Can healthy, sustained economic growth occur in a socialist economy ?

[steve2470]

This is a serious question. Maybe I've read too many right wing economists, but it has seemed to me that that has not seemed the case. What is the record ? Thanks in advance. :-)

[ewagner]

1. Interesting question.

I'm not schooled enough in economics to answer it but I will be watching with interest.


As a corollary to that question, I ask another:

Is growth a necessity for a capitalistic system to survive?

[HereSince1628]

10. Capitalism as a private investment system seems like it could

Even if growth was flat the shares could still change hands. Seems like those with capital could try to concentrate it.

[Deep13]

2. Well, Sweden seems to have its act together.

[DBoon]

7. Income redistribution vs. nationalization

I heard an interesting argument that Sweden's relative prosperity was because their Social Democrats avoided the sort of nationalization that occurred in the UK. Instead they focused on a progressive tax structure and social welfare programs leaving the actual operation of the economy to the private sector.

The argument was that this worked much better than outright nationalization. Nationalized industries tended to perform poorly, while high progressive taxes did not hinder the private sector as much as some economists thought.

[eallen]

14. And it has a capitalist economy.

Complete with markets in equities, venture capital, etc.

[Deep13]

23. "Socialist" is a pretty vague label.

It can mean anything from health benefits to Stalinism.

[justinsb]

3. A completely socialist country?

I don't know. Canada has many 'socialized' programs - health care, the social safety net, the Canada Pension Plan etc., and Canada currently leads the G8 in economic growth. If you look at Europe most of the Western European countries also have a mingling of capitalism and socialism. On the whole it seems to be working allright. The economic highs aren't as high and the lows aren't as low.

[papau]

4. define a "socialist economy" - EU growth has been good over last 50

years - but is that "socialist"

China/India growth is super over last few years - but are they "socialist"?

Dog eat Dog capitalism certainly has the easiest job motivating folks as survival is at stake.

But do some activities get done better and more cheaply in monopoly form - even if the monopoly is "government run"?

[DBoon]

41. Dog eat Dog capitalism only motivates people

to eat each other.

Economic growth requires education, individual financial security (health care, not fearing financial ruin from temporary unemployment, etc.) , and regulation to ensure markets are honest.

[FrannyD]

5. What is growth

Well, their way is unsustainable so it's worth a shot. It would be ideal to begin before all is lost, but highly doubtful. There are winners and there are losers. One man's growth is usually at the expense of anothers.

[Nederland]

47. Not true

One man's growth is usually at the expense of anothers.

Over the past 200 years both the US and Europe have experienced enormous growth while simultaneously reducing poverty.

[wuushew]

48. That is because of the oil and coal age

energy exploration and usage kept pace with population growth.

With a recipe like that it is almost impossible not to fail.

The happy times are over. You can only add "green" energy at a given rate which itself subject to land and resource limitations. People need to stop having babies yesterday.

[Nederland]

54. That depends

...on when you think the peak will occur. The happy times aren't over yet, and may not provided we act quickly enough.

[kestrel91316]

6. In the LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG run ............

isn't "healthy, sustained economic growth" an oxymoron??

[Beaver Tail]

8. How socialist are you willing to go?

In a social democracy (not Democratic Socialism – that is different) it is entirely possible to have a sustainable economy. The government is responsible for programs that benefit the public in general (like health care, welfare, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation etc…) but you are paid what you are worth and capitalism thrives. Problem is that corporations do like this form of government because their taxes go up in an effort to make them partly responsible for these programs and therefore responsible for the welfare of the people. This hurts the bottom line.

Soviet style of socialism (communism) is not sustainable. This is the reason the USSR collapsed (Regan had nothing to do with it).

In Democratic Socialism the state uses Socialism to slowly deteriorate the Capitalistic state to become a truly socialist society.

