Current Events > Why is socialism bad?

(+) Yeah! (+)

And

---

Socialism is when the government owns everything that we consider private industry now and people have little to no right to private ownership of things. The government can also control how things are produced, where they are delivered, etc. It's basically what they had in the Soviet Union.

---

Hexenherz posted...

Socialism is when the government owns everything that we consider private industry now and people have little to no right to private ownership of things.

That's not the only form of socialism, though. Yes, some socialists are happy with nationalization, but others don't think that meaningfully gives workers control over the means of production. Others want workplace democracy and want workers to control and manage enterprise themselves.

Socialism has many different theories about how it should be implemented. I'd encourage everyone to read about it. You may not agree with it which is fine, but I find socioeconomic theories fascinating.
---

Hexenherz posted...

Socialism is when the government owns everything that we consider private industry now and people have little to no right to private ownership of things. The government can also control how things are produced, where they are delivered, etc. It's basically what they had in the Soviet Union.

Not quite but not far from the mark.

What you're describing is communism which is worse

---

The only real solution we have to the problem of limited resources is to increase productivity and technological innovation.

Collective ownership hinders that process. By constantly trying to become more profitable, private enterprise becomes more productive and can offer cheaper prices to consumers, higher wages to workers and profits to investors.

Hexenherz posted...

Socialism is when the government owns everything that we consider private industry now and people have little to no right to private ownership of things. The government can also control how things are produced, where they are delivered, etc. It's basically what they had in the Soviet Union.

This, and its bad because government is so horribly inefficient and easy to become corrupt.

---

Because it hurts your boss' profits(and his boss and his boss' boss and so on and so forth), and you wouldn't want that, would you? Now get back to work!

Broseph_Stalin posted...

The only real solution we have to the problem of limited resources is to increase productivity and technological innovation.

Collective ownership hinders that process. By constantly trying to become more profitable, private enterprise becomes more productive and can offer cheaper prices to consumers, higher wages to workers and profits to investors.

SocksForWok999 posted...

This, and its bad because government is so horribly inefficient and easy to become corrupt.

if this is true then how come private enterprise is so corrupt and lacking in basic human morality?

---

Go live in China if you want socicalism.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

if this is true then how come private enterprise is so corrupt and lacking in basic human morality?

Countries that embrace free markets tend to have less corruption, actually.

Banana_Cyanide posted...

Not quite but not far from the mark.

What you're describing is communism which is worse

Communism is like the Democracy of Socialism.

---

This forum is like 99% socialist now so good luck with this topic

---

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/G8UAAOSw8S9d5cl6/s-l640.jpg
---

Because it murders the rich and puts power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs.

Really awful stuff.

---

It's "bad" because the guys at the top want you to think it is because they are scared SHITLESS that their house of cards will come toppling down if they can't exploit people's labor. God forbid we have a society where everyone can live decently instead of the top 10% or whatever the fuck.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And you've got guys like this who want to instill fear in you and look down on your fellow honest and hardworking man

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Because it murders the rich and puts power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs.

lol

Because American propaganda has spent almost a century dragging socialism as an evil that will collapse our country.

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

Because American propaganda has spent almost a century dragging socialism as an evil that will collapse our country.

---

https://i.imgflip.com/z3ml8.jpg

https://pics.me.me/socialists-create-death-and-misery-socialists-take-over-that-wasnt-19747864.png
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Countries that embrace free markets tend to have less corruption, actually.

If corruption is legal then is it still corruption?

Hexenherz posted...

Socialism is when the government owns everything that we consider private industry now and people have little to no right to private ownership of things. The government can also control how things are produced, where they are delivered, etc. It's basically what they had in the Soviet Union.

Theoretically socialism is the public owning everything, but that is not actually practical. So the government acts as a representative of the public and owns everything on their behalf, which of course is not at all the same as the public owning everything.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Theoretically socialism is the public owning everything, but that is not actually practical. So the government acts as a representative of the public and owns everything on their behalf, which of course is not at all the same as the public owning everything.

Socialism is the Republican Democracy of Communism.

---

Because socialism goes against individual freedom. With capitalism, you're free to sit on your ass or start a business or work in a factory. With socialism you starve to death.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

The only real solution we have to the problem of limited resources is to increase productivity and technological innovation.

