain". On a similiar note, low skilled individuals will immigrate to socialistic areas to get greater rewards for less work, known as "adverse selection". These processes lead to a less skilled and less motivated workforces, meaning substantially less human capital.

Another major problem with socialism is the "economic calculation problem". Basically, there is no way for even the most intelligent people to figure out the needs and preferences of such large amounts of people. Furthermore, there is no way to determine the value of capital goods in a socialistic economic system. The only way to do these things in large scale economies is through a price system, which can only exist on a free market.

All of these problems are known for being the reason that so called "full blown" socialism cannot work. However, they also are largely the reasons that more moderate versions of socialism, such as welfare state economies in Western Eurupe and North America, have failed. The free rider problem certainly applies to welfare states, as do the "brain drain" and "adverse selection" problems. Most modern welfare state economies also try to subsidize certain industries that they think should be "promoted", which certainly has something to do with the "economic calculation problem".

To summarize, socialism cannot work for a variety of reasons. This includes even more moderate versions of socialism

Before I tear your definition of socialism to shreds, I want to ask you one question: have you read the Communist Manifesto? If not, I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.

My definition of socialism is the state ownership of means of production. I don't care if you don't like this definition because this is the only form of large scare socialism that has ever existed.

I am not gonna argue over some hypothetical, never could be implemented definition of socialism, like the one you probably plan on throwing at me.

And, yes, I have read the Communist Manifesto, about a year and a half ago. Not a very convincing book.
President of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:27:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The richest, most educated, and most involved with the economy are republicans. Also it was found that the more economics classes you take, the more likely you become a Conservative. So conservatives are smarter. I take that back, you cant link an ideology to intelligence, but your signature is ill thought out.

Please provide statistics for these claims.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:27:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The richest, most educated, and most involved with the economy are republicans. Also it was found that the more economics classes you take, the more likely you become a Conservative. So conservatives are smarter. I take that back, you cant link an ideology to intelligence, but your signature is ill thought out.

Please provide statistics for these claims.

I don't know about all those claims, but I do know conservatives and Republicans know basic economic stuff better than liberals and Democrats:

http://online.wsj.com...
President of DDO
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:23:16 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/16/2011 9:08:10 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If conservative Republicans are smarter, why is their party so sh1t?

Did you ever go to high school?

Were the smart kids very popular?

lol knowing more about economics =/= more intelligent.

I could make the same claim about Republics knowing jack sh!t about the behavioural sciences. The different ideologies obviously have different views on how to improve society.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:48:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I may know little about economics, but I do know that while millions of Americans were losing their jobs, not a single person in the largest Canadian company was laid off due to the recession.

While 8 years ago, my aunt's moderately sized house in Houston Texas was worth $200,000 and it is still worth $200,000, the house I live in increased has in value over $100,000 in the past 3 years.

People obviously value different things, so your criticisms of the left don't appeal to those who support it in any way.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:48:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
I may know little about economics, but I do know that while millions of Americans were losing their jobs, not a single person in the largest Canadian company was laid off due to the recession.

While 8 years ago, my aunt's moderately sized house in Houston Texas was worth $200,000 and it is still worth $200,000, the house I live in has increased in value over $100,000 in the past 3 years.

People obviously value different things, so your criticisms of the left don't appeal to those who support it in any way.

Edited.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 9:52:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/16/2011 9:48:38 PM, nonentity wrote:
I may know little about economics, but I do know that while millions of Americans were losing their jobs, not a single person in the largest Canadian company was laid off due to the recession.

While 8 years ago, my aunt's moderately sized house in Houston Texas was worth $200,000 and it is still worth $200,000, the house I live in increased has in value over $100,000 in the past 3 years.

People obviously value different things, so your criticisms of the left don't appeal to those who support it in any way.

I get it. Anecdotal emotional appeals matter more to you than actual empirical evidence.
President of DDO