Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Of course Blair wasn't a socialist.

That's how Labour won three elections...

Originally Posted by telecaster

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

Its not a finite quantity - just because it goes from somewhere doesnt mean it ends up somewhere else, it grows and shrinks.

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Originally Posted by telecaster

So...all you clever Capitalist supporters/fans should be able to explain: where has all the money gone?

Its not a finite quantity - just because it goes from somewhere doesnt mean it ends up somewhere else, it grows and shrinks.

Actually that is mis-leading, liquidity is carefully managed but there is more money in the market than this time last year - its just not in the right places....

Capitalism isn't really an -ism in usual sense: it is merely the natural state of affairs when people are free to interact economically. Contrary to what useful idiots like Marx thought, it has no philosophy other than individual and collective economic liberty.

I find it baffling that lefties will, in the same breath, demand freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on, yet DEMAND that the government heavily restrict economic and financial liberty. freedom of social interactions, yet restriction of economic interactions. But are economic interactions not merely mutually beneficial social interactions involving the transfer of wealth/property?

As for where the money has gone, it has just gone. Vanished. It will be back, provided the governments don't adopt policies which seriously put the brakes on the wealth-creators. The fixed quantity of wealth fallacy is just that: a fallacy.

As for the old socialists on here, you guys lost the economic argument back in the 80s and 90s, get over it. Don't use this supposed "crisis" to try yet again to do exactly what has failed multiple times in the past. In fact, isn't that one of the definitions of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.

And Bugsy, paying the people at the bottom royally (i.e. at way above what the invisible hand of the market would indicate) doesn't result in "trickle-up", it results in INFLATION and overpriced goods.

Originally Posted by stoatman

And Bugsy, paying the people at the bottom royally (i.e. at way above what the invisible hand of the market would indicate) doesn't result in "trickle-up", it results in INFLATION and overpriced goods.

That's only in the absence of social responsibility. It also happens when the bosses see themselves forced to raise wages, they then increase their prices to maintain their profits.

Your also arguing within the present system. I would hope that once it's installed across the board, it'll lead to a fundamental change in attitude and mindset.

Inflation isn't a natural or cosmic law, the same tin of peas can cost, say, 50p one week and 75p a week later, but it's still the same tin of peas. Inflation happens because Capitalists will do anything to maintain their profits. However, that's also arguing within the present system.

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by stoatman

And Bugsy, paying the people at the bottom royally (i.e. at way above what the invisible hand of the market would indicate) doesn't result in "trickle-up", it results in INFLATION and overpriced goods.

That's only in the absence of social responsibility. It also happens when the bosses see themselves forced to raise wages, they then increase their prices to maintain their profits.

Your also arguing within the present system. I would hope that once it's installed across the board, it'll lead to a fundamental change in attitude and mindset.

Inflation isn't a natural or cosmic law, the same tin of peas can cost, say, 50p one week and 75p a week later, but it's still the same tin of peas. Inflation happens because Capitalists will do anything to maintain their profits. However, that's also arguing within the present system.

MsG

Maybe you should log off ARRSE and do some basic research on economics. Afterwards look up "human nature" and "reality". Then connect everything you just learned together

Originally Posted by KevinB

Great article, as is often the case with "The Nation." I am afraid that capitalism may be in its death throes, but I don't say this with any joy, as ordinary people around me are losing their jobs, with no prospect of reemployment, their homes, their savings. It is not the elite who are suffering - do they ever? As a social democrat - the answer should have been in tightly regulated capitalism - with much of its proceeds used to support a viable and strong social safety net, but that was not the case.
Can socialism on its own truly work, especially on a massive scale? Don't know, but something will need to fill in the vacuum left by this corrupt and selfish economic system.

I beg to differ but highly regulated capitalism is a complete and utter oxymoron. As for using the proceds to fund someone else's lifestyle....That kinda completly defeats the point of capitalism, which is for someone to take a risk with their own money and make a living out of that risk. Get it right and you end up with more money than you can spend on cars in a lifetime. At which point you start taking new risks. All of which can create jobs. How is someone going to be bothered to risk their own mony and life when the worst candaite in the world to have any money tells you, "By the way all that profit is our money to waste on workshy buggers who want to watch Day time TV as a career choice."

the answer should have been in tightly regulated capitalism - with much of its proceeds used to support a viable and strong social safety net, but that was not the case.