We (the US) has enough land and houses built to house all its citizens. There is enough food to feed everyone in the world. As productivity skyrockets, real wages struggle to keep up with inflation.
If a poor man can only afford $1 for a hot dog and a rich man can afford $20 for it, there's no reason to sell that hot dog for $1. Furthermore, as more and more capital is owned by the richest in the world, it becomes harder and harder to buy into that market. If productivity and innovation were all it took to fix the issues socialism aims to address, the world would already be a utopia.

I am not for collective ownership, but certainly there needs to be some sort of safety net to allow poor people the ability to live, let alone break into a higher class. As it is, there is a cost to living. Food, housing, and medical care all have a floor and people cannot be productive when those needs frequently aren't met, let alone transportation or education. These things benefit all Americans. Sick, hungry, dissatisfied workers are not productive workers.

---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

We (the US) has enough land and houses built to house all its citizens.

We actually have a massive housing shortage in the US because local governments are purposely restricting the supply of new housing.
https://i.imgur.com/xeQ4NTI.png

ChocoboMog123 posted...

There is enough food to feed everyone in the world.

And we do! All thanks to productivity gains and technological innovation. In the 70s there was a mass panic over how we would feed the Earth's skyrocketing population. Yet today we worry about obesity, not famine.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

As productivity skyrockets, real wages struggle to keep up with inflation.

Not true, wages all across the world have risen well above inflation. You're way better off than people who lived decades ago.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

If a poor man can only afford $1 for a hot dog and a rich man can afford $20 for it, there's no reason to sell that hot dog for $1.

The profit you would earn from selling a hot dog to people not willing to pay $20 would be one reason. In fact, selling more units at a lower cost is objectively more profitable than selling less at a higher price.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Furthermore, as more and more capital is owned by the richest in the world, it becomes harder and harder to buy into that market.

As the average person becomes richer, it's easier for them to start investing. Which is why more people invest now.

Broseph Stalin putting on a masterclass on arguing in bad faith ITT

---

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Broseph Stalin putting on a masterclass on arguing in bad faith ITT

It's always the guys that can't refute anything saying this.

People need to understand that we can see their projection. It's very obvious.

FursonaNonGrata posted...

Broseph Stalin putting on a masterclass on arguing in bad faith ITT

basically everyone else in this topic too tbh

---

and now joel is agreeing with you, the kiss of death

Broseph_Stalin posted...

We actually have a massive housing shortage in the US because local governments are purposely restricting the supply of new housing.

Less new housing doesn't mean enough homes don't already exist.

ButteryMales posted...

Less new housing doesn't mean enough homes don't already exist.

No there is a legitimate shortage in urban areas that are most in need. You won't see a shortage in areas experiencing population decline but you do see it in places like CA.

ButteryMales posted...

Less new housing doesn't mean enough homes don't already exist.

Where? Settle, San Francisco, silicon valley, new york?

---

Prismsblade posted...

Where? Settle, San Francisco, silicon valley, new york?

There's a problem of empty homes that are owned for investment and or illegally being rented out as vacation suites with Air BnB.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Not true, wages all across the world have risen well above inflation. You're way better off than people who lived decades ago.

Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages.

---

ButteryMales posted...

There's a problem of empty homes that are owned for investment and or illegally being rented out as vacation suites with Air BnB.

Air BnB isn't the reason we have drastically different housing markets in different cities, it's a scapegoat for NIMBY local governments that refuse to build actual housing. Most cities in the US are growing rapidly yet the supply of housing...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

We actually have a massive housing shortage in the US because local governments are purposely restricting the supply of new housing.
https://i.imgur.com/xeQ4NTI.png

Man, what is with that huge drop right along the mid 2000's? What happened?
Edit: Yes, it's absolutely true that there's an artificial housing shortage caused by building restrictions, especially in low income areas. Still, houses are sitting empty, sold as vacation homes for foreigners finding new wealth. Even in areas with less restrictions, housing is "more affordable", especially for middle-class Americans, but rent prices still greatly outpace wag increases.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

And we do! All thanks to productivity gains and technological innovation. In the 70s there was a mass panic over how we would feed the Earth's skyrocketing population. Yet today we worry about obesity, not famine.

https://www.sos-usa.org/about-us/where-we-work/africa/hunger-in-africa
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Why-Does-Hunger-Still-Exist-Africas-Table-Day-One
"Theres no vaccine to prevent stunting. Proper nutrition involves eating enough food, and the right kinds, every day of your life."
Africa is still starving. Even in America, food deserts exist which is partially why there is such an obesity problem. Walmarts and Dollar Stores have destroyed fresh food in many suburban areas.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Not true, wages all across the world have risen well above inflation. You're way better off than people who lived decades ago.

