Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

We're all just part of the new freedom movement. Even you socialists are, although you are the percentage who are too stupid, or too ignorant, to realize that capitalism is freedom, and socialism is neo-feudalism. Maybe you should try educating yourself with respect to economics before you take a side.

 

Owner's privilege

 

I agree that it is hard for poor people. But what you still fail to understand is the current system we are living under IS NOT CAPITALISM.

I want to fix these problems too, but the way forward is through the free market, not through a crackpot economic theory where the labourers seize control, violating private property rights, and then can't work out the value of their assets.

Yes, they can. It is the story of America. The reason it doesnt happen anymore is because this system is not capitalism.

You're just an outright idiot. You don't understand that what you are living under is not capitalism, and you falsely believe that by looting existing private property you will somehow gain a long term advantage. The truth is public property is always mistreated, while private property is always protected by its owner. Your great dream of turning private property into the great common would result in chaos of biblical proportions. People would go hungry very quickly and things which took minutes a century earlier would take days. Your system will not work, and it will not help you achieve what you want.

 

Lol. You're the one advocating that the capitalist and the entrepreneur be essentially kicked out of society. That sounds like class hatred to me.

THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.

THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.

THIS ISN'T CAPITALISM.

Here is a quote from Ron Paul, which I agree with wholeheartedly.

http://mises.org/story/2895

You socialists are just ignorant to the reality of economics. You don't want to understand, you just want to blindly strike anyone who appears to be in your way. I'm sorry but economics is a science, and as such must be approached and dealt with in a rational manner.

If anything, the current economic system in which the first world resides could be defined as state socialism. In essence you have discovered that socialism is bad, and has made people poor and the class divide wide, and your amazing magic pill solution to this problem of socialism, is more socialism!

Wake up and smell the gasoline, or lack there of.

 

The business cycle has long since shown to be a result of Keynesian Inflationism. If you let the government print money, or you let the banks print unlimited credit with the ability to borrow unlimited paper money from the central bank, then they will both print too much.

The continuous printing of new money and new credit drives up prices, this causes the "boom" period. When the mal-investment caused by these artificially low interest rates (cheap credit) comes back to bite the lenders in the ass they stop lending. When they stop lending the bubbles in the market pop and the asset prices plummet. Commonly known as a recession or depression.

It works like this; If a central bank is giving away low interest loans, or interest free loans, then imagine companies A B and C all line up to get 5 billion dollar loans.

When they have their loans they go "oh goody, what can we buy?"

Now imagine that there were only 10 houses in the whole world, and all three companies wanted all 10 houses. Company A says "$10,000", company B declares "$100,000", company C shouts "$1,000,000". They bid up the price of the assets until they sit at stupidly inflated prices, entirely divorced from their actual market value.

This is exactly what causes bubbles in the market. And it only takes disinterest in further bidding up the price of a particular group of assets to destabilize the flimsy bull market and stop the banks lending. Then the whole thing comes crashing down, as we are observing in 2008, because it never had any support to begin with.

 

Something quite closely following those lines, yes.

Credit itself isn't the problem. The problem is the government issue and control of credit. And government issue and control of banking licenses. If it were left to the free market then there'd be much less credit, as the market is self regulating.

Competition between real banks in a real market would be sufficient to keep the amount of credit thrown around low, and the ratio of deposits to loans high. In otherwords, this whole credit mess can be pinned down to one fundamental fact: central planning does not work as intended.

 

If you don't have any skill than you are screwed for life anyway. Why should other people work harder and be forced to support people who are incapable of learning a skill or profession?

At least under free market capitalism the unskilled stand a chance at picking up some skills. Freedom means the freedom to learn as well as the freedom to do nothing.

 

I think you misunderstand. It is not my responsiblity as an individual to care about or pay for the millions of miserable fuckers strutting around in the wide world. Something often misunderstood by socialists is the unlimited capacity for population expansion. If you give someone an assured income of say 500 dollars a week, for doing little or no work, then before long they will very likely have a large family, at which point you return to the original problem of not enough resources per head of population.

The only solution is to disregard this fallacious dealing out of 'responsibility for the incapable' and allowing people, who are by their nature autonomous' the freedom and independence to pursue their own goals as their free-will and conscience demands of them.

All socialists advocate the giving of other people's money. Only individualists advocate freedom of choice and the giving of their own money voluntarily. Only individualists are charitable. Collectivists are thieves, bordering on the advocation of slavery (the capable enslaved to the incapable).

It is entirely different to that. Individualists do not advocate killing anyone, we just do not take direct responsibility for anyone else unless that is our individual decision. If you feel so strongly about the weak and retarded then setup a private charity, out of your own pocket, and help them, instead of attempting to steal funds that don't belong to you from people who work harder than you.

Again, individualists do not advocate killing off retards. Only collectivists advocate anything "for the greater good".

And who is to determine who is genuinely unable to work and who is just lazy? Do you trust the government to make this decision? Because historically they have made it poorly. If you abolish taxation and leave this task up to private charities then at least the money will get to where its needed, with the added bonus that it is real charity and not robbinhood-syndrome theft.

 

People like change (when it appears to be fixing problems), they are just so misinformed they often go the wrong way.

Well the word 'capitalist' has two definitions. The definition given to it by marxists, which is actually incorrect, and the definition given to it by free marketeers, which is the correct and proper definition.

Australia is in what could be called a form of state socialism at the moment. It is interesting to note that the 10 planks of communism are in effect here.

Australian markets are certainly not free. The money is fiat and inflationary. Exports and imports are limited. Wages are set by the government. Land is restricted and zoned by government. Water is rationed, banks controlled, mining licensed. A term to describe this broken system I agree with is: keynesian inflationism.

There are elements of our economy which are socialist. Those are the public sector elements -- and, unsurprisingly, the least productive and most wasteful. Public education, transport, health, water, roads, and other services are all funded through taxation, and are all wasteful monopolies which exist independently of the market, consuming resources without gain. These services are substandard and often result in rationing because of the ignorance of those who run them to the mechanics of supply and demand.