The Fundamental Flaw in Socialist Economics

a reply to: Freeborn
Oh Freeborn, you try but you'll never succeed, the vast majority of US citizens are completely brainwashed when it comes to the economy/jobs/wealth and the overall well being of a country. I will try to explain to them once again. Communism/socialism/left/right/liberalism whatever label you want to put on it is just a smoke screen for the populace (like this thread) to argue over. Money IS the factor and the distribution of it makes or breaks a country.

The biggest hurdle Americans have got to learn is completely forget the massive BS lie they have been bought up to believe. IE. "If you work hard enough you will succeed". And therein lies their problem because they (well the vast, vast majority) believe if you're not successful in your job/your living standard/family life etc. you're a failure, a scrounger, a sponger on the state. For every successful Millionaire the are quite a few thousands of his own people that he's had that money off.

Any and all successful economies are strictly dependant on the regular flow of money between the mass of people for the supply and demand of goods. It is quite wrong and dangerous to base the economy on the flow of money between businesses/banks etc. as a lot of countries are now finding out and the very worst is America. Money HAS TO flow in among the populace and if that includes giving money to "poor people" so be it because if the mass of your people are poor giving them money means they're going to spend it therefore crating a successful economy. Don't, I say don't say paying people to do nothing because if you are not one of the scheming privileged few very rich people it will get to you.

This is what's going to happen. It's there in history if you just look. The Industrial Revolution 1700s/1900s. A nice example, but people see it as progress, but it's exactly what is happening now. Machines made work easier buuuttt, owners saw there was no need for all those workers but more importantly paying those workers. Still the same or even better output so more money for him. But what about all those workers out of work? Who was going to pay money for them to live. Now by your standards they are now scroungers/spongers.

Now everybody tell ME what is going to happen when this pie in the sky scenario comes to pass. AI doing jobs that office workers do. Their out of work. What happens when robots are doing the manual labours? Those workers are redundant. And that's projected to be the mass of the population. so the big question for you all is "JUST where are you going to get the money you need to just survive"? Because with the American system ALL the money goes to the owners/operators and they hoard it and that's where it stay. Now let me think just who would do that?? Eeerr, Bezos/Musk et al. Now if all those Billionaires/millionaires allowed just a small proportion of that money into the economy there would be no fiat currency.

Oh. Another little thing that's just raised it's head, but you'll never listen. Let your poor people starve with no money because their scroungers, BUT how much has your people spent on the new QX-67A????? You have your priorities completely wrong.

a reply to: crayzeed

You have a good point there, but AI will need human oversight. So perhaps there will be a job boom in that industry (?)

a reply to: strongfp
Like under monarchies, you can have a greedy or benevolent king. I understand Tito was a lot more benevolent than someone like Stalin but the problem is that if you don't have someone who can reign in their greed socialism/communism fails for the same reason countries have enacted anti-monopoly laws, greed.

a reply to: crayzeed

The biggest hurdle Americans have got to learn is completely forget the massive BS lie they have been bought up to believe. IE. "If you work hard enough you will succeed".

I've got a little challenge for you. Explain to me exactly why hard work and dedication is likely to fail. Because every time I really dedicated myself to something and put my passion into it, it generated great results. I remember a couple of years ago Veritasium uploaded a ridiculous video where he made a claim that astronauts get picked based on pure luck and it has nothing to do with training or preparation. Don't get me wrong, I usually love Veritasium and his impressive way of simplifying complex physics. But in this case he was making a lot of unfounded assumptions and I'm still amazed he hasn't removed the video. Here's part of the comment I left in response to that video:

"You must believe that you are in complete control of your destiny and that your success comes down only to your own talent and hard work." That's a rather binary way of looking at it. It's more important not to deny the fact hard work does play a large role while also have a realistic understanding that life can be unfair and we wont always be rewarded for the work we do. However persistence and determination will almost always pay off in the end. If a normal guy wants to become a quantum physicist at the age of 40 I say to them it's possible to achieve almost anything we set our minds to if we truly want it bad enough. It's a little different for celebrities and social media personalities because luck is a major determining factor in who makes it big. However it's always been very clear that your charisma and passion made you likely to achieve great things if you put in the effort required, which you have clearly done. Your point about being born into poor nations is also very valid, it's obviously harder to become a quantum physicist in a place like that, the odds of escaping poverty are tremendously lower.
...
It's extremely unlikely that those astronauts are picked primarily as a result of luck because the testing and scrutiny of each candidate is extremely thorough and a very complex process. Acknowledging the role luck plays in life should make a person more likable but we shouldn't believe that or say it just because we think it's what people like and we shouldn't dislike those who acknowledge the importance of hard work.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Explain to me exactly why hard work and dedication is likely to fail.

