3 ms·

The author is an economic idiot. Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3095028/posts h

by yc-kjh 13y ago

The author is an economic idiot. Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3095028/posts http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3095028/posts Read Bradford’s description (in the article linked above) about what socialism did to the Pilgrims: it created poverty, envy, and slothfulness. Many of them died as a result. Prosperity only returned when they re-introduced private property. I suspect the author is well meaning, but he is ignorant. His "solution" will create misery. I hope he educates himself, then changes his mind.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
legutierr 13y ago
Basic Income is not Communism. Communism is state control of the means of production, and centralized planning of the entire economy. Whether Basic Income is Socialism depends on your definition of Socialism. If you go by the definition found on wikipedia, which I think is pretty standard, BI is not Socialism either. [1] Basic Income is redistributive, but so is the US tax system, as it has been for nearly 100 years. It is a more aggressive and explicit redistribution scheme, but it is not of an entirely dissimilar nature, nor is it incompatible with free-market capitalism. So regardless of one's opinion of Socialism and Communism, whether or not socialism and communism typically fail has no bearing on whether a basic income would be successful, because they are different things. However, when you say: > Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time. You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Many, if not most of these have been mixed--combining Socialist and Capitalist policies in one way or another--for decades, if not for more than a century. So, unless you are going to assert that the modern economic order is a "failure", I think you should rethink this sentiment. > The author is an economic idiot. Strong words probably not best used in this situation. If "redistribution" of economic surplus (i.e. profit/income) is a feature of Communism and Socialism, it is not the most important feature of these ideologies, which concern themselves with limiting or eliminating private property. In fact, I would assert that redistribution is a specifically Capitalist response to the Socialist critique of private property and markets: it is a way to reduce economic injustice by focusing entirely on the distribution of surplus, while leaving private property at the core of the economic system, and while also relying on markets to determine prices and the appropriate allocation of investment. [1] "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
- adventured 13y ago
  "You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism." This explains nicely why the world economy is collapsing in a heap of failed Keynesian (aka Socialist) policies and endless mountains of debt that can't be repaid under any circumstances. From Japan's rapidly collapsing economy (so bankrupt all they have left is to print their currency to oblivion), to America's bankruptcy (doesn't even need explanation), to China's bankruptcy (endless rounds of stimulus, requiring ever more stimulus to get the same fake GDP growth, corporate debt larger than GDP, and several times their sovereign fund, and 40% of their GDP going to just paying against debt), to the implosion of countries such as Greece / Spain / Portugal / France / Italy, all of which are being propped up temporarily by a central banking printing bonanza that is destroying standards of living. I'm not aware of major mixed economies that possess any meaningful amounts of laissez-faire Capitalism. Japan, US, China, Britain, India, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Russia (aka the largest economies in the world) possess approximately zero laissez-faire Capitalism in their respective economies. I'd challenge someone to produce a major industry in any one of those countries that is actually completely unregulated by the state and untaxed (both of which are requirements of hands-off Capitalism); or even examples of zero regulation with very little taxation, as the US had in the 19th century. Internet, steel, building, manufacturing, energy in general, oil, nuclear, automobiles, railroads, telecom, commodities, housing, banking / finance --- where's the laissez-faire, aka completely unregulated, again? Doesn't exist.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - legutierr 13y ago
    Your response is largely a red herring. The primary point of my post was to say that Basic Income has nothing to do with Socialism. I was not asserting that the way that mixed economies work today is ideal or even desirable. However, I was asserting that these economies have been largely successful, which it seems you disagree with. However, that's really beside the point. I used the term "laissez-faire Capitalism" to describe Capitalism in its pure form, not to say that it is found in mixed economies per se. Maybe I should have just said "Capitalism." Again, I don't think it makes a difference.
jw_ 13y ago
Posting a link to Free Republic and attacking somebody for being ignorant in the same comment is an interesting contradiction.

by yc-kjh 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

legutierr 13y ago

Basic Income is not Communism. Communism is state control of the means of production, and centralized planning of the entire economy. Whether Basic Income is Socialism depends on your definition of Socialism. If you go by the definition found on wikipedia, which I think is pretty standard, BI is not Socialism either. [1] Basic Income is redistributive, but so is the US tax system, as it has been for nearly 100 years. It is a more aggressive and explicit redistribution scheme, but it is not of an entirely dissimilar nature, nor is it incompatible with free-market capitalism. So regardless of one's opinion of Socialism and Communism, whether or not socialism and communism typically fail has no bearing on whether a basic income would be successful, because they are different things. However, when you say: > Socialism and Communism fail every time they are tried. Every time. You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Many, if not most of these have been mixed--combining Socialist and Capitalist policies in one way or another--for decades, if not for more than a century. So, unless you are going to assert that the modern economic order is a "failure", I think you should rethink this sentiment. > The author is an economic idiot. Strong words probably not best used in this situation. If "redistribution" of economic surplus (i.e. profit/income) is a feature of Communism and Socialism, it is not the most important feature of these ideologies, which concern themselves with limiting or eliminating private property. In fact, I would assert that redistribution is a specifically Capitalist response to the Socialist critique of private property and markets: it is a way to reduce economic injustice by focusing entirely on the distribution of surplus, while leaving private property at the core of the economic system, and while also relying on markets to determine prices and the appropriate allocation of investment. [1] "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

adventured 13y ago
"You should consider that the vast majority of the world's large economies are described as "mixed economies" that combine elements of socialism and laissez faire capitalism." This explains nicely why the world economy is collapsing in a heap of failed Keynesian (aka Socialist) policies and endless mountains of debt that can't be repaid under any circumstances. From Japan's rapidly collapsing economy (so bankrupt all they have left is to print their currency to oblivion), to America's bankruptcy (doesn't even need explanation), to China's bankruptcy (endless rounds of stimulus, requiring ever more stimulus to get the same fake GDP growth, corporate debt larger than GDP, and several times their sovereign fund, and 40% of their GDP going to just paying against debt), to the implosion of countries such as Greece / Spain / Portugal / France / Italy, all of which are being propped up temporarily by a central banking printing bonanza that is destroying standards of living. I'm not aware of major mixed economies that possess any meaningful amounts of laissez-faire Capitalism. Japan, US, China, Britain, India, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Russia (aka the largest economies in the world) possess approximately zero laissez-faire Capitalism in their respective economies. I'd challenge someone to produce a major industry in any one of those countries that is actually completely unregulated by the state and untaxed (both of which are requirements of hands-off Capitalism); or even examples of zero regulation with very little taxation, as the US had in the 19th century. Internet, steel, building, manufacturing, energy in general, oil, nuclear, automobiles, railroads, telecom, commodities, housing, banking / finance --- where's the laissez-faire, aka completely unregulated, again? Doesn't exist.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- legutierr 13y ago
  Your response is largely a red herring. The primary point of my post was to say that Basic Income has nothing to do with Socialism. I was not asserting that the way that mixed economies work today is ideal or even desirable. However, I was asserting that these economies have been largely successful, which it seems you disagree with. However, that's really beside the point. I used the term "laissez-faire Capitalism" to describe Capitalism in its pure form, not to say that it is found in mixed economies per se. Maybe I should have just said "Capitalism." Again, I don't think it makes a difference.

jw_ 13y ago

Posting a link to Free Republic and attacking somebody for being ignorant in the same comment is an interesting contradiction.