[youspeakmylanguage]

32. Bravo!

:applause:

[steve2470]

9. article about Swedish economic growth

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4456/is_n63/ai_20792413


Economic growth has been moderate over the past two years, with exports having supplied the main impulse to activity. Accelerating domestic demand should now ensure more rapid output growth: private consumption and business fixed investment growth are picking up as the completion of the 1995-98 fiscal consolidation is felt in growing confidence, lower interest rates and recovering real disposable incomes. The improved credibility of monetary policy has fed into lower inflation expectations. However, wage growth remains rather high from an international perspective, and continues to restrict employment growth. Unemployment is expected to continue to fall over the projection period, chiefly because the strong expansion of education programmes is reducing labour supply.

The fiscal consolidation process has been highly successful and the long-term goal of maintaining the budget surplus at an average of 2 per cent of GDP over the economic cycle is within reach provided cyclical improvements in the budget balance are not used to raise government expenditure. Long-term growth prospects would improve if public spending - especially on transfers - were reduced and tax rates lowered, as part of a broadening of the current employment strategy from its main reliance on educating those at risk from unemployment to a more incentive-based approach, which would allow relative wages to adapt in the short run.


The present economic expansion got under way in 1994, with exports and the resulting rebound in business fixed investment as the main expansionary forces. These factors diminished in strength in 1996 so that, despite a gradual pick-up in private consumption, economic growth slowed. Against the background of a more favourable international climate, economic activity expanded more strongly in the course of 1997. Notwithstanding a continued contraction in public demand and a collapse of housing investment, GDP increased by 1.8 per cent in 1997. Other demand components have been moving up, with private consumption increasing by 2 per cent over the last four quarters despite declining real disposable incomes.

Labour demand remained subdued throughout 1997 and did not respond to stronger output growth, leaving average employment for the year 1 per cent below 1996; indeed, after four years of growth it is still no higher than at the start of the expansion. Reflecting a strong increase in tertiary and adult education, the labour force has been contracting strongly since mid- 1997, with a concomitant reduction in open unemployment, which currently amounts to 6.7 per cent. Wage growth fell in 1997, but is still running at a twelve-month rate of 4.0 per cent for blue-collar and 3.5 per cent for white-collar workers. The headline inflation rate picked up as the effect on housing costs of falling short-term rates during 1996 disappeared but with long-term rates continuing to fall, it is still no higher than 1.2 per cent.

<snip>

[leftofthedial]

11. the only reasonable examples of a socialist economic system

that we have seen so far are small, marginalized economies.

Cuba is an example.

Your question reveals part of the problem.

From what I can tell, nothing beats capitalism for rampant materialism and greed. Want there to be lots of money, lots of absurdly inflated "bubble" markets, lots of corruption fighting over it and a few people inevitably getting immensely wealthy while more and more people have none of the basics like health care, a place to live or a decently paying job? Capitalism is the system for you! Money and wealth and "sustained growth" have become the criteria for measuring capitalist economies. These capitalist criteria are unrelated to the well-being of the population at large and are not necessarily appropriate for measuring collectivist societies. It's like evaluating football as a sport by asking how many homeruns there are in a football game.

A socialist economy would be more appropriately measured by such factors as:

employment rate
how many people have health care
how many people graduate from high schools or trade schools
how many people go to college
how many people have at least basic housing
the median standard of living
society's infrastructure investments

[eallen]

16. The problem is, I do want rapidly improving technology.

Economic growth is the move from eight-track tapes to iPods, from X-rays to ultrasounds and CAT scans, from old rotary phones to cell phones, from calculators to PDAs. None of your measures for a socialist economy capture that very important aspect. It is the same dynamism of capitalism, the same evolutionary algorithm, that both creates opportunity for investment and great wealth, and that moves technology so rapidly.

[leftofthedial]

24. consumerism can accelerate technology

technology is part of the infrastructure in my list (which BTW is not intended to be exhaustive)

Sounds like you value your personal desires as a consumer over the collective good. Your description of capitalism, viewed historically, is idealistic and rarely accurate. Much more frequently, capitalism breeds a robber baron mentality in which capital is used ruthlessly to accrue more cpaital, without regard to the consequences.

