Why socialism doesn't work

[Agent 008]

In other words, why no government should take up functions that can be taken up by private enterprises.

The annual budget of the European Parliament is close to 2 billion euros.
That's how much it costs Europe.

To compare, the annual turnover of the Konami corporation was around 2.6 billion euros.

Now think for a second what the European parliament does, and what the Konami corporation does.

"Public", bureaucratic structures are much less effective than private structures and must be avoided as much as possible.

The socialist utopia that Europe aims for hence can be considered an anti-utopia. This vector needs to be changed if Europe is to survive and flourish.

[Cory]

Your talking about how a system to move beyond money "doesn't work" because "it costs too much".

"Europe" is not Scoialist, it's social-democratic.

[Firemind]

"Government" doesn't work. Dammit do we need another Timothy McVeigh already?

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Cory

Your talking about how a system to move beyond money "doesn't work" because "it costs too much".

"Europe" is not Scoialist, it's social-democratic.

I used the word "socialism" in the loose, colloquial sense.

[Sir Cornwell]

So you're saying giving money to Wall Street or Boeing doesn't work? You're probably right. They pretty much got the power to order Washington to cough up though.

[supperrfreek]

Originally Posted by Sir Cornwell

So you're saying giving money to Wall Street or Boeing doesn't work? You're probably right. They pretty much got the power to order Washington to cough up though.

In Boeing's case, Washington's money is in return for a service. They build aircraft and sell them to the government. They also offer jobs domestically to those who are not exactly the most privileged. I'm pretty certain John Rawls would approve of this endeavor. I'm uncertain about Wall Street though.

But in general the socialistic policies of Europe have created jobless growth: even though the gross domestic product increases, employment does not. When coupled with the Greek debt crisis, we see the threat of getting so close to that particular model: like Icarus they fly too close to the sun, but when they fall they drag the rest of us down too. The model does not work because the government caves too easily to people who think that getting payed for only twelve months of work is bollocks.

[Rust]

What? Are you seriously comparing the European Parliament and what it does to a corporation?

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

What? Are you seriously comparing the European Parliament and what it does to a corporation?

Yes.

A corporation gets a hell of a lot more done on much tighter budgets. Every movement has to be calculated in order to survive.
Any successful private enterprise has to do that.

On the contrary, EU parliament sessions could be held utilising web technology or using other ways. Instead, they migrate between two different cities - all of the ~20k staff. That costs huge amounts of money. And they only assemble for about 2 weeks a month. Not to mention, that their usefulness as simply stamping through various directives is debatable.

The attitude is completely different when you are managing someone else's money, the money you didn't earn. A private non-profit enterprise would've been much more efficient.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Cory

Your talking about how a system to move beyond money "doesn't work" because "it costs too much".

"Europe" is not Scoialist, it's social-democratic.

Oh, and if we're being strict about the terms, I wouldn't call the EU democratic either.

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

A corporation gets a hell of a lot more done on much tighter budgets. Every movement has to be calculated in order to survive.

All the European parliament does is governs the European Union, but Konami are responsible for the supply of the entire world's Yu-Gi-Oh cards.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

The attitude is completely different when you are managing someone else's money, the money you didn't earn. A private non-profit enterprise would've been much more efficient.

Yeah. You wouldn't find leaders of a corporation flying in a private jet with only two people or giving out millions dollar bonuses to executives or to the underlings that gave awful advice- like I don't know, to invest in faulty mortgages... Nope.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Not only do they seek to achieve different things, but they do so in different ways. You cite 2 billion dollar Konami turn over as if, for example, the European Parliament was selling anything for profit. It's absurd.

[Nerd Fangs]

I think socialism would work fine if it wasn't for the human condition. People will just want more. It's as simple as that.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah. You wouldn't find leaders of a corporation flying in a private jet with only two people or giving out millions dollar bonuses to executives or to the underlings that gave awful advice- like I don't know, to invest in faulty mortgages... Nope.

And what happened to the leaders that made those bad decisions? Their corporations went bust.

Oh wait, they would've gone bust if the government wasn't there to mess with the free market and to give away taxpayers' money.

You can't deny that successful private enterprises operating in highly competitive markets operate very efficiently.

Anyone running a company is first of all interested in increasing the capitalisation of his company. It's not exactly a life of idleness and luxury that you imagine it to be.

Originally Posted by Rust

Your comparison is ridiculous. Not only do they seek to achieve different things, but they do so in different ways. You cite 2 billion dollar Konami turn over as if, for example, the European Parliament was selling anything for profit. It's absurd.

What does "selling something for profit" have to do with it?

All I am saying is that Konami's expenses are clearly under 2 billion euros. Now think about what kind of a structure it is, and what it manages to achieve.
Now compare that to the EU parliament, and the functions and goals of the EU parliament. And ask yourself why a parliament has expenses comparable with those of a massive corporation operating worldwide. *Especially* when it is completely obvious how these expenses could be cut dramatically. Yet *nothing* is done to make the operation more efficient. Why? Because they are operating on "free", public money.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by ZeppelinRules

I think socialism would work fine if it wasn't for the human condition. People will just want more. It's as simple as that.

Why would you willingly let someone else decide for yourself what to do with your life and with the fruits of your labour?

Why do you need masses of bureaucrats in order to take your money, and give it to whoever is in need? Why don't you take your money, and decide what to do with it yourself - and, if you wish to do so, use it to help those who you think are in need? What's so good about forced equality,when people are clearly far from equal?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

And what happened to the leaders that made those bad decisions? Their corporations went bust.

Oh wait, they would've gone bust if the government wasn't there to mess with the free market and to give away taxpayers' money.

They didn't go bust; and many of them would have survived without government intervention (government intervention was mainly to make it so the populace didn't get most of the bad results from all these companies trying to save their asses). But that's irrelevant. The point is that corporations can easily make bad, inefficient decisions. Inefficiency is not found solely in government; its found in anywhere that people assemble.

If "they go bust" is a good excuse for corporations, then it's is a good excuse for government too.

All I am saying is that Konami's expenses are clearly under 2 billion euros. Now think about what kind of a structure it is, and what it manages to achieve.
Now compare that to the EU parliament, and the functions and goals of the EU parliament. And ask yourself why a parliament has expenses comparable with those of a massive corporation operating worldwide. *Especially* when it is completely obvious how these expenses could be cut dramatically. Yet *nothing* is done to make the operation more efficient. Why? Because they are operating on "free", public money.

Yes, and all I'm saying is that you are comparing apples to oranges. They intend to achieve very different things, carry different responsibilities, and are nowhere near the same in scope. The comparison is a flawed one.

It's tantamount to going to a family with a stay-at-home mom and a father that works, and berating the mom for running a net deficit while the father runs a profit. They have completely different responsibilities.

[calatron]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

I HATE HAVING ELECTRICITY, RUNNING WATER AND SEWER... BAAAAWWWW

Seriously, