Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Why socialism sucks

I read Milt's post this morning in amazement (not the one about oral sex!!)
Fairfacts beat me to it but here's my 2 cents worth.

There are two fundamental problems

Firstly, socialism interferring with market forces. The unhuman desire to make everyone equal. Reality is that a free market will allow everybody, depending on their skills, to achieve. Some will become Bill Gates and others will take out his rubbish. This is why socialists should never be allowed control of democracies.

Secondly, as the wealth of the developed world has increased, the increasing populations in these countries have to compete more and more for ways to create wealth. So people turn to trading their land and property amongst themselves to make money. Prices rise, fuelled by easy socialist inspired (PC) credit until the bubble bursts.

The solution is to get rid of high taxing socialist governments so that people don't have to create wealth by property speculation but by normal work.

16 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

If only the real world would comply with our ideologies, everything would work just fine. Unfortunately, it won't, because societies are made up of people, not economic or sociological theories.

I'm not sure what you mean by "easy socialist-inspired credit," Lou. I've yet to meet a socialist who was a friend to finance companies or banks, and it's clear enough in NZ at least that the growth in dodgy lending has been a direct result of the govt reducing its regulation of such activities, not increasing it.

Redbaiter said...

I'm not sure what you mean by "easy socialist-inspired credit," Lou.

Well how sad that you can't get what he means. Let me help in a small way. Fannie and Freddie were run by Democrat party cronyists who produced financial records that were illusions. Paid themselves huge bonuses based on fraud and deciet. Built a house of cards that inevitably had to collapse. Thats what he means Milt. Its only a very small part, but I hope it helps in getting you to see the big picture.

Psycho Milt said...

Ah, I see - it's just you guys using "socialist" as a synonym for "people I don't like" again. Thanks for clearing that up.

Sus said...

"because societies are made up of people,"

And people are made up of *individuals* who have the right to live their lives as they see fit, not state apparatchiks. Therein proves the importance of protecting the rights of the smallest minority, the individual, with the full weight of the law.

"Democracy", being mob-rule, does not do that. Indeed it stomps upon the minority. This dispels any myth of 'democracy' being synonymous with 'freedom'.

Socialism is a perverse philosophy based, as it is, upon the concepts of theft (taxes) and coercion (force via reguation). It enslaves individuals economically & personally.

Thus, it is evil.

Sus said...

Whoops, typo: regulation.

Anonymous said...

This is why socialists should never be allowed control of democracies.


the most important think you've ever posted on this blog.

frankly I don't think they should be allowed in democracies, let along in control of them.

"because societies are made up of people,"

there is no such thing as society

Anonymous said...

What caused the property bubble in New Zealand was excessive taxation brought on the the socialist Michael Cullen.
Raising the top rate of income tax to 39% fuelled landlordism, a consumer boom, housing unaffordability, etc, etc.
Your blog has stated this many times.

Psycho Milt said...

there is no such thing as society

Er, sure - and maybe if you tell yourself firmly, in bold typeface, that there's no gravity, you'll be able to leap off tall buildings without getting hurt. Feel free to try it...

What caused the property bubble in New Zealand was excessive taxation brought on the the socialist Michael Cullen.

Sure. There may have been similar property booms occurring at the same time in other Western countries, but the one here was definitely caused by Michael Cullen. The others were just coincidence.

Nah, I'm sorry - I tried pretty hard, but I just couldn't suspend disbelief and adopt the fantasy...

Nigel Kearney said...

I think Milt is right to compare countries, but is wrong on the specific example.

In Milt's example, we have yet to see the full consequences of policies of governments currently in power, however the US collects around 27% of GDP in tax while NZ takes 37%. The US economy has averaged over 4% growth per annum since Bush took office while NZ has struggled to achieve 3% in a good year.

Why not compare similar countries over a longer term such as NZ v Australia over the last 20 years? Tax as % of GDP over there is now 31% and they are kicking our asses. There are numerous other examples.

Sus said...

Fantasy, Milt? No, but the reasons given here have been narrow, for sure, whereas the fault lies with constant govt interference within the market - and sadly, that occurs in all countries.

You again fail to acknowledge that a society (collective) is made up of individuals.

A society does not think, breathe and act as one. But it's mighty convenient for controlling collectivists to behave as if that were the case, in order to foist their latest harebrained scheme upon us all.

"The disabled should .."
"Maori need .."
"Women think .."
"Christians must .."
"Pacific Islanders can't .."
"Students insist .."
"Children want .."
"Asians believe .."

And so on. How often do you hear some do-gooder (sorry, "expert") wank on in that sort of vein? Answer: Day in, day out.

It's absurd & patronising. But very convenient for those who believe it's their given right to interfere and impose their beliefs upon everybody else.

Q: Why is the thought of an individual being entitled to her own thoughts so reprehensible to you?

Psycho Milt said...

You're busy constructing a straw man, Sus. From my first comment:

...societies are made up of people, not economic or sociological theories.

Later, I pointed out to Anonymous Fascist the foolishness of his assertion that there is no such thing as society.

How do you manage to infer from those uncontroversial (I would have thought) views that I find the idea of individuals having their own thoughts reprehensible?

Sus said...

No straw persons, Milt.

My point was/is that it's deceptive to talk about 'society' as in what society wants/needs, etc.

That society is constructed of individuals; individualism being diametically opposed to collectivism, or ... socialism and, to quote the title of this post, "why it sucks". (See my first post).

And that those who always talk about what's good or bad for 'society' or any group of people as per the listed examples, are therefore misguided.

As regards that last question, I can only conclude that collectivists, by definition, are opposed to my having the temerity to think differently.

I don't like that at all.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK!

Anonymous said...

If only the real world would comply with our ideologies, everything would work just fine.

And that's the problem with leftists.

You argue we should teach evolution, not creation, because evolution is a scientific fact.

You argue we should teach global warming, not efficient production, because global warming is a scientific fact.

But when it comes to economics: you deny basic economic reality although they are much more scientifically proven that either evolution or global warming.


And that's the difference between society and gravity. Gravity is a hard, scientific fact. F=Gm1m2/r^2. So are economics.f^i_xij/f^i_xis=f^k_xkj/f^k_xks As George Orwell said: to believe in socialism, you have to believe that 2+2=5. It really is as simple as that.

Psycho Milt said...

But when it comes to economics: you deny basic economic reality...

At times, yes. For example, we denied basic economic reality when we opposed slavery; when we fought for universal adult suffrage, for the right to form unions, for the 40-hour week, for equal pay for women; and the world is a better place for it.

Much as you might wish it were otherwise, economics is a social science, not a science. As with other social sciences, what constitutes "basic economic reality" depends greatly on the political ideology of the economist.

George Orwell said: to believe in socialism, you have to believe that 2+2=5.

He could have said the same about any ideology. You should stop following them.

Anonymous said...

economics is a social science, not a science.

sorry.

A thing is worth precisely what someone else will pay for it. Nothing more and nothing less.

That is a fact: that is saying 2+2=4.

Leftism in all its forms denies this simple fact.