Why Socialism will never work...

[Timmy]

Those countries u listed rank highest in happiest places to live .

Of course they are, lol. The United States capitalist dogs protect you, and you fleece everyone else so you can sit home and smoke bong!

Wait till they have to pay for our protection, and lets see how they like investing money in THEIR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY as their taxes go from 60%, to 85%!

Oh we are suckers when it comes to the military . We are Also a socialist country . Have been for at Least 100 yrs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"social ownership"... means no one owns anything right.
"democratic control of the means of production"... means we all would vote on production.

First of all has "socialism" been successful and if so why isn't the whole world a "socialistic state"?

Examples:
Denmark population: 5,707,251
Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.
Health Care?
Their system resembles the AAA service because waiting lists as the rationing mechanism. Because everyone has access to healthcare, patients wait longer times for treatment. Social equality is highly valued in Danish society so citizens readily accept this form of rationing. - See more at: Healthcare problems are universal

Canada population: 35,344,962
Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.
Health care?
In 2013, nearly 42,000 Canucks left their homeland to avoid long wait times and inferior care that plagues their centralized health system.

The report from the free-market Fraser Institute found that 41,838 Canadians became “medical tourists” in 2013 and sought care outside of their hockey-loving country. While there were slightly fewer people fleeing the Canadian health system in 2013 than the previous year, the number leaving still amounts to nearly one percent of medical patients in Canada.

“Canadians may leave for a number of reasons including a lack of available resources or appropriate technology, a desire to return more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability,” Nadeem Ismail, director of health policy studies at the Fraser Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Report: Tens of thousands fled socialized Canadian medicine in 2013

Sweden population 9,640,000
Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

Health care?
Swedish was once a health care model for the world. But that is hardly the case anymore.

This is not primarily due to the fact Sweden has become worse - rather it is the case that other countries have improved faster.

That Sweden no longer keeps up with those countries is largely due to its inability to reduce its patient waiting times, which are some of the worst in Europe, as the latest edition of the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) revealed in Brussels on Monday.
'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'


Notice anything in common with these three? Add their entire population and less then 1/6th the USA!

Now that is "single payer" health care systems at their finest as defined by "socialism"!

Good quality of life there, in those mixed economies, which we also have, only theirs is much better.

 

[Timmy]

All the winner countries have socialism. It's a fact .

 

[bripat9643]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

No. Socialism won't work because it's a contradiction. just take money, for instance. How is the value of money established? By the laws of supply and demand. It's determine by people exchanging goods they own for cash.

However, in the socialist economy all goods are first owned by the government, so how does the government know how much a product is worth? The answer is that it has no frikken idea. Any prices the government sets are purely arbitrary. They are made up from thin air. How can you have an efficient allocation of goods if you don't even have a clue what they are worth? The answer is you can't. That's just one reason why socialism is doomed to fail.

 

[Boss]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

Capitalism is self correcting.

 

[Slade3200]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

Capitalism is self correcting.

I wish. If it was it wouldn't need regulation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

Capitalism, left to itself, always eats itself, like democracy. It's also not the answer to every problem facing society.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

Capitalism is self correcting.

I wish. If it was it wouldn't need regulation.

Socialism calls for more regulation. By your logic, socialism is worse off than what you think capitalism is.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

Capitalism, left to itself, always eats itself, like democracy. It's also not the answer to every problem facing society.

Capitalism made The United States the greatest country on earth. Socialism has failed, everywhere it's been tried.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

Capitalism, left to itself, always eats itself, like democracy. It's also not the answer to every problem facing society.

Capitalism made The United States the greatest country on earth. Socialism has failed, everywhere it's been tried.

Neither are true. And skip the dogma, not interested.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Socialism is so great, how come you never read about American Progressives hopping an inner tube to from Miami to Fidel?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

Capitalism, left to itself, always eats itself, like democracy. It's also not the answer to every problem facing society.

^ load brought to you by Media Matters Agitprop Internet Communications Department

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

Capitalism is self correcting.

I wish. If it was it wouldn't need regulation.

Socialism calls for more regulation. By your logic, socialism is worse off than what you think capitalism is.

Nope, but it is regulated. Capitalism is a bull in a china shop. Socialism is a dog in a yard.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If Socialism is so great, how come you never read about American Progressives hopping an inner tube to from Miami to Fidel?

That's communism.

 

[regent]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

And over time we learned that the free market gave us even bigger problems so a Republican president began trying to regulate that free market economy. Now most economics is regulated. Perhaps someday we will find the right combination and will have solved depressions, poverty, safe working condition and so on, but we know free market doesn't work.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If socialism won't work because it's not perfect,

can't you say, by that standard, that capitalism doesn't work?

Capitalism is self correcting.

I wish. If it was it wouldn't need regulation.

Socialism calls for more regulation. By your logic, socialism is worse off than what you think capitalism is.

Nope, but it is regulated. Capitalism is a bull in a china shop. Socialism is a dog in a yard.

Socialism is a dog in a cage that starved to death because he eventually stops getting fed.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

And over time we learned that the free market gave us even bigger problems so a Republican president began trying to regulate that free market economy. Now most economics is regulated. Perhaps someday we will find the right combination and will have solved depressions, poverty, safe working condition and so on, but we know free market doesn't work.

How is socialism working in Venezuela?

 

[jasonnfree]

People seem to see some socialist national endeavors as desirable but they don't need the whole nation to go socialistic, only some programs. That may be why so many nations have a mixed economic system, some socialism and some capitalism. It does not have to be all or nothing.

There is no way to have a "mixed economic system" of both socialism and capitalism.... not "free market" capitalism, anyway. Free market economics relies upon individual freedom to purchase and sell according to values determined by supply and demand. Socialism is invasive to that process. Just the presence of socialism in a free market system, kills the free market aspect and the system becomes a socialist-capitalist one. A socialist-capitalist system is what is known a corporatism or "crony capitalism" and is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. This is an undesirable system.

We have, in this country, systems that have been established which many people mistakenly consider to be "socialistic" ...like Social Security, the military, police and fire services, etc. This is not Socialism. These are examples of constitutionally-enumerated powers our framers built in to our system because they realized there were certain areas where free market capitalism couldn't handle things effectively.

Note... effectively, not efficiently. Often times, these enumerated things handled collectively by the government are not efficient but they are effective. Free market could be more efficient but not as effective because the incentives are all wrong. There is a reason the framers painstakingly outlined the few things that were to be dealt with collectively and left everything else to free market forces through individual and state freedom.

You make a good argument. Many view the free markets handling of the healthcare system as abusive, inefficient, and ineffective to the point where government intervention was needed. During the time of the constitution our infrastructure didn't include many of the elements in our current economy so it is up to our democracy to decide who should be in control of taking care of the health needs of our population. I'd prefer the free market however, they messed up. I fear our banking system and wall street heading down the same path with the financial sector and I can only hope they get their shit together. You can't simply blame liberals or democrats for the increasing size of government... There is cause and effect. If the private sector can build trust and show responsibility then perhaps we can start shrinking government and move back towards a more capitalistic free market system.

Capitalism, left to itself, always eats itself, like democracy. It's also not the answer to every problem facing society.

Capitalism made The United States the greatest country on earth. Socialism has failed, everywhere it's been tried.

Capitalism and slavery built this country you should say. And back then workers were tossed aside if they were hurt on the job. The capitalists would just hire another low pay laborer. Jay Gould bragged that he could hire half the working class to kill the other half. Capitalism was great back then if you were a capitalist.