The Fundamental Flaw in Socialist Economics

a reply to: daskakik

The only real fundamental flaw in socialist economics is to think you can give a small group of people the wealth of a nation and believe that they will give each citizen their fair share.

True.
But the trickle down economics theory that sort of underpins most justifications for capitalism doesn't work either.

Capitalism has a similar problem, that is why countries have anti-monopoly laws.

Which more or less don't work and certainly aren't beneficial for the ordinary, everyday people of this world.

Maybe the Mixed Market Economy model that seems so frowned upon nowadays isn't really all that bad after all?

a reply to: Freeborn

You do realize the "trickle down" economics are equivalent to the Russia Russia Russia hoax?

The democrats made up the stupid "trickle down" argument, claiming it was a 'Reagan thing'.

It wasn't and it's not. It's a purely made-up Democrat lie, like Project 2025.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Strange.
I've heard the trickle down justification used here in the UK by many Conservative politicians and economists......but of course, its a Democrat thing.

I quite clearly stated trickle down doesn't work, never has and never will.

The actual phrase may have started during the Reagan era but the theory existed well before that.

To be honest I was just trying to make the point that neither Capitalism or Socialism work for the ordinary man in the street and that perhaps a more Mixed Market Economy approach would be better....but hey, take from it whatever you will.

a reply to: Freeborn

Interesting because I read a philosophy book eons ago where it was agreed than no one economic ideology works. Can you expand more on that mixed market ideology?

a reply to: quintessentone

Basically it includes elements of Capitalism and Socialism.
It allows for a mixture of a market economy and a planned economy - private ownership and a certain amount of nationalisation.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nobody is giving anybody free money hehehehehe or anything free. It drags everybody down when they do because the people who actually have money get taxed more and the people who don't have no incentive to do anything to change that. If you don't have a job, you have no purpose in life. You contribute nothing. If you have a bunch of kids you can't take care off because you can't afford them and need government assistance, you are actually a negative factor in society.

Someone commented to me on another thread how automation is gonna make this utopia where everybody sits around making art hehehehehehehehehehe omg the delusion. If you aren't useful via labor to the elites, expect to be eliminated once robots and automation are more mainstream. Theyre not gonna have 8 billion people sitting around doing basically nothing they would never.

a reply to: Freeborn

From your first source; thought-provoking, I must say.

Jesuit author David Hollenbach has argued that Catholic social teaching calls for a "new form" of mixed economy. He refers back to Pope Pius XI's statement that government "should supply help to the members of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them".[42] Hollenbach writes that a socially just mixed economy involves labor, management, and the state working together through a pluralistic system that distributes economic power widely.[43] Pope Francis has criticised neoliberalism throughout his papacy and encouraged state welfare programs for "the redistribution of wealth, looking out for the dignity of the poorest who risk always ending up crushed by the powerful".[44] In Evangelii gaudium, he states: "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."[45]

From your second source; also thought-provoking as to why his economic ideologies failed:

Despite his social reforms and economic programme food, housing and resource shortages persisted throughout his premiership, alongside recurrent currency crises and dependence on US aid.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I find it funny how the Biden administration constantly talks about the US having one of the strongest economies in the world post-Covid.

Fantastic thread & write-up OP. The other huge economic factor I don't hear politicians or good-for-nothing news commentators discussing is the fact that we are running war-time deficits in peacetime.

& federal debt to GDP is a whopping 122%, we're about to surpass $35 trillion in national debt usdebtclock.org... (not counting over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities like social security), and interest expense on the debt just overtook defense spending.

But the sociopaths in DC will continue to pull levers/move the goal posts/etc. to keep this charade going for longer than we all think they can.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Definitely not... Reagan and thatcher ironically explained to the whole world exactly how modern central banking and monetary policies work in a dumbed down way.

That central banks print money and hand it to big trusted banks who then distribute the money to smaller banks and their top corporate buddies... a trickling down effect.

a reply to: quintessentone

Personally I believe that a move towards a Mixed Market Economy would only be a good thing.
It rewards hard work, endeavour and enterprise whilst also striving to improve the well being of all within society.
Most people disagree with me.....that's entirely their right.
But I suspect a lot of that is down to the demonisation of 'nationalisation' and anything remotely resembling a truly left-wing/socialist approach to anything.

Again only my own personal opinion but Clement Attlee was the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever had.
He was a loyal Deputy PM to Churchill during WWII.
Bluntly put, when he was elected PM this country was #ed; massive shortages of food, housing etc and facing bankruptcy.

He had a vision of what he wanted this country to be and like all good leaders he surrounded himself with capable and talented people who could deliver.
His Premiership saw great improvements in social welfare and overall quality of life for the working man.

Sadly almost every government and administration since has systematically tried to dismantle what he built either through mismanagement, under-investment, neglect and privatisation in their march to take us back to a Victorianesque society.