Is that true?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45090.pdf
Seems to be the case only for top earners.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

The profit you would earn from selling a hot dog to people not willing to pay $20 would be one reason. In fact, selling more units at a lower cost is objectively more profitable than selling less at a higher price.

Hot dog costs $.50 to make. Better to sell 20 for $1 or 1 for $20? 5 for $20? Demand is only so flexible. This is 101 level.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

As the average person becomes richer, it's easier for them to start investing. Which is why more people invest now.

Are you even trying?

---

crazyman32 posted...

https://i.imgflip.com/z3ml8.jpg

https://pics.me.me/socialists-create-death-and-misery-socialists-take-over-that-wasnt-19747864.png

Well if it's in impact font, it must be true!

---

ButteryMales posted...

There's a problem of empty homes that are owned for investment and or illegally being rented out as vacation suites with Air BnB.

Isnt keeping the house vacant counterproductive to it being a investment? They arent making any money and are still paying property taxs, insurances, maintenance or etc.

And idk what to think of the Airbnb fiasco, is the resident using the property as rentals, while living somewhere else for free? While also still paying rent for that airbnb?

---

Note you can actually tell how expensive housing is in a city based on that graph, even though there's zero information about housing prices. Houston is very affordable while San Francisco... It all comes down to supply.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Air BnB isn't the reason we have drastically different housing markets in different cities, it's a scapegoat for NIMBY local governments that refuse to build actual housing. Most cities in the US are growing rapidly yet the supply of housing...

Once again, the market supply is different from the physical supply.

Garioshi posted...

crazyman32 posted...

https://i.imgflip.com/z3ml8.jpg

https://pics.me.me/socialists-create-death-and-misery-socialists-take-over-that-wasnt-19747864.png

Well if it's in impact font, it must be true!

https://selfeducatedamerican.com/2017/12/11/lenin-explained-goal-socialism-communism/amp/
---

Are there any currently socialist countries that are doing well?

---

Prismsblade posted...

Isnt keeping the house vacant counterproductive to it being a investment? They arent making any money and are still paying property taxs, insurances, maintenance or etc.

Because if they lower supply the few properties they do sell or rent out will outpace what they pay.

Prismsblade posted...

And idk what to think of the Airbnb fiasco, is the resident using the property as rentals, while living somewhere else for free? While also still paying rent for that airbnb?

Wut?

Mareen posted...

Are there any currently socialist countries that are doing well?

Google, countries with Universal Healthcare.

Mareen posted...

Are there any currently socialist countries that are doing well?

Ever heard of Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Iceland?

---

Garioshi posted...

Ever heard of Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Iceland?

He said socialist not free market.

ButteryMales posted...

Google, countries with Universal Healthcare.

Garioshi posted...

Ever heard of Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Iceland?

lol
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c8Gkm8VSLE

Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other peoples money. Its quite a characteristic of them.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

"Theres no vaccine to prevent stunting. Proper nutrition involves eating enough food, and the right kinds, every day of your life."
Africa is still starving. Even in America, food deserts exist which is partially why there is such an obesity problem. Walmarts and Dollar Stores have destroyed fresh food in many suburban areas.

The global share of population that is undernourished is in free fall. Africa's population is exploding. Pretty good considering most African countries don't even embrace free markets. If farmers around the world were as productive as American ones, we'd be able to feed billions more people with far less land actually used for farming.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Is that true?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45090.pdf
Seems to be the case only for top earners.

Yes. When you measure wage growth you have to consider a few things like what model you're using to measure inflation, technological innovation and it's impact on prices and make sure you're using ALL forms of worker compensation, not just wages. And of course, we're talking about the developed world here. Gains in the developing world have been even larger.

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Hot dog costs $.50 to make. Better to sell 20 for $1 or 1 for $20? 5 for $20? Demand is only so flexible. This is 101 level.

Man if only I was rich, I'd know what a hot dog taste like! You can literally go buy a $1 hot dog right now, at least come up with a hypothetical scenario that isn't this easily debunked.
ChocoboMog123 posted...

Are you even trying?

It's a fact.

Garioshi posted...

Ever heard of Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Iceland?

Those nations have mixed economies though. They're not proper socialist like Vietnam or something.

---

Mareen posted...

Are there any currently socialist countries that are doing well?

are there any currently socialist countries that the largest military power in the world did not try to squash?

---