4 ms·
The answer to pension problems is real socialism. Produce in bulk, provide in bulk, eliminate the waste and middle-person profit by providing as much of the pe
by mjevans 10y ago
The answer to pension problems is real socialism. Produce in bulk, provide in bulk, eliminate the waste and middle-person profit by providing as much of the pension as possible directly so that the allowance for other items can be of a much smaller serviceable size.
- altstar 10y agoThey have tried in Venezuela. Did not work.
- InitialLastName 10y agoVenezuela tried petro-socialism, backing their welfare state with a single resource that they happened to be swimming in. Price of that resource false -> no more monetary value -> money is worthless and welfare state fails.
- enraged_camel 10y agoI'm not sure why you are being downvoted (probably for ideological reasons). You are totally correct. Socialism hasn't really been tried in countries with diverse, abundant resources and powerful economies.
- deepnet 10y agoPost WW2 UK elected a socialist government which created the welfare state, comprehensive schools, state pensions and the National Health Service and nationalisation of some industries.
- vkou 10y agoIt has been tried, we call that country 'The United States' - at least, if you're over the age of 65.
- enraged_camel 10y agoNot sure what you mean. The "socialist" programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, have been massively successful. But they are the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is possible. We're talking things like Medicare for All and, at the extreme end of the spectrum, Unconditional Basic Income.
- dmix 10y agoVenezuela was having serious issues even before the price of oil took a nose dive. One example is the food shortages. They were happening well before the crisis. Centralized food markets with price controls always creates shortage. It's simple economics. If your economic system can't efficiently feed people, more complex industries will be even harder. Not to mention building new industries. The failures of their socialist experiment go far deeper than simply a non diversified industry. The drop in the petro industry showed immediately how fragile the massive spending schemes and nationalization was. As Thomas Sowell said (paraphrasing), the problem with redistribution is that you can only take someone's money/property once, you can't take their ability to continually produce goods. So when that well dries up the cracks in the system become apparent. The wikipedia article on the Venezuelan economy is a good read about the risks of centralized planned economies.
- altstar 10y agoWhy would you try socialism in those countries?
- moduspol 10y agoIndeed. Yet the price of oil going down at some point is hardly an unforeseeable scenario, right? They're not stupid people. They were led to believe that it would never end, or that basic economic principles didn't apply to them. Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money. Whether it's because the price of oil dropped, your most productive tax payers moved out, or your currency hyperinflates until it's worthless: somehow it's never socialism's fault. Reality eventually does set in, though.
- ericdykstra 10y agoWho would win? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-7JSI0W0AIPObl.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-7JSI0W0AIPObl.jpg:large
- zzzzzzzza 10y agoit's not clear from your comment what real socialism even means. You seem to be advocating for some sort of planned economy? (that's a horrible idea) Then whats this about allowance for other items?
- xmlblog 10y agoWhich is why Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are doing so well. I'm astounded people still think the idea of central production control has any juice left in it after such a thorough debunking in the 20th century.
- paulddraper 10y agoBut we haven't tried it.
- Gustomaximus 10y agoWhich is why Norway, Denmark and Sweden are doing so well with all their socialist programs.... so what now...? I personally feel the right answer is in the middle. Socialise whats required like health, education, emergency services, roads, pensions, etc And leave the luxuries of life as free market. As an extra touch, I would make politicians and civil servants required to use public services rather than private alternatives. Because when they and their families have to use public schools and hospitals etc they will care a bunch more about how they run than if they are choosing private alternatives, which is common in Australia at least.
- ersii 10y agoAll three of the mention countries have pretty much free, capitalistic enterprise - which is the total opposite to what mjevans suggested. That said, there is a huge government ("public") sector and the taxation is high on most things. Especially income and consumption. Basically, all of the socialist programs that's currently going on in the Nordic countries rely heavily on taxing free enterprises (private sector) and would work a lot less without them.