With all due respect, I think you are twisting what crayzeed said.

He said "If you work hard enough you will succeed" is a lie, because there is nothing that makes it a guaranteed result.

Besides the topic isn't personal economics, it is national economics.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Brother , Can you Spare a 50 Dollar Bill ?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: crayzeed

I've got a little challenge for you. Explain to me exactly why hard work and dedication is likely to fail.

Because that's how capitalism works. It can't exist without class divide! Wealth is relative, so having a billion in the bank only benefits you if most of everyone else has a lot less than that.

Since the 'haves' are massively outnumbered by the 'have-nots', simply working hard doesn't guarantee you anything.

If everyone worked hard and became wealthy, we'd have hyper inflation.

The powers that be get around this basic flaw by coming out with fancy slogans to trick you, like 'the American dream' or lets 'make America great again'. God forbid anyone should realise that the game is set up for you to fail.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That isn't Socialist economics you're describing in your post, it's stimulus theory. Very Keynesian. Very capitalist.

If you want an introduction to real Socialist economics (from a reliably capitalist perspective), try Investopedia

a reply to: daskakik

I have one example of hard work vs non hard work. I have a filming business in Michigan. I work extremely hard. Getting new sales and making sure everything is perfect. The struggle is always here.

My friend bought 1000 bitcoin when it was $700. He sold half at $49,000. He sits in his massive house all day and drinks plus he does nothing with his life. He is miserable.

I would rather have a challenge everyday and stride to better myself vs my friend who became super rich and super depressed.

a reply to: JJproductions
I get that but that isn't really the point of the thread. Having the feeling of accomplishment from a job, especially if you really enjoy it, fine but that has nothing to do with socialism.

I mean, even people in socialist countries can get the same feeling from their hard work.

a reply to: daskakik

I understand your point 100%! Thank you.

a reply to: daskakik

Sorry been a bit busy lately so I couldn't respond. I didn't say success was guaranteed, read what I said:

It's more important not to deny the fact hard work does play a large role while also have a realistic understanding that life can be unfair and we wont always be rewarded for the work we do. However persistence and determination will almost always pay off in the end.

If you reject those fundamental truths you will lose any hope of having a better future and you probably won't even try putting in the work required to build a better life. It certainly isn't a lie to say hard work and persistence is likely to pay off, in fact I would argue it's much more disingenuous to say hard work and persistence are completely pointless. That's why I have such a huge problem with Veritasium's video on the subject. It breeds nihilism and promotes the dangerous belief that increasingly socialilst policies are the only way to save society, when in reality it only causes more suffering, poverty, scarcity, etc.

originally posted by: Kallipygywiggy
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That isn't Socialist economics you're describing in your post, it's stimulus theory. Very Keynesian. Very capitalist.

If you want an introduction to real Socialist economics (from a reliably capitalist perspective), try Investopedia

Lol... huge spending under a keynesian system is hardly capitalistic in any sense, especially if a large portion of that spending goes towards social and welfare services. That's precisely why I said the only truly fair and legitimate manifestation of free market capitalism is one which uses a hard currency which doesn't allow endless stimulus spending to occur. It's literally impossible for them to spend beyond their means because they can't simply create new money. Anything else is a scam and the fundamental reason the global economy is so screwed right now, and my opening post explains exactly why.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
It certainly isn't a lie to say hard work and persistence is likely to pay off...

That is still twisting what crayzeed said "If you work hard enough you will succeed". because it doesn't always work out that way regardless of the economic system. There are also many people in the US living paycheck to paycheck. When people get laid off, it doesn't mean they were not working hard.

Besides what is the measure of success? Having a roof over you head and having enough to eat.