But I digress.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: quintessentone

Personally I believe that a move towards a Mixed Market Economy would only be a good thing.
It rewards hard work, endeavour and enterprise whilst also striving to improve the well being of all within society.
Most people disagree with me.....that's entirely their right.
But I suspect a lot of that is down to the demonisation of 'nationalisation' and anything remotely resembling a truly left-wing/socialist approach to anything.

Again only my own personal opinion but Clement Attlee was the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever had.
He was a loyal Deputy PM to Churchill during WWII.
Bluntly put, when he was elected PM this country was #ed; massive shortages of food, housing etc and facing bankruptcy.

He had a vision of what he wanted this country to be and like all good leaders he surrounded himself with capable and talented people who could deliver.
His Premiership saw great improvements in social welfare and overall quality of life for the working man.

Sadly almost every government and administration since has systematically tried to dismantle what he built either through mismanagement, under-investment, neglect and privatisation in their march to take us back to a Victorianesque society.

But I digress.

You know what I have been mulling over? Every economic ideology dismisses giving the lower and middle classes living wages without even trying it first. The larger percentage of society are lower and middle class are the spenders and does it not stand to reason that giving them more money and them going out and spreading it around would only stimulate the economy. This is what makes sense to me.

Another thought, when governments try to stimulate the economy through construction/infrastructure projects, isn't the byproduct giving the lower and middle class workers jobs and money to spread around? Why not just give them a living wage to begin with?

a reply to: quintessentone

Without a doubt.
Pay working people more money and they will spend it which in turn generates growth.
Pay me 30 grand a year and I'll spend it, pay me 50 grand a year and I'll spend it.

During the recovery from Covid I advocated giving each household in the UK a lump sum of say £1500 with the condition they had to spend it within 12 months. Spend it on anything; beer, donuts, carpets, washing machine, meals....anything.
My reasoning was that it would give the economy a much needed boost and also generate an equally much needed feel-good factor.

I don't know. I'm no economist but it made sense to me.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: quintessentone

Without a doubt.
Pay working people more money and they will spend it which in turn generates growth.
Pay me 30 grand a year and I'll spend it, pay me 50 grand a year and I'll spend it.

During the recovery from Covid I advocated giving each household in the UK a lump sum of say £1500 with the condition they had to spend it within 12 months. Spend it on anything; beer, donuts, carpets, washing machine, meals....anything.
My reasoning was that it would give the economy a much needed boost and also generate an equally much needed feel-good factor.

I don't know. I'm no economist but it made sense to me.

Absolutely, it makes sense to me too so what does that say about the political leaders handling our money?

a reply to: quintessentone

Much needed investment in our infrastructure will increase the need for skilled tradesmen.
This increases the need to move towards a more vocational education and training system and less academically driven.
Theses tradesmen - oops, should be tradespeople - would be in more demand and thus command a higher pay which they would in turn spend.
Pretty simple and straight forward.

The UK is a notoriously low wage economy - its emphasis is on creating massive profits that executives/shareholders/directors etc all benefit from. They use the money they make to 'invest' in other businesses to generate even more money very little of which they actually spend nor use to benefit those who's hard toil made them the money or the general public.

All most people want is a truly honest days pay for an honest days work.
They deserve to be paid more than what in essence is little more than existence level wages.

a reply to: Freeborn

I agree, new thinking and economic changes need to be called for, or rather protested for because government always seems to say that giving living wages to people will create an economic collapse, without any proof. Most governments have already created economic collapse...clown world (surreal to me).

a reply to: quintessentone

It's carrot on a stick incentive for the working class.
Governments know what the bare minimum is to live off, so they've set it. Great. But, if you want more then you gotta aquire skills and knowledge and other things to get more of the carrot.

That's how it's supposed to work.

a reply to: Freeborn

This would have added more inflationary pressure on top of the already inflated money supply. Which would have been severely irresponsible. Only way around it would to some how off load money elsewhere, which the british pound doesn't have the market sway to do so like the USD can.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: quintessentone

It's carrot on a stick incentive for the working class.
Governments know what the bare minimum is to live off, so they've set it. Great. But, if you want more then you gotta aquire skills and knowledge and other things to get more of the carrot.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Then they keep raising the tax levels, so here we all are.

Economic growth comes from innovation and investment. Advocating for the broken window theory is a road to nowhere.

a reply to: strongfp

This would have added more inflationary pressure on top of the already inflated money supply.

As I said, I'm not an economist.
Why?

Seems to me that regardless of the state of the economy there is always an excuse to keep wages low for the many and profits high for the few.

Isn't it about time we did something about that?

Which would have been severely irresponsible.

Since when has being 'severely irresponsible' prevented politicians from doing something?

Only way around it would to some how off load money elsewhere, which the british pound doesn't have the market sway to do so like the USD can.

Whilst I obviously do understand the basic principles about inflation, market forces, supply and demand etc that is something I really don't understand.