Serious question: How can anyone who knows anything about economics support socialism?

It's obvious that unchecked capitalism ends up with all the wealth being in the hands of a very few smart and sometimes ruthless individuals. Capitalism has no ethics or moral built in. Thus, an ethical system has to be created for the good of the whole. Anti-trust is a socialistic idea. It stops one individual or company from stomping and eating up everyone---this is for the good of society. There has to be a safety net for all of society. It does a country no good to have families living in the streets without jobs, food, and shelter. For children to be starving. For drug addicts to be in jail instead of rehab. Equal health care should be provided for all citizens and paid for through taxes. Because it's not, the U.S. has abysmal numbers in such areas as infant mortality rate and bankruptcies due to sickness and injury. I don't believe in a 90% tax rate for the richest, our current numbers are fine. We just need to stop being such warmongers and stop giving handouts to corporations (corporate welfare), avoid the trend towards oligarchy, and we could pay for everyone's schooling and healthcare.

Don't kill capitalism, evolve it. And we have, but it needs to go further.

I don't think you have anything to worry about it. Hardly anyone in the US wants strict socialism.

Why should an economy reward hard work and innovation? The United States has spent hundreds of years developing machines to do all the work, and here you are wanting everyone to keep slaving away anyhow. Every bit of new innovation destroys more demand for labor, but here you are insulting the people whose jobs are lost.

Besides, capitalism doesn't reward hard work or innovation, it rewards being wealthy with the sure prospect of becoming even wealthier without doing any work at all.

jock ridas wrote:

I don't think you have anything to worry about it. Hardly anyone in the US wants strict socialism.

Except the chair of the largest political party in this country.

Answer to the OP's question: people know know anything about economics DON'T support socialism. Though a very small percentage of them have been tricked into supporting Keynsian economics.

Serious question: what level of education in the field of economics does the OP possess?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Why should an economy reward hard work and innovation? The United States has spent hundreds of years developing machines to do all the work, and here you are wanting everyone to keep slaving away anyhow. Every bit of new innovation destroys more demand for labor, but here you are insulting the people whose jobs are lost.

Besides, capitalism doesn't reward hard work or innovation, it rewards being wealthy with the sure prospect of becoming even wealthier without doing any work at all.

Doesn't reward hard work and innovation? Tell that to Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, inventor of the Steadicam, etc., etc.

Has it occurred to you that the nation that seems destined to replace the US as the world's #1 economics power is run by a bunch of commies?

Or that the nation with the largest GDP per capita in the world that does hot have oil (Luxembourg) is socialist?

Or that the people in that socialist failure to the north are richer than Americans?

Now, I am not pro socialism (government owning the means of production) and I am not voting for Bernie Sanders, but you seem to be lacking more than a little education in economics (if you took macro in a decent university, you would realize that you are not making common sense). It is not rational to be making these kinds of statements when the example of China is so obvious.

coach d wrote:

Has it occurred to you that the nation that seems destined to replace the US as the world's #1 economics power is run by a bunch of commies?

Now, I am not pro socialism (government owning the means of production) and I am not voting for Bernie Sanders, but you seem to be lacking more than a little education in economics (if you took macro in a decent university, you would realize that you are not making common sense). It is not rational to be making these kinds of statements when the example of China is so obvious.

You think China's population may have a role in it being an economic behemoth? On a per capita income basis China ranks like 89th in GDP. Funny how you use total GDP China but per capita GDP for Canada.

All things considered, the U.S. is more socialist than any other nation. We redistribute wealth in a more stealthy manner, is the difference.

Because a lot of both economc theory and practice support socialist concepts.

For instance, the fastest period of growth in the west was the era of high taxes, high regulation, nationalization and union membership in the 1940s-1970s. While deregulafion has clearly led to a number of bubblea and collapses, as well as stagnation in real wages.

Likewise, many technologies - the internet for example, are the result of government spending.

Economics is the only profession where you can gain great eminence without ever being right.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

Answer to the OP's question: people know know anything about economics DON'T support socialism. Though a very small percentage of them have been tricked into supporting Keynsian economics.

Very small percentage? Almost everyone believes in Kenseyiasm nowadays. Last night I was listening to a Paul Krugman interview and he was saying that China's "bizarrely low" savings rate of 30% is holding them back.

Oh, my Gosh! 30%?!?!?!?!? How bizarre! It's like they don't understand that consumer spending is what increases standard of living.

Adam Smith disagrees with you. Seriously, read the first chapter of Wealth of Nations. The English Monarchy did not feel the least bit threatened by Smith when his book came out. Smith was clear in the need for government to keep the merchant class controlled and regulated.

Jack M. wrote:

If you have even a basic understanding of economics, incentive, and human nature, socialism should clearly be understood as an unrealistic ideal that rewards mediocrity and does not reward hard work or innovation. No country that adopts socialism could EVER stay on top, and in large and diverse nations (like the US), socialism would absolutely cause the nation to crumble as the sheer number of slackers and moochers will bleed the doers to death. I am truly dumbfounded that more people don't understand this. It seems like common sense.

Jack M. wrote:

If you have even a basic understanding of economics, incentive, and human nature, socialism should clearly be understood as an unrealistic ideal that rewards mediocrity and does not reward hard work or innovation. No country that adopts socialism could EVER stay on top, and in large and diverse nations (like the US), socialism would absolutely cause the nation to crumble as the sheer number of slackers and moochers will bleed the doers to death. I am truly dumbfounded that more people don't understand this. It seems like common sense.

