Socialism crushes the economy

Why do American politicians keep saying that socialism and the redistribution of wealth etc. causes havoc on the economy?

Which economy is going to run more smoothly? The one where the wealth trickles up fast or the one where wealth is kept in the loop?

Scenario one. You have an unregulated market where the strong bill the weak and offer only little money for work, on top of it tax evasion by the rich (because they are the ones accepted as clients in tax havens).

If you are on top you can get rich fast and keep getting richer at a fast pace. At the same time those stuck further down the totem pole find it harder and harder to keep their standard of living, finding themselves with less and less disposable income. As a consequence the economy stutters as disposable income dries up.

Scenario 2. Money is taken from those whom are very affluent. If you have the means to turn a profit and save you do so at a slower pace, you pay more taxes because it isnt as easy to game the system as a result there is less of a tax burden on the middle class, which enjoy more protection by the nanny state, so does the lower income class. The citizens have more disposable income. Those at the top get rich at a slower pace, but money keeps being passed around in the economy so it wont stutter.

Isnt it the countries in Europe which are portrayed as socialist, such as Sweden, Germany, France and others which do allright? Isnt it the countries in Europe with very little government intervention. no safety net to speak of which do badly, such as Spain, Italy and others?

So how come "socialist countries" are portrayed as economic disasters especially when an American does not need to look at Italy to know what little to none government oversight looks like, but can learn that lesson by looking at his own country.

Why do American politicians keep saying that socialism and the redistribution of wealth etc. causes havoc on the economy?

Because they are in bed with super rich. Bought and paid for.

And I read your whole post. Just don't really have any comments. You make good points.

reply to post by Merinda


the redistrubution of wealth you describe is not really what socialism is. tax as a tool for distribution was seen by marx as a temporary stop gap measure, on the way toward a socialist society where shared ownership would eliminate inequality and exploitation. I believe what you describe is technically communism or at least communistic (whatever that is!) i partly agree with what i believe you say still. I would consider myself a marxist but realise that marx wrote in a very different time and he never meant his work to be a definative guide, rather the start of an ongoing dialectic. I think this dialectic has not been pursued by most 'communists' and cold war propaganda has confused all the terminology and most people understanding of socialism is poor. Maybe mine too. Thanks for your thoughts..... :-)
ps socialism can't exist unless WE own the country and all of it's chattels, equally....

reply to post by Merinda

Socialism crushes the economy

Being that as the case, can you tell me why socialism did so well for the American economy during World War Two?.

Just curious to know what your thoughts are on that.

reply to post by NoTarSed


I am not really talking about Marx when I say socialism. American politicians like to refer to certain European countries as socialist, in a grab for votes I guess but still, so I refer to the situation in those countries when I say socialism.

Ironically those are the countries that eclipse America when it comes to the standard of living, like Sweden. I am not saying it is fair to compare a country that has to manage 4 million people and a very small military to one of 300 million people which runs 10 carrier groups, but again, still..

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by Merinda

 

Socialism crushes the economy

Being that as the case, can you tell me why socialism did so well for the American economy during World War Two?.

Just curious to know what your thoughts are on that.

There is no specific reason, the same mechanism apply to any economy.

Profit is something you beat out of an economy, then it needs to be nursed back. Imagine a pump, you take water out of the pump, if you take too much water out of the pump the flow stutters and the cycle breaks down because there isnt enough water in the system.


An economy needs to allow for people to become rich, because thats what encourages them to start enterprises, gain skills or do both. But if you overdo it, then at the bottom there is not enough disposable income to fuel all those skilled people and entrepreneurs. At first those at the top are very happy at all the money they can take out of the system, but then they are looking at a population that cant give no more.

reply to post by Tuttle


Because everyone, including women, were involved in the war effort.
Employment was high, and a common enemy was to be defeated.
This explains why in order to clear a recession properly, someone has to go to war.
Look at the major recession. depressions and you will likely find a direct correlation to a conflict.
Fact: War mitigates a recession within the capitalist economy.

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by Tuttle

 

Because everyone, including women, were involved in the war effort.
Employment was high, and a common enemy was to be defeated.
This explains why in order to clear a recession properly, someone has to go to war.
Look at the major recession. depressions and you will likely find a direct correlation to a conflict.
Fact: War mitigates a recession within the capitalist economy.

There are ways other than war to spend money. In America an intensive redistribution of wealth to fuel a massive war effort is seen as acceptable. The same mechanism that shifts money towards a war effort could shift money towards something other than war. But then the president is decried as being a socialist or fiscally irresponsible.

It's easy to be a capitalist when you're privileged.

What I don't understand are all of the poor working people who actually buy into the trickle down BS. I almost feel like they are suffering from a form of economic Stockholm Syndrome.

Its the system of implementation thats the problem with socialism. Socialism is inevitable as we become more connected and have less privacy due to the internet and technology.

We WILL evolve into a socialist system eventually. Im not saying this is good or bad or agreeable, but its going to happen.

I don't see what socialism has to do with the American economy.

Second line.

Socialism is destructive to the economy:

1. rob from the rich and give to the poor only recycles wealth
2. it does nothing to create new wealth that grows economic output.

reply to post by buddhasystem


That's simply because you know nothing about real world applied economics.
Reading text books about it only gets you so far.
Obviously you haven't lived long enough to understand the situation.

reply to post by neo96


Your saying allowing the room for growth to innovate and all that. But at what point do we decide its destructive and cap it off? At what point does creation become destruction? Or is this a natural cycle and we just happen to be at the end of it?

reply to post by onequestion


It is a natural cycle.
Study an Andex Chart and you will easily understand.
You should be able to Google one if you haven't seen one before.
Very useful and results in a more meaningful analysis.
You will find it very helpful.

reply to post by Cynic


Im looking at the andex chart but i dont have enough knowledge to really break it down and understand, excuse my ignorance. I am however going to keep it on my mind and research it because i want to understand it, it seems interesting.

Originally posted by Merinda

Never mind misread the OP, sorry comrades, carry on...

Originally posted by neo96
Socialism is destructive to the economy:

1. rob from the rich and give to the poor only recycles wealth
2. it does nothing to create new wealth that grows economic output.

What do those poor people do with that money? Sock it away on off-shore tax free accounts or invests it in mutual funds? No. You damn well know the money given to the poor is IMMEDIATELY put back into circulation whatever consumer goods they buy...ASAP.

Originally posted by neo96
Socialism is destructive to the economy:

1. rob from the rich and give to the poor only recycles wealth
2. it does nothing to create new wealth that grows economic output.

What did Papa John do to create new wealth? What did all those smart people do, whom figured out with their skills they make much more money working for a bank, or running a mutual fund instead of becoming an engineer or a doctor?

I know of a brain surgeon a really smart person whom abandoned his profession because he realized there is much more money to be made working in finances. We can count ourselves lucky von Braun never looked into becoming a banker, or if he did preferred to pursue other aspirations.

Also whom is supposed to fuel those entrepreneurs in a no blows barred capitalist market, the people whom are struggling to even cover their bills?

Originally posted by Cynic
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That's simply because you know nothing about real world applied economics.

And how do you know that? You don't know jack about my background.

So I'll spell out this again:

I don't see anything particularly socialist about the US economy.

My uncle explained about nature, work, and reward in very simple common sense terms. When a bird is young its mother takes care of it, feeds it, and protects it. When the bird is grown enough to be on it's own, the bird either leaves the nest or is pushed out of the nest forcibly.

You make people earn a living and they will. You let them get free phones, free houses, free food, and many will not work.

Pretty simple,

Rich