Seems to me most people in socialist countries have succeeded as well.

a reply to: daskakik

Once again, read what I said, obviously nothing in life is guaranteed. Expecting to get decent income even without contributing anything to society is leech behaviour because that money always comes from somewhere. There is no other form of life on Earth which is guaranteed an easy life with all the resources they could need. Reality doesn't owe us anything. However, for the most part, Humans have managed to create a society where the wealth generated by the work of some people is used to help support the people who are out of work (aka taxes). And as I have shown in the past, the most capitalist nations have a much higher average standard of living compared to nanny state socialist nations who believe that creating obscene amounts of new money or taking obscene amounts of money from the wealthiest people is the solution to poverty, when in reality it often has the opposite effect.

When people get laid off, it doesn't mean they were not working hard.

If they didn't do anything wrong, then the reason is likely to be economic, like the reason many businesses are cutting costs and laying off people right now, because if they don't take serious actions their entire business could fail and that would be much worse for the economy. It's very clear that neurotic fearmingering fools are responsible for our current economic woes, and if they didn't have the ability to create massive amounts of money out of thin air, it would have been impossible to shutdown the economy for so long, and the economy would be much better right now. As long as we continue to operate within a debt based keynesian system I promise you inequality will continue to get worse as the new money is siphoned to the ultra rich.

Besides what is the measure of success? Having a roof over you head and having enough to eat.

Well having the bare necessities to survive isn't really success, I would define success as having a bit more wealth than we need to survive, enough so we can begin to have some free time to explore our passions and dreams. It is often exploring those passions which leads to the most success because it allows us to do what we truly love. When I talk about working hard to get ahead, I'm not necessarily talking about the average desk job, I'm talking about those passion projects. I've seen countless people who loved what they do and persisted at it until they succeeded. And every single one of them will tell you hard work and persistence was the key to their success, and in my own experience that is absolutely true.

Seems to me most people in socialist countries have succeeded as well

Well that depends how we define success once again doesn't it? The stats clearly show us the most capitalistic nations are some of the most wealthy nations and they have a higher standard of living. Yes they might have more inequality, but the poorest people are still better off than the poorest people in socialist nations. History has shown us countless times how overzealous socialism can lead to mass suffering and mass poverty. Yet the masses have been brainwashed to believe in this magical utopia where there's absolutely no suffering and everyone has everything they need. Of course it sounds nice, but reality simply doesn't work that way, there are fundemental economic forces which drive life on this planet, and we ignore those forces at our own peril.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Once again, read what I said, obviously nothing in life is guaranteed.

That was what crayzeed said so why did you put up your little challenge?

I've got a little challenge for you. Explain to me exactly why hard work and dedication is likely to fail.

That was the twist, they never said hard work and dedication is likely to fail, they said "If you work hard enough you will succeed" wasn't guaranteed.

Now here you are saying the same thing.

a reply to: daskakik

I said the same thing all along, we are just arguing over semantics now. I see way too many people completely dismissing the importance of dedication and persistence, instead believing that everything in life should easily come to them because hard work is meaningless. My challenge was to explain or show why that is true, because I believe it's a nihilistic way of thinking, it encourages a Marxist mindset and I view that as a dangerous and slippery slope towards a future where poverty and scarcity is even more rampant. At the end of the day the elite want us to own nothing, they want personal property to be a thing of the past, so we all rent or share everything we need, and I oppose such nonsense to the very core of my being. Individualism and liberty does not flourish under such circumstances despite some Marxist arguments to the contrary, such as the essay titled The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I said the same thing all along, we are just arguing over semantics now.

Then why did you disagree with what crayzeed said if it was what you were saying all along?

I see way too many people completely dismissing the importance of dedication and persistence, instead believing that everything in life should easily come to them because hard work is meaningless.

A lot of it has become meaningless due to automation. It is the way society is moving.

My challenge was to explain or show why that is true, because I believe it's a nihilistic way of thinking, it encourages a Marxist mindset and I view that as a dangerous and slippery slope towards a future where poverty and scarcity is even more rampant. At the end of the day the elite want us to own nothing, they want personal property to be a thing of the past, so we all rent or share everything we need, and I oppose such nonsense to the very core of my being. Individualism and liberty does not flourish under such circumstances despite what some Marxists arguments to the contrary, such as Oscar Wilde in his essay titled The Soul of Man Under Socialism.

Meh, there are only 4 countries that are still Marxist and 3 of those 4 have moved or are moving to mixed economy models.

Nobody is slipping on your slippery slope.

I live in a capitalist 3rd world country and our GDP per capita is less than $US11,000 per year. Minimum wage is $US400 a month. Many people work for less. Guess they have their individuality and freedom to be poor.