On another note, I think people's main problem with capitalism is not the notion that people get rewarded for hard work and innovation, it's the opposite: the fact that people have a better opportunity depending on how rich their family is.

It's easy to innovate and work hard when you've been brought up in a reasonably well off family that , provides you with tutors etc.

However, if you're born into a family that does not have that same access, you do have a disadvantage, not based on ability or tenaciousness, but access!

Now that seems a little unfair doesn't it?

And it's so easy to point out the success stories. Oh xyz was poor and then he went on to become a billionaire see kid why aren't you doing it goodness me you're a failure. But the fact of the matter is that, overwhelmingly, the family you were born into (which you don't get to choose btw) has a huge impact on your ability to educate yourself and get into a position where hard work and innovation is possible, something which OP is so quick to tout the merits of.

I'm not here to go on about how great/shit socialism is because

a) I don't know enough about the topic and

b) I hate it when people talk about things they don't know anything about.

What I do know that there are many flaws in capitalism that are deeply ingrained into the system itself. Maybe we're just not thinking hard enough when we believe that the only two economic systems are capitalism and socialism which are perpetually at war with each other?

Interested in seeing some interesting discussion rather than

OMG SOCIALISM IS SO SHIT AMIRITE LOL COMMIES or

OMG CAPITALIST SCUM WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE XD XD

But considering the nature of these boards, I don't hold high hopes...

I agree with you but you're making quite a bit of a big leap and I have an economics exam coming up so I am going to break down the correlation between consumer spending and increased standard of living before the shitposting on this thread does my head in.

According to Keynesain Economics, there exists two entities, aggregate demand and aggregate supply, whereby aggregate demand represents all the demand one has in the economy and aggregate supply represnts all the factors of production in the economy.

The factors of aggregate demand are as follows:

AD=C+I+G+(X-M)

Where C=Consumer spending, I=Investment, G=Government Spending and (X-M) represents net exports.

When C increases, due to the multiplier effect, this (theoretically) increases the other factors in the graph, leading to an increase in aggregate demand in an economy.

If there is an increase in Aggregate Demand the economy is, in theory, going to grow: People are buying things=More output=Higher GDP

Now, usually, an increase in GDP growth leads to an increase in living standards across the economy, provided that there are re distributive mechanisms in place that flow on to all levels of the public.

So an increase in C=Increase in AD=Increase in Growth=Increase in Living standards (theoretically)

Right now nothing is 'holding china back'. In fact, it's quite the opposite: they are experiencing the effects of 10 years of unsustainable economic growth of over 10% where nothing at all has 'been held back'.

Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:

jock ridas wrote:

I don't think you have anything to worry about it. Hardly anyone in the US wants strict socialism.

Except the chair of the largest political party in this country.

https://youtu.be/JHpiMv3Sy8Q?t=55s

Answer to the OP's question: people know know anything about economics DON'T support socialism. Though a very small percentage of them have been tricked into supporting Keynsian economics.

Being currently a PhD in Finance, former MSc in Economics, I’m fairly sure I know much more about Economics than you.

Regarding what you call Keynesian economics (which BTW is generally called New-Keynesian and is just a part of Macroeconomics, which is just one of the many fields of Economics), the reason why intelligent people tend to be positive about that is because there’s an overwhelming evidence that:

-prices, especially wages, tend to be downward rigid

-Gov’t multiplier, especially at the Zero Lower Bound (i.e., when Fed Funds rate is very close to zero) is greater than one: meaning Government expenditure is expansionary

-expansionary monetary policy is indeed expansionary (old style Monetarists à la Milton Friedman would agree on this. Just read “A Monetary History..” if you don’t trust me)

Jack M. wrote:

If you have even a basic understanding of economics, incentive, and human nature, socialism should clearly be understood as an unrealistic ideal that rewards mediocrity and does not reward hard work or innovation. No country that adopts socialism could EVER stay on top, and in large and diverse nations (like the US), socialism would absolutely cause the nation to crumble as the sheer number of slackers and moochers will bleed the doers to death. I am truly dumbfounded that more people don't understand this. It seems like common sense.

I’m fairly confident I have a basic understanding of Economics, incentives and human nature (really?!).

The issue with pure socialism, is that there’s no role for prices in aggregating information. That’s a really powerful mechanism of market economies.

The issue is what you believe being socialism. Some Ameritards believe places like Sweden or Germany are socialists. That’s why the make idiotic comments.

Regarding incentives to innovate, if you believe the US system is the best one you are probably fooling yourself.

Regarding hard work, I’m a little bit ambivalent on this. First of all it is a moral decision to reward hard work which may be not shared by everyone: so it’s not about understanding economics, but about taking a moral/political position. Second, as someone already said, with technology going forward I see very little scope to (physical, but also intellectual) hard work, especially if measured in time spent working.

This is like giving a gold medal to the guy who trains the most: the medal is for the guy who trains the cleverest and goes faster than the others.

Economists=morans wrote:

Economics is the only profession where you can gain great eminence without ever being right.

lol

The field of economics all theoretical BS

routine tester of theory wrote:

Economists=morans wrote:

Economics is the only profession where you can gain great eminence without ever being right.

lol

The field of economics all theoretical BS

I seriously doubt you have read any academic paper in Economics during the past 20 years.

If you think academic Economics is what goes on TV, then you’re fooling yourself.