Wealth helped to move technology development rapidly for a brief period during the 90s when the wealthy believed they could profit quickly from technology investments. They don't do that anymore on a large scale. Today, the rapid technology growth of the 90's has slowed dramatically. We currently are exploiting technology that was developed in the past more than truly innovating on a large scale. Among the ruling capitalist class, investment in technology has taken a back seat to war profiteering, petro and petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and financial services. Capitalism has no intrinsic love for technology.

Russia, under its state capitalist, "communist" system, was actually remarkably innovative technologically.

[eallen]

25. I think that is a naive reading of history and capitalism.

A more accurate reading is that the explosion of technology in the modern world -- i.e., since 1600 -- pretty closely parallels the spread and growth of capitalism. To say that the pace has slown down since 1990 is much like saying that a few yards of a path up the side of Mt. Everest isn't quite as steep as all that came before.

You are absolutely correct that capitalists don't like change, at least, not once they are established. Just like any species of life, from kudzu to dolphin, once it has found and exploited its niche, the capitalist just wants to keep that going. But capitalism as a system foments technological change, both technology in the scientific sense, such as how to make a better chip, and technology in the broader sense that includes business processes. It is no accident that the most capitalist economies, such as the US's and Britain's, also were where there was the most technological advance. Century after century.

I don't think consumer interest can be entirely separated from the collective good. There is a lot of consumerism that I would happily discard. Capitalism is pretty neutral between fast food and better ways for nurses to monitor sick patients. To take an example. A "wise" consumer would say that the latter is far more important than the former, and that some instances of the former even are a net negative, no matter how well they appeal to children and appease parents. To the process of capitalism, all of these are examples of market niches to exploit, with no judgment made between them. But I'm not willing to slow progress in the latter because I disapprove the former.

[julianer]

42. It isn't the case that most technological

inventions are due to capitalist investment. Mostly they come from public investment in universities and industries, like MIT and NASA.

Many capitalists do invest of course, but you have to ask about the motivation for their investment. Are they fulfilling real human needs or trying to further exploit existing? Are they really making technological breakthroughs or just developing and marketing the results of publicly funded scientists work?

We can have a situation where half the world hasn't enough to eat and a small percentage of the other half, perhaps 15%, is worried about iPods and PDAs. But with capitalism that is how it will stay. There is no way that capitalism can meet all basic human needs, because there is no profit in it.

[eallen]

43. You might want to browse patent filings sometime.

I think public research is vitally important, because there are areas of basic knowledge whose exploration simply doesn't have the immediate applicability or exclusivity that would spur private funding. But if you want to look at just sheer numbers, at the mass of innovations from the paltry to the sublime, nothing beats what has been created through capitalist investment. I've spent some time on both sides of the research world, academic and industrial. They are focused differently. The academic is vitally important, and carries on research that otherwise would go undone. In terms of sheer volume, industrial wins hands down.

[idlisambar]

44. It used to be better than it is now

There are a lot of problems with using patents as a metric of innovation. For one, a lot more things can be patented now than before, particularly in biotech and software, and many of these "innovations" are just marketable versions of what has already been done in a public institution. Second, public sector research institutions are not as likely to use the patent system.

There was a time when private sector research had a bigger role, back when Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, etc. were in their heyday. Now there are only a few firms that heavily investment long-term research. Many of these are in pharmaceuticals, but even these companies largely piggyback on top of massive public investment.

On the other hand, the picture is complicated by the fact that much of University research is funded through corporations (depending on the field). In return these corporations expect "access".

[eallen]

45. Don't focus too narrowly on one or two fields.

I suspect the new, new things will be materials, robotics, and medical engineering. Lots of interesting things are happening in all those fields, with many companies investing.

[idlisambar]

46. on robotics

I can't say I am as familiar with the others you mentioned, but robotics is a good case in point for my argument. In the U.S. the private sector is basically a non-factor, most of funding comes from the Department of Defense and NASA. There have been a few startups in the field but most of these are small in scale and have intimate ties to major universities (usually started by professors and grad students).

However, if you are thinking about outside of the U.S. there is indeed a lot of private sector research in robotics, particularly in Japan.

