Why doesn't socialism work?

how many times do you have to be told it is socialism is defined as ownership or regulation or control by the community. Only pure socialism which doesn't work and is communism is about ownership of all business and industry. My theory as a French and history teacher is that you are part of the brainwashed Anglo-Saxon Anglo American monolingual view of socialism. The UK and now America the height of savage capitalism. And Napoleon was slightly taller than average and he never said England was the nation of shopkeepers, he said England was a nation of monopolists...France Norway Germany Spain Italy etc all had socialist parties for a hundred years and many had communist parties too and they were totally different as I say. but the United kingdom the United States Canada Australia and New Zealand have to call socialists social Democrats or labor or liberals. Brainwashed.

 

Bernie is a fool.

 

Any form of government which requires control over national production requires a strong leader which results in tens of millions of deaths. Communism and socialism end up in the same tragic place. It is irrelevant where they start.

 

Moot points and recitations that does not disprove or refute my previous post. Let me elaborate....the "tea party" came to be a major influence on the GOP via LOCAL elections...once they had enough reps, they moved onto the state, then to the HOUSE, then the SENATE.
That's how it's done, son.
Nice try at a snow job on your part, though. Carry on.

 

You are VIOLATING PF rules by dishonestly accusing another member of lying when they DEBUNK your asinine drivel.

Your flailing attempts to keep MOVING the goalposts whenever you were exposed as LACKING relevant Subject Matter Knowledge is YOUR problem, not mine.

Not only have I used credible links to debunk your FALLACIES I have even used your own links to expose your absence of relevant subject matter knowledge.

The kneejerk denialism combined with the glaring dearth of subject matter knowledge has become boringly tiresome and since you have nothing of any actual value to contribute to this topic all further posts of yours regarding this matter will be IGNORED.

Have a nice day!

 

Be interesting to learn what percentage of the entire population that 84% actually represents.

 

They practice democratic socialism, as I linked to demonstrate as a FACT, your insipid stubbornness non-withstanding.
America practices economic socialism...a FACT practiced in the last 30 years with bank bailouts, subsidizing corporate out sourcing, etc. That you are in denial of this is irrelevant.

 

Er… are you replying to another post...or has your troll-mode completely taken over?

 

No they don't. Central banks are run by rule makers. They merely adapt interest rates according to inflationary decisions. The existence of QE shows that monetarism is just textbook grunt.

 

Just good regulation is enough along with the healthcare. "We are all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed.

 

No, by definition you are fascists.

 

I told you before that the problem with MMT is public acceptance. The government is employing MMT principles in handing people money. They're giving people enough money to buy the goods and services we can produce with enforced isolation, pay rent or extend the mortgage, money to businesses producing less to let them service their debt and stay in business, and (coming soon to a city near you!) money for local governments seeing tax revenue dry up. The rest of the spending can go to fighting the virus and infrastructure.

Nothing so far about what should be done.

It will be inflationary if you give them more money to spend than can the economy can produce.

Careful what you do. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.

You're telling producers they aren't allowed to produce things people want because some of what they want will kill them--going to a bar, movie, restaurant. Some producers are getting creative like restaurants doing take out or making deliveries. Match the handout to what can be produced.

 

1. re public acceptance: the public think the government's budget is subject to the same constraints - money - as their own household budgets, since that is their lived experience.
But governments are constrained by resources, NOT money.
So public acceptance will be some time coming, but at least the new macroeconomic textbook is finding its way into tertiary economics institutions.

2. re "the government is employing MMT principles": indeed, and even Joe Biden, a well-known deficit hawk, is now saying so:

"Nobody will pay for anything having to do with the crisis. This is a national emergency. There isn’t a question of whether or not this is something that could be covered by insurance, or anything else. We, out of the Treasury, are going to pay for this.”

It will be interesting to see if the general public catch on in the coming months, as they realise the massive increase in necessary government support cannot be paid for by the usual government financing methods such as interest-bearing bonds, etc, without the resulting government debt burden impinging on future growth, for decades to come.

Yes; and dealt with and explained by prof. Bill Mitchell:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=34315

"No-one ........is suggesting that a government would continue expanding nominal spending via ever-growing deficits once an economy had reached full capacity and full employment. It is obvious that if such a strategy was pursued then ever-increasing inflation would be the result. This is because firms cannot squeeze any more real output out of the resources in use.

Alternatively, when there are idle resources (such as unemployed labour and machines), an expansion of nominal spending will likely be mostly absorbed by higher production (real output) and firms will be highly reluctant to try to increase prices for fear of losing market share to other firms in the sector.

Most importantly, growth in nominal spending can continue even when the economy is operating at full capacity as long as it matches the growth in that productive capacity and doesn’t strain the capacity of the economy to respond to the extra spending with output growth" .

Can you now see (from the above quote from Mitchell) that inflation is primarily a result of excess demand on available resources, rather than a "monetary" phenomenon?

I know you are a monetarist, so it won't be immediately apparent to you, however, the fact remains money is not a real resource.

(eg, before the Romans arrived in Britain, how did inflation manifest itself?)

OK; so now the onus is on you, as a monetarist, to explain how you will deal with the coming several months; ie how/where will you find the money people need to avoid starving, in our money-dependent economies.

 

How can you ignore the bad name socialism (collective ownership) got because of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and grotesque examples like Cambodia. Why not put forward a different version rather than pretend they weren't socialists?

What is "pure socialism?" 100% collective ownership?

Communism can never exist. The nature of humans will never conform to the ideal of taking only what one needs.

A bit presumptuous when I taught history and economics for decades.

"Height of savage capitalism?" What does that mean? The United States was a slave society for most of its first century.

The U.S. had socialist parties, too, but they seldom contended for power, never nationally. After WW1, Marxism-Leninism as practiced in Russia gained influence, especially in the 1930s, and became the "socialist" bogeyman after WW2.

 

Fascists are right-wing totalitarian like Hitler and Mussolini.... You are seriously misinformed.

 

You're talking about communism not socialism because of your Anglo American brainwash. Napoleon was above average in height and said England was a nation of monopolists, not shopkeepers.

 

I should, I believe, be allowed to say clearly they're untrue. Your claims...

I might add that this claim (see above) about "alternative lenders" making usurious loans is way overgeneralizing.

There are billions of trade credit extended every day on nothing more than the good name of the business receiving the goods or service. This has nothing to do with secured bank lending.

I'll say it again: "There are billions of trade credit extended every day on nothing more than the good name of the business receiving the goods or service. This has nothing to do with secured bank lending."

Anyone running a business knows there are a lot of small transactions that simply aren't worth the paperwork of secured loans, collateral, or even efforts to obtain personal guarantees of small business owners.

Do you think, for example, the guy who mows a business' lawn is getting a personal guarantee?

Declaring victory and moving on, eh?

 

Really?? Lol...

You leftists keep trying to repackage and rebrand authoritarianism.

Doesn't really matter what you call it, those of you on the left are all cut from the same cloth.

Communism, fascism, socialism, corporatism... in the end, they're all the same thing. Waysides on the same road.

You all want to use government to control people and society. The groups of people you vilify or reward may be different, but that doesn't change the fact that you are the same animal.

 

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. The "rule makers" are either professional economists or people familiar with banking issues and these people are typically adherents of monetarism.

Quantitative easing is entirely consistent with monetarism.

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/69205/1/MPRA_paper_69205.pdf

There has never been a time in the past when economists were as prepared as they are now to effectively run the economy. We just have to make sure they aren't having to get around dopey people insisting moralistic nonsense be applied by government. Leftwingers, for example, don't want to give businesses enough money to stay in business so they can start up again.

 

"Fascists?" Egads.

 

That isn't collectivism. It's merely a different title structure.

 

Right-wing totalitarianism love capitalism and are called fascists. Left wing totalitarian they're called communist and don't allow any corporations at all. What are you babbling about?

 

Yes, fascists.

You fit all the criteria - private ownership/government control, bigoted views that justify your contention that the government should be empowered to act against some in favor of others, don't believe in private property, etc...

Yes, you're most closely related to fascism. More so than socialism or communism.

As I said though, in the end what do labels matter?? You're all advocates of unconstrained government. That can only end one way - the same way it always ends.

 

Communism except for the terminally confused English-speaking world is government ownership of business and industry. Socialism is always democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere else. "We are all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed....

The GOP propaganda machine has started a new political Spectrum where the right is unicorns and freedom and the left is every kind of totalitarianism ever known including Nazism. Absolute idiocy. Nazis loved corporate aristocrats as long as they weren't Jewish or fighting them....

 

The political spectrum is linear.

All authoritarian systems are on the left, with anarchy on the extreme right, i.e. no government.

It was the political left that dreamed up the quadrant system so as to differentiate themselves from Nazis and fascists - which they can then use as a smear as against advocates of liberty and limited government.

What's the difference if you're gassed by Nazis, starved by Stalin, or shot by my Mao?? They're just different flavors if authoritarianism.