We tried it here. All it did was create a couple of generations of work shy spongers. And it now costs the workers billions per year to maintain. Would you have them forced back to work? We would like that but the 'powers that be' keep rejecting the idea. Must be something to do with the work shy spongers making up a larger portion of their voter base.

light tough regualtion got us into this mess with people taking big risks with other peoples money and then being bailed out by everybody else
not exactly a free market

As far as I can see the main problem that socialists have is not understanding that just thinking something should be so, doesn't necessarily mean it is so. Yes Toynbee I mean you!

Well that and the price of Dolphin friendly tuna, the terrible cost of private ecducation, and the prevalence of 4x4 vehicles outside Tarquin and Cressida's's prep school.

Or am I being unkind?

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by stoatman

And Bugsy, paying the people at the bottom royally (i.e. at way above what the invisible hand of the market would indicate) doesn't result in "trickle-up", it results in INFLATION and overpriced goods.

That's only in the absence of social responsibility. It also happens when the bosses see themselves forced to raise wages, they then increase their prices to maintain their profits.

Your also arguing within the present system. I would hope that once it's installed across the board, it'll lead to a fundamental change in attitude and mindset.

Inflation isn't a natural or cosmic law, the same tin of peas can cost, say, 50p one week and 75p a week later, but it's still the same tin of peas. Inflation happens because Capitalists will do anything to maintain their profits. However, that's also arguing within the present system.

MsG

Maybe you should log off ARRSE and do some basic research on economics. Afterwards look up "human nature" and "reality". Then connect everything you just learned together

Quite... what Bugsy has suggested would result in a few months of people splashing the cash around like there's no tomorrow, then hyperinflation as the business owners attempt not to fold, then everyone being out of a job because the "bosses" won't be able to raise their prices enough to stay in business.

Even the Soviet union failed to change human nature, and they had 75 years of trying.

Tamper with the market and you get what just happened (this is really the combination of banks in the 1990s being told that they were racist and discriminatory if they didn't lend sub-prime. this then helped push the housing bubble , and so on, and the rest is history. Thanks, community organisers and race industry.)

How many times does the Socialist experiment have to fail before people realise its just a shit idea?

Financial stability in the banking sector and a free market economy are not the same thing.
There are many restrictions on trade, some natural, some imposed. Nobody makes 100 items knowing they can only sell 50 - natural regulation by consumer demand. Marlboro sells x million cigarettes, but given freedom to advertise and promote its product could sell x +1 million.

Banking is slightly different, demand for lending was met without sensible safeguards or relationships to real value.
Banks got burnt fingers - deservedly so. Problem is the product (eg lending) is needed for other things and we cannot let them fold up naturally without even bigger impacts.
Regulation could have prevented this, minimum deposits, job loss insurance, portfolio reconciliation etc etc would have minimised the impact.

The problem is not capitalism per se, its a sector specific issue.

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

How many times does the Socialist experiment have to fail before people realise its just a shit idea?

No. Its a very good idea, but human nature prevents it from working in practice.

Originally Posted by Ord_Sgt

Originally Posted by KevinB

Originally Posted by corridor_of_Powers

As long as people want to flog each other stuff capitalism will survive.
As long as people with a conscience want to protect those less fortunate so will socialism also survive.

Good quick summation of the two systems,...but philosophically the question is:

Why is the lust for material things (the heart of capitalism) so strong in some people (limited resources, unlimited greed)?

Once one has basic decent shelter, food etc. having 'more' does not make much sense.

Which is why you will always be at the bottom of the food chain and remain a loser.

Is that why the wealthy, with their boats, oversized houses, many cars etc. always seem so content? Au contraire - they are some of the miserable people in the world. The reason being that those who lust for material things are never satisfied, no matter what they get.