By the same token, as a weatherman I can safely say "It will rain."
I'm not saying anything bad about economists, simply that chaos makes it near impossible to get a meaningful prediction.
Don't take it so personally.

BTW this is exactly the reason why command economies don't work. If we could predict economy in a meaningful way, we could perfectly plan an economy and set perfect regulation.
The thing you're taking offense to is something economists already know is true!

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Actually, you can plan it. That's communism, and it works horribly.

...that's why I said it... because it's... true?

Either way, that is the only reason economics isn't able to accurately predict the economy, and the only reason things like that happen is because people don't understand how to read it. Weather is much simpler to understand. But just because you don't understand it doesn't mean you can claim it's inaccurate. That's like combining arrogance and ignorance. It's arrgnorance.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

It works horribly because they can't plan it. If it was possible to predict everything accurately, communism would work.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Communism also utilizes monopolies to maximize tax money. Thus leaving the market with the most inefficient allocation of resources. There is actually no advancement in technology, and communism actually does work for short periods of time, but everyone becomes poor due to the government monopolies and no new technology is created so they eventually begin to lose their export market to countries that have more advanced products.

Besides, economists have never run their own communist country, nor would they try, so you don't know whether or not they would succeed.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

Consider it a challenge then!

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

But government should never stray away from the will of the people. I would argue that it is more dangerous to say that the government should not represent the will of the people. The government should always be responsive and responsible to the people and never independent from it.

If enough people want to overturn debt that probably means that the vast majority of wealth is distributed among a small group. If 51% of the country owes debts, I think they have the right to declare them void.

__________________
"Masters of War" by Bob Dylan
"When a man assumes public trust, he should consider himself as public property"
-Thomas Jefferson
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein
"One man with courage is a majority"
-Thomas Jefferson

Their is no 'tax' in a socialist society, tax implies wage-labor and the capitalist state confiscating a part of the productive labor of workers (that little portion of their labor value which they receive as a wage). In socialist society everyone has access to the full product of their labor.

You might ask: But how is that possible? Why would someone individually want to have all they produce? Society wouldn't function if that happened.

Well of course that is correct, which is why socialist society is based on need, a worker who produces 10 pairs of shoes or example certainly doesn't need all 10 pairs to live comfortably, yes? He would keep a few pairs for himself, and make whatever the rest of what he produces available to the community. Now you might say, what is the incentive for that shoe-maker to make his shoes available to the community, well in return the rest of the community would make all it's products available to him. It's a mutual arrangement between every individual producer and every other individual, so it works in specific relationships individually (between the shoemaker who wants a hat and the hat maker who wants shoes), and collectively.

Current barter economics distort true value of labor, while removing this distorting barrier socialism lets every individual producer have access to the products of his own labor individually and other of everyone else collectively. Socialism is the ultimate combination of personal and collective interests and the only way for workers to have freedom over their labor.

The only role for a 'state' or 'government' in a socialist society is to stop individuals selling things, so that every individual has equal access to the products of modern society.

Thus in socialism the 'economy' only has one real block in the way of satisfying the people, and that's the block all human society on this earth has, and that's resource scarcity and the limits of industrial society - ALL other limits are artificial. Capitalism and wage-labor are artificial limits on the capacity of human labor to make the lives of everyone better. Resource allocation is the key, in the world today their is far enough industrial productive power for EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING TO LIVE COMFORTABLY, but they do not because of capitalism.

Communism fails because it requires the people to feel a sense of community. In larger nations, the population is physically spread out too far for the people to feel a sense of community as a nation. Convents and Jews in kibbutzim developed a working system precisely because they already have either a feeling of community (or commonality) or a shared ideology where there is no external pressure on any member of the community.

__________________
I think America is finally ready for another president with polio.

How do you stop people from being greedy and stockpiling there produce or using it as a currency to get what they want instead of just 'sharing'?

Why would they stockpile when they can have any product they want regardless.

The state would act in a socialist society basically to ensure such hording didn't happen. As in, for example, you want a television, you put a request in to the television factory, they send you one. The government would get down your details and register that you have been distributed a television, so you couldn't go and get like more.

But as the society got more communal and less greedy as socialist society got older, eventually the need for a regular state to do such things would decrease until the state 'withers away'.

I suggest you also read my post again in it's entirety, socialism is far more of a individual incentive-modelled society than the current capitalist society. In capitalist society an entire underclass have little to no chance of getting out of such a life, while in socialism you have the full product of their labor.

The argument for socialism is a simple one: Is every individual not entitled to the full product of their labor, to the product of the sweat on their brow?