[julianer]

51. Yes, but who will have access to all these

wonderful things?

This is the point about capitalism no longer fulfilling a progressive role. Instead of new developments in science and technology helping humanity as a whole (as mass production did to a feudal society in capitalism's progressive phase) massive amounts of money are spent on developing ever more sophistication for a relatively small minority.

There is nothing special about capitalism that leads to innovation. It is bright people, with education, opportunity and encouragement who make technological advances. They won't die out with capitalism.

[eallen]

52. Nay. There IS something about capitalism that drives innovation.

Again, capitalism structures the production side of the economy as a genetic algorithm that searches for ever more productive business processes and technology. Capitalism is productive of practical technology for the same reason that evolution is productive of practical species.

You are right that bright people always will innovate. But the utility and application of their innovation will depend significantly on the kind of economic system within which they work.

BTW, you might want to look at the growth of cell phone use in India. Since you asked who benefits.

[julianer]

55. What you are saying

is that capitalism is unpredictable. It is and it isn't. What the next technology will be, or where the next booming economy will be isn't predictable, but who will benefit from it is all too predictable.

In a genetic algorithm a simple set of basic rules will allow unpredictable evolution, giving rise to new, appropriate species or whatever. Capitalism is not like that except in the theory books and we are not in living a genetic algorithm of economic experiment. We are living in a rigged market system which is not a uniformly simple set of rules, but a complicated, shifting arrangement of multitudinous rules and agreements. If the rules are not adapted to the benefit of the existing wealthy elites they will be changed.

There is nothing particular about this rigged market system that is in itself generative of new technologies, such as would be impossible under any other system of production.

You haven't answered the rather obvious point that presently constituted capitalism is a disaster and you haven't said how it can be reformed.

The only purpose of capitalism is the private accumulation of wealth: any benefit to mankind is largely a fortunate side-benefit. Those Indians would not have the phones if someone wasn't making money from it.

[eallen]

56. I think you are ignoring the obvious benefits of modern capitalism.

Any global analysis, as you are attempting, has to begin with the observation that something remarkable happened in the four hundred years that constitute the modern world, something that allows a larger number of people than ever before imagined to enjoy a level of wealth and technology than ever before imaginable. Yes, it is fair to criticize that the majority of the world still is not enjoying those benefits, and is living in a fashion not much better than how most people lived in the millenia previous going back to the agricultural revolution. But to overlook what capitalism has produced and is producing is simply to ignore history. Note that Marx did not make such a mistake. He understood that capitalism was extremely productive; indeed, one of his chief criticisms of it was that it was too productive. His proposed communism was in his view a stage beyond capitalism, but he never would have said that there wasn't something special about capitalism compared to what came before. If you want to propose an alternative, you need to at least spin a believable tale that what you propose will be as good as the capitalism is succeeds. Marx tried to do that, though few now believe his tale. Liberals don't propose to eliminate capitalism, but only to ameliorate some of its rougher edges.

As a side note, I also understand the argument that hunters and gatherers lived a better lifestyle than the farmers who succeeded them, i.e., that the agricultural revolution produced a decline in average living standard. But it also produced a tremendous growth in sustainable population. There's not much to be gained from looking back to pre-agricultural society as a utopia, unless you somehow propose to get rid of almost everyone now alive.

[julianer]

57. You seem to be distorting what I say

I don't deny for a minute that capitalism played a progressive role in developing the means of production.

I don't deny that capitalism, as a system, will give rise to innovation and dynamism. I am merely saying that it is not a good enough system to fill all human need, though the productive forces certainly exist to do so. The evidence for this surrounds us.

In a nutshell: the means of production, the technique, the labour force all exist to enable us to fulfull human need and ensure we have evolution of technology. But capitalism, in its later stages, is unable to put all this to use because it cannot make profit in doing so.

As for what replaces capitalism: I don't propose any system at all, except that everyone should be part of the decision making process and the aims of a post-capitalist society should be about meeting human need in a sustainable way, rather than accumulating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Marx saw capitalism as part of the historical development of humanity. If you quote Marx to justify capitalism replacing feudalism, and feudalism replacing hunter/gatherer societies, then it seems only reasonable that you also accept his idea that capitalism is only a stage and, for human progress to continue, we must enter a new stage. Marx called that socialism, which in turn would be replaced, or rather it would replace itself, with communism, when the state infrastructure, money etc 'withers away'.

So to insist that capitalism is the only form of possible society is to act against humanity's interests, because it is no longer a progressive force in human development.

Finally, you say:

'If you want to propose an alternative, you need to at least spin a believable tale that what you propose will be as good as the capitalism is succeeds. Marx tried to do that, though few now believe his tale.'

regarding the first part, I hope I've given some answer above, though I would insist that strict systems will inevitably lead to disaster. As for the second part, implying that Marx has no releveance, see this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml

[julianer]

50. I don't think you are contradicting what I said.

The point is that if we want to develop technology for the whole of humanity rather than a very small proportion of it, we must have another system of development, production and exchange, because what we've got at the moment isn't working.

Capitalism hasn't done it so far and, since the inequalities in wealth are getting worse, it is obviously not even addressing the problems of the world.

I think the spread of world poverty is inversely proportional to the accumulation of wealth, and accumulation is capitalism's only goal.

Do you think it can be reformed? If so, how do you think we might go about it?

[rainy]

12. can economic growth be sustained should be the real question

and at the rate we are going we will destroy the earth. The Chesapeake Bay is as good as DEAD right now. Many other great waterways are dead or dying. People are fat and dying from gross mal-nutrition and abuse of the body.

I say the rate of growth that defines a healthy economy is flawed in a most severe way. Our current way of life and destruction cannot be sustained. When India catches up with us and the rest of the world tries to we will destroy our habitat in the name of economic growth.

There has to be a better way than creating an economy on good little workers and consumers. We will consume ourselfs to death with nothing left to sell.

[ewagner]

15. Thanks

You expressed my concerns much better than I did.

This is a question that has bothered me since my first "Macro" course in college.

[eallen]

13. Why do you think the European nations all have capitalist economies?

Capitalism is essentially an evolutionary algorithm for business processes and technologies. Conservatives sometimes will spout a bunch of nonsense about the virtue of companies that succeed. That mostly is bunkum, a mixture of stale social darwinism and the religious notion that their god shines on those who live right. The reality is both more dynamic and less ethically charged. Businesses that find and exploit a market niche survive. Those that don't, fail. Most will fail, simply because many more businesses are created in the hope of enriching their founders and investors than there are market niches to exploit. As the business ecology evolves, this causes the rapid, decentralized discovery of ever more efficient business processes and more productive technology.

There are a variety of socialisms, but many of the things that are meant by that term tend to put some sort of monkey wrench in that evolutionary algorithm. Rather than eliminating capitalism's dynamism, I think the better thing is to tame its excesses, e.g., regulate where it leads to externalities, fraud, pollution, and theft, and fund public schools and other social services that respect our biological and social nature, not just our role as economic players. Of course, that marks me as a liberal.

[papau]

49. I agree :-)

:-)

[Endangered Specie]

17. I think a balalnce of capilism and socialism...

is the best (better than the alternatives) solution. competition between the capitalist elements and socialist elements, will tend to keep extremes from rising, and the government a balance of power that doesnt sway too far either way.

[Beaver Tail]

20. You have just defined

A SOcial Democrat

[sam sarrha]

18. they call a people based economy Socialist..Corporations actually pull all

money out of communities.. and socialist programs like welfare and food stamps are designed to 'Subsidize' corporate systems as the only way to put money back into communities so the corporations can take more..

it is a micro-economic trade deficit.. corps like walmart remove money from small communities to corporate centers.. and put nothing back.. 2.5 jobs are lost for every walmart job..

i see the Walmart Mega stores simply as potential warehouse structures to distribute emergency commodities when the crash happens. they all have 2 sets of doors.. in and out.. and every small community has one..

[johannes1984]

19. The lowlands and scandinavia

Although not examples of sustained growth , have a very healthy economy .And their budgets are well under control , no worrysome deficit .The lowlands have very socialist economies , but they can do so , because they are realativly small , and incredibly wealthy .
We are now shifting from a welfare government , to a welbeing orientated one.Seeing as there's free universal health care and a 950 $ stipends for the unemployed to boot .

But it could all change , here in Belgium the right wing nutters calling themselves christian democrats are set to ride into power .Which isn't great , but they can never get to power without forming an alliance with the socialist party , so it ain't that bad either .

[LSK]

21. branding whole economies socialist is too simplistic n/t

[JanMichael]

22. Yes. Read Oskar Lange or Pareto.

One thing to consider however is the anti-model of "growth" emerging in Cuba.

Growth and consumption for the sake of it is going to be a thing of the Past in the future.

Perhaps ParEcon will be the answer as well, it's tough to say.

[amazona]

26. can healthy, sustained economy growth occur in any economy?

Since the planet is limited in space and resources, I am not clear that there is any economy that can allow for sustained growth. Eventually you don't have an environment worth living in. I guess it depends on your definition of "sustained." If you think the rampant growth of, say, capitalist economies since 1945 is sustained because it has lasted 60 years, all I can say is that 60 years is less than one human life time. I sort of would expect people with children or grand-children to demand a little more than that.

The demand for "sustained" growth leads to ridiculous situations, such as Hong Kong or Italy complaining about a decline in birth rates. As long as we think that "sustained" growth is something good, I guess we'll continue on this path of consuming the entire planet.

[eallen]

28. Economic growth doesn't require greater resource consumption.

It might involve that. But doesn't require it. This is a basic confusion that many people hold in thinking about economics. Think of the change from old-fashioned telephony system, that required extensive local wiring and local operators, to a cell phone system, which is being deployed now in parts of the developing world where stringing landlines is infeasible. Does the cell system consume more resources than the landline and patchboard system? No. Does it provide greater function? Yes. Can it be brought, more cheaply, to a larger number of people? Yes.

That is economic growth. Perhaps this confusion would have been avoided if the early economists, instead of labeling it "economic growth," had labeled it "economic improvement." Alas, they didn't. And the end result is many people falling into the error of thinking it has to do with more, as measured by material and resources, rather than better.

[lastliberalintexas]

30. Unless the cell phones are all made of recycled materials,

the growth or progression from land based lines means some sort of consumption. The fact that it doesn't require *as much consumption* as the product or service it replaced is irrelevant to the question of whether it requires *any* consumption of resources. It does, and any economic growth does as well.

[eallen]

35. Maintaining those land lines also consumes resources.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. As does maintaining the sattelites for cell phones

?

Any economic growth requires the consumption of resources. ANY growth, regardless of how much less it may consume than its predecessor. I guess one day the next Edison will invent a more efficient whatever that is made entirely of recycled materials and is produced and run on waste products so as not to actually consume anything. But we're not there yet.

[eallen]

39. Yes, but the point is: Growth is not about consuming MORE resources....

All economic activity consumes resources. That's because all activity consumes resources. The only way the human race can avoid resource consumption entirely is to commit mass suicide.

My point is not that economic activity doesn't require physical resources -- that would be nonsense! -- but that economic value is not measured by the amount of resources consumed. A replacement technology can consume less resources all around that what would have been consumed doing things the old way, and provide more economic benefit. It is simply an error to think that economic growth requires ever increasing levels of resource consumption. As I said in another post, this kind of discussion would go better had it been labelled "economic improvement" rather than "economic growth." C'est la vie.

[wuushew]

34. Conservation and efficiency are subject to diminishing returns

unless the improved efficiency of light bulbs or car mileage offsets the annual increase in consumption from population growth society ends up farther behind.

I bring up energy as an example simply because I believe per capita energy consumption has become the benchmark of modern affluence. It allows to grow as much food as we do, travel to our various places of work and shape raw materials into the goods we crave.

Your example is still extremely valid when talking about medical and technological innovations. To all things however there is an absolute limit what is possible owing to the laws of chemistry and physics.

Without wealth redistribution a zero growth society would be subject to the stratification of the few wealthy and the many poor.

[eallen]

36. Fundamentally, economic improvement is about new benefit....

The thing about an iPod isn't just that it consumes fewer resources than an eight-track tape player, but also that one can carry a much broader music library, acquire items without physically traveling to a store, carry it around more easily, and play those songs in ways one couldn't do on an eight-track.

Now yeah, it does consume fewer resources. No one makes eight-track cartridges any more. Few people burn gas for a weekly visit to a record store. But that's not the only measure of "better."

[donkeyotay]

27. I think some socialism is necessary for healthy, sustained capitalism

Capitalism is the engine, and socialism is the regulator. Unregulated capitalism is brutish and ultimately self-defeating because it degenerates into monopoly and corruption. Likewise, too much socialism degenerates into a state run economy, or what I think of as communism.

Socialism has gotten a bad rap from years of rightwing control of public dialog. For example, think about the great evil of public utilities that our corporate media insisted be abolished as socialism. The public oversight of those publicly run utilities really seemed to give a fairly good value, yet the argument against them was that because they were public they were inefficient - the "free market" could do it better. Hmmm. Well, we can look to how efficient the California energy market was, and we can also look to the big blackout hold-up... you know, the one where the power grid went down and the corporations who were supposed to be doing a better job than the utilities suddenly demanded billions of tax dollars for deferred maintenance on the system?

Corruption and inefficiency can exist in either public or private systems. The big lie that's been sold is that somehow all problems are solved by privatization.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Very good post

No economic system is all that wonderful in its purest form. Western Europe seems to have found the best balance of what are probably the most workable systems for humans, social and market economies.

[eallen]

40. Agree. Further, no system exists in its "pure form."

The pure market capitalism of the economists is a model that vastly oversimplifies the realities we experience here on earth. What we get in reality are always culturally laden markets, that exist within specific legal and political frameworks. The fundamental mistake of the "market fundamentalists" is to confuse their model with reality. They're like students in freshmen physics who work out beautiful solution to point-masses that move about in friction-free environments, where in the real world there is no such thing as a point-mass or friction-free environment.

:hippie:

[sweetheart]

29. The reality is intelligent central planning

In ANY nation economy are a few policy makers and "fixers" who are the
primary physicians of the heart. These include presidents who wisely
use public spending to inject continuity in to the business cycles of
the private sector. They know how to design "silicon valleys" and how
to achieve great wealth creation through wise policies.

That such a group of economic leaders does not really have anything to
do with a system of government should be obvious. American central
planning, and its elements of participatory chaos 'were' more
decentrallized than the old soviet union, but times have moved on, and
the american model is dangerously centrallized. This is not a problem
under a 'benign dictator' senario where all companies pay living
wages and do the right thing. This natural intelligence of socialism
can arise from any wing of political thinking, intending the best for
its citizens and long term wealth creation by putting weailth in to the
hands of every man and woman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Why not? It sure doesn't under capitalism.

Most of the world lives under some form of capitalism. Millions die each year of hunger and related causes.

Socialism, at least, would provide a safety net. The catch is, that the wealthy, (and, I don't just mean the Donald Trumps) would have to give up some of their goodies that are being ripped off from the poor.

[sintax]

38. Wrong Question-Wrong Answer

Zero Growth Economy

An economy does not mean growth or shrinkage it means literally "Household Stewardship".


So let us ask different questions that concern themselves with right livelihood rather than living wage. That concern themselves with living with and upon the land in an elegant, simple and meaningful manner rather than living off the land in a sustainable manner. That concern themselves with whole organic communities. That concern themselves with etc....

Marx too thrilled at the sight of the machines of mass production.

Are we forever to be trapped in the Western Habit of Mind?

[retread]

53. If you are looking for examples, they will be hard to come by. It

is a high priority for the US is to destroy any system that has the potential to be a good, working example of an alternative to capitalism.