Which societies have been successful over time in raising living standards and alleviating poverty? Those with free economies or those with central planning?
The freest economies in the world (without a pandemic) are:
Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Ireland.
Of course the first group are doing better than the second group of dystopian wastelands. That said, I wonder how free residents of Australia, New Zealand and Ireland feel these days? I do realize that you qualified your comparison with pre-pandemic. All interesting studies given how far their governments overreached with ridiculous Zero COVID policies
It’s been very sad to see how even erstwhile free societies quickly embraced tyranny out of fear of the pandemic. I very much admire those places that rejected Article 48 style pretexts for total government control. Sweden, Florida, South Dakota, etc... Hopefully the rest are waking up from this mania, this delusion, this nightmare.
I don't see any evidence that those in power promoting socialism really mean it.
Nancy "we feed them" Pelosi would never give up her riches. She wants to promise reallocation of wealth as a concept. And put that into practice as long as it doesn't actually take away riches from the 1% in the cathedral.
So stop trying to understand about 'more socialism.' It's just Coke v Pepsi, and Team Red and Team Blue are just trying to take share.
I have to offer this. I am sorry. I am just an artist, which is almost like being just a little kitten, but you know.... (and thank you for your consistent, very therapeutic brilliance!)
Socialism- State sets salaries, sets prices, pays workers and controls production. It is a closed system
Free Market- Private actors hire workers and set salaries, consumers demand production and prices are set according to demand. State facilitates commerce. It is an open system.
All governments have some socialist aspects and some free market. Closed systems decline; open systems allow for growth, though care should be taken to avoid unfettered growth. there is no 100% efficient system, so a closed system will necessarily consume themselves.
Both Socialism and Capitalism are concepts. It's not as simple as turning one off and the other on.
At the roots: socialistic is 2 things cooperating to make things a bit better for both (like a shark letting the Dentist fish clean it's teeth). Capitalisic is everybody for themseves (like a cat).
I don’t think that is correct. Socialism relies on an extremely naive, and historically discredited, view of human nature, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how free markets work.
Adam Smith had it basically correct:
“Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
The genius of a free market (with protection of property rights) is that it generally channels self-interest for the social good, without recourse to coercion. It does not depend on altruistic fantasies.
I don't agree with your definition of socialism. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the "state" or a collection of "rulers". The idea is that the group of "rulers" or "elites" can create more efficient use of the scarce resources than the capital markets. This is because socialists believe (1) that capitalism is inefficient and (2) that a group of experts has maximum knowledge. The problem with that way of thinking is that capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources and the group of experts can never have maximum knowledge. Thus socialism is always doomed to failure. I guess the only exception would be theocratic rule by an omniscient ruler. But I haven't seen that effectively implemented here on earth.
Well said. Socialism necessarily entails putting some people in charge of the rest of us at “The Commanding Heights” of the economy. But the problem is that those people in charge have bad incentives and inadequate information. So they are destined to fail at promoting the general welfare.
As long as they feed you, fill your water bowl, and clean your litter box...it's best not to worry about the foibles of mankind. We don't make no damn sense. :)
any socialism or otherism is better than mean tweets per the "progressives". it is about power and not what the tune or who calls it.....
some few are pulling the 'progressives' 'strings', may be linked to china/prc brand of fasco-state directed economy... where to us 'progressives' slave labor is allowable as long as no mean tweets from djt.....
iow there are very few 'socialists" in exitance.
with us education debacle and the misinformation blitz......
It takes a village to raise 9 new pharma billionaires.
Which societies have been successful over time in raising living standards and alleviating poverty? Those with free economies or those with central planning?
The freest economies in the world (without a pandemic) are:
Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Ireland.
The least free are:
Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Which group is doing better?
Of course the first group are doing better than the second group of dystopian wastelands. That said, I wonder how free residents of Australia, New Zealand and Ireland feel these days? I do realize that you qualified your comparison with pre-pandemic. All interesting studies given how far their governments overreached with ridiculous Zero COVID policies
It’s been very sad to see how even erstwhile free societies quickly embraced tyranny out of fear of the pandemic. I very much admire those places that rejected Article 48 style pretexts for total government control. Sweden, Florida, South Dakota, etc... Hopefully the rest are waking up from this mania, this delusion, this nightmare.
https://youtu.be/aGCdLKXNF3w
I don't see any evidence that those in power promoting socialism really mean it.
Nancy "we feed them" Pelosi would never give up her riches. She wants to promise reallocation of wealth as a concept. And put that into practice as long as it doesn't actually take away riches from the 1% in the cathedral.
So stop trying to understand about 'more socialism.' It's just Coke v Pepsi, and Team Red and Team Blue are just trying to take share.
I have to offer this. I am sorry. I am just an artist, which is almost like being just a little kitten, but you know.... (and thank you for your consistent, very therapeutic brilliance!)
https://tessa.substack.com/p/isms
Socialism- State sets salaries, sets prices, pays workers and controls production. It is a closed system
Free Market- Private actors hire workers and set salaries, consumers demand production and prices are set according to demand. State facilitates commerce. It is an open system.
All governments have some socialist aspects and some free market. Closed systems decline; open systems allow for growth, though care should be taken to avoid unfettered growth. there is no 100% efficient system, so a closed system will necessarily consume themselves.
Move toward socialism = decline; move toward free market = growth.
I like your Narnia line.
Also, to invite any like-minded folks to join the Bukovsky Center group on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/219843491748776 [I'm a moderator there]
And if you don't want to be sullied by facebook, I highly recommend Bukovsky's book To Build a Castle: https://www.vladimirbukovsky.com/to-build-a-castle-chapter-1
https://youtu.be/aGCdLKXNF3w
Both Socialism and Capitalism are concepts. It's not as simple as turning one off and the other on.
At the roots: socialistic is 2 things cooperating to make things a bit better for both (like a shark letting the Dentist fish clean it's teeth). Capitalisic is everybody for themseves (like a cat).
I don’t think that is correct. Socialism relies on an extremely naive, and historically discredited, view of human nature, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how free markets work.
Adam Smith had it basically correct:
“Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
The genius of a free market (with protection of property rights) is that it generally channels self-interest for the social good, without recourse to coercion. It does not depend on altruistic fantasies.
I don't agree with your definition of socialism. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the "state" or a collection of "rulers". The idea is that the group of "rulers" or "elites" can create more efficient use of the scarce resources than the capital markets. This is because socialists believe (1) that capitalism is inefficient and (2) that a group of experts has maximum knowledge. The problem with that way of thinking is that capitalism is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources and the group of experts can never have maximum knowledge. Thus socialism is always doomed to failure. I guess the only exception would be theocratic rule by an omniscient ruler. But I haven't seen that effectively implemented here on earth.
Well said. Socialism necessarily entails putting some people in charge of the rest of us at “The Commanding Heights” of the economy. But the problem is that those people in charge have bad incentives and inadequate information. So they are destined to fail at promoting the general welfare.
Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point this out. Socialism as an idea is reasonable. The problem is people always get involved.
Right. Socialism works well for ants and bees. But it doesn’t fit human nature. That’s just abundantly clear from human history.
You have no fucking clue what socialism is!!! 😂😂😂😂
But you love your medicare
No, I don't... I have private health insurance and go to private hospitals. And pay a lot of taxes that finance a national health system.
With your 'private' insurance, you are part of a group, cooperating to make your lives better. I call that socialism, but I have no fucking clue.
If you call that socialism, you have no clue. A voluntary private cooperative is not socialism.
As long as they feed you, fill your water bowl, and clean your litter box...it's best not to worry about the foibles of mankind. We don't make no damn sense. :)
The map is the territory and the cartographer was Dr. Frankenstein, in his second try playing God.
My head hurts too. Some people still think Stalin was benevolent. Go figure.
just winging it.... the 'progressives' that is.
any socialism or otherism is better than mean tweets per the "progressives". it is about power and not what the tune or who calls it.....
some few are pulling the 'progressives' 'strings', may be linked to china/prc brand of fasco-state directed economy... where to us 'progressives' slave labor is allowable as long as no mean tweets from djt.....
iow there are very few 'socialists" in exitance.
with us education debacle and the misinformation blitz......
sweden socialist... LOLOLOL