3 ms·

> Social security, Medicare, general health, income security, and veterans benefits and services take up over 62% of the United States federal budget. How shoul

by tivert 8y ago

> Social security, Medicare, general health, income security, and veterans benefits and services take up over 62% of the United States federal budget. How should socialism address this growing problem? What exactly is the growing problem? That those services exist? That they cost money? That the government doesn't spend more on other things that it should, messing up the proportions? From a socialist's perspective, I don't think the fact that those programs take up "over 62% of the budget" would even be considered a problem at all. However, a socialist would clearly see it as a problem if they're mismanaged or wasteful. > there's a socialist collapse in Venezuela being broadcast. To be honest, it seems like that collapse has more to do with authoritarianism and rampant corruption than socialism.

andrewmcwatters 8y ago
Because all else being equal, if you want to do more, you have to spend more. Are you seriously expecting things to become more efficient? That's very optimistic for a nation with so many key economic factors for its working citizens stagnant or declining since the early 70s. Very optimistic.
- tivert 8y ago
  > Because all else being equal, if you want to do more, you have to spend more. And, all else being equal, if you want to spend less, you have to neglect more problems (and people).
toasterlovin 8y ago
> To be honest, it seems like that collapse has more to do with authoritarianism and rampant corruption than socialism. I think the critique of socialism is that it leads to authoritarianism and rampant corruption because it eliminates economically productive ways to provide for yourself.
- tivert 8y ago
  > I think the critique of socialism is that it leads to authoritarianism and rampant corruption because it eliminates on economically productive ways to provide for yourself. There are critiques of capitalism that say the exact same thing. Personally, I think the key variables that makes a successful economy are actually found outside of the details of its economic system (e.g. rule of law, strong yet uncorrupt institutions, democratic representation, cooperative social mores, etc).
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Maybe a better way to put it is that capitalist systems can produce enough excess to pay for rampant corruption, whereas socialist/communist systems cannot, since they are fundamentally crippled without the price mechanism to inform resource allocation.
    - ardy42 8y ago
      > whereas socialist/communist systems cannot, since they are fundamentally crippled without the price mechanism to inform resource allocation. Socialism does not necessarily mean central planning.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I think social control of the means of production still has a similar problem to not having price signals: resource allocation becomes motivated by political considerations, rather than by a profit motive.
        ardy42 8y ago
        > I think social control of the means of production still has a similar problem to not having price signals: resource allocation becomes motivated by political considerations, rather than by a profit motive. Resource allocation via the profit motive is a political consideration; it's not some neutral thing that's somehow above politics.

by tivert 8y ago

andrewmcwatters 8y ago

Because all else being equal, if you want to do more, you have to spend more. Are you seriously expecting things to become more efficient? That's very optimistic for a nation with so many key economic factors for its working citizens stagnant or declining since the early 70s. Very optimistic.

tivert 8y ago
> Because all else being equal, if you want to do more, you have to spend more. And, all else being equal, if you want to spend less, you have to neglect more problems (and people).

toasterlovin 8y ago

> To be honest, it seems like that collapse has more to do with authoritarianism and rampant corruption than socialism. I think the critique of socialism is that it leads to authoritarianism and rampant corruption because it eliminates economically productive ways to provide for yourself.

tivert 8y ago
> I think the critique of socialism is that it leads to authoritarianism and rampant corruption because it eliminates on economically productive ways to provide for yourself. There are critiques of capitalism that say the exact same thing. Personally, I think the key variables that makes a successful economy are actually found outside of the details of its economic system (e.g. rule of law, strong yet uncorrupt institutions, democratic representation, cooperative social mores, etc).
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Maybe a better way to put it is that capitalist systems can produce enough excess to pay for rampant corruption, whereas socialist/communist systems cannot, since they are fundamentally crippled without the price mechanism to inform resource allocation.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > whereas socialist/communist systems cannot, since they are fundamentally crippled without the price mechanism to inform resource allocation. Socialism does not necessarily mean central planning.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      You're right, thanks for pointing that out. I think social control of the means of production still has a similar problem to not having price signals: resource allocation becomes motivated by political considerations, rather than by a profit motive.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        > I think social control of the means of production still has a similar problem to not having price signals: resource allocation becomes motivated by political considerations, rather than by a profit motive. Resource allocation via the profit motive is a political consideration; it's not some neutral thing that's somehow above politics.