What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

its a lot freer than it was under libcommie Mao when 60 million slowly starved to death!

 

So you don't care about the human rights abuses? I suppose that's consistent with your right wing nature...

 

care far more about the 60 million that libcommieism killed

 

Another falsehood from you.

<yawn> Complete removal of human rights and their conversion into property, and zero transaction costs.

Advertising your ignorance again...?

<yawn> Again you have to advertise your obsession with Georgism by falsely accusing me of it based on no pretext whatsoever.

No, it simply calls rent seeking an efficient solution. That is its purpose.

If "perfect" property rights subsume all human rights....

 

Your lack of engagement with economics forces you into this script. But that script only then advertises your inability to critique.

You've only advertised your lack of comprehension. Neoclassical 101 will typically assume zero transaction costs. It's implied that it is merely about model simplification. Coase is demonstrating that this isn't the case and economic meaning changes. For example, without transaction costs, they have no rationale for the formation of a firm (such as economies of scope being more efficiently delivered through entrepreneurial cooperation). The Theorem itself is acknowledging that the market can hypothetically eliminate externality inefficiencies. It's showing, however, that is only likely in very simple circumstances. As transaction costs from bargaining increase, the market becomes less capable of seeking a solution. And what's the main source of transaction cost? The moral hazard of rent seeking behaviour.

You continue to show hypocrisy (and that's arguably a standard risk in internet Georgism). In other thread you've lauded Pigovian tax orthodoxy. The Coase Theorem ultimately goes into economic detail, pinning theory and reality of rent seeking, to demonstrate how such taxes are likely to be the answer. It ultimately saying that, despite government information problems, a reliance on benevolent policymaking will produce superior outcomes than simply attempting to protect property rights.

 

Now this is a meaningful conversation between and land Nazi and non free market socialist!!! We can all learn alot here!!!

 

There seems to be confusion about the terminology between 'Democratic Socialism' and 'Social Democracy'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but keeps talking about the Nordic model, which is NOT Democratic Socialism. Venezuela is Democratic Socialism. It is a socialist country which became socialist via democratic elections. Cuba is a socialist country which became socialist via revolution. They are the same system, they just got there via different paths. Socialism is a system where the government owns and operates the means of production, and they do not have free market capitalism. The Nordic countries, in the other hand, do have free market economies where the means of production is in private hands. They are capitalist countries. They tax their workers heavy handedly in order to pay for social services like health care and education, hence the name Social Democracy.

The Dems who admire the Nordic system should at least learn the difference before trying to promote it.

Socialism, democratic or revolutionary, always ends in misery of the people, while Social Democracy works, but only if people actually want it. Nordics would not have it any other way, which is why they make it work, but I doubt it would work in US, because half the people would work overtime to make sure it fails.

 

You forgot to provide an economic argument in support if this viewpoint.

 

I chose to include examples: Cuba and Venezuela.

 

So you actually have no means to show socialism necessarily fails? No actual economic argument.

 

We have a general welfare clause not a common welfare clause.

 

Venezuela is a federal republic. Just lousy right wing management. Thank Goodness, FDR was a left winger.

 

I gave you the definition of socialism, and Venezuela fits the definition very well. Their government has taken over means of production, which makes them socialist. As a result of these policies the country is a mess with a shortage or everything, rampant inflation, people fleeing, crime exploding, government seizing assets etc. It is not 100% socialist like Cuba is, but it is getting closer and closer every year.

 

sure he does socialism failed by slowly killing 120 million people in USSR/Red China. Ever heard of Taiwan/Red China, Cuba/Florida??

 

?? new inventions come from freedom, creativity, and competition, not govt planning by low paid illiterate inexperienced bureaucrats reduced to guessing about the future. This is why USSR never invented one consumer product. 1+1=2

 

good examples!! the liberals say they will stop if and when socialism kills 200 million human beings, only 80 million left to go!

 

False effort. The USSR was not socialist. It was state capitalist. Entrepreneurial spirit can be easily integrated within market socialism.

 

socialist and state capitalist are virtually identical since both are statist. Can you tell us what huge industries were privately owned in USSR?? See how easily you are defeated?

 

if so why is the liberal so afraid to tell us how?? What do we learn from your fear?

 

Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, by definition. You attack before you comprehend the basics. It's aimless whinge.

 

yes socialism is libcommie govt statist ownership while capitalism is private ownership. 1+1=2

 

Except for the sum, completely wrong.

 

oh not its completely right!!
( this is a liberals idea of debate)LOL

 

Can you refer to one credible economic source that uses the childish term libcommie? Good luck!

 

Democrats are most accurately described as libcommies. You have old fashioned liberals like Hillary and new fashioned communists like Sanders in the Party and endorsing each other, hence libcommie makes perfect sense!

Do libcommies have an economic program? Sure. It is more and more statist trending toward communism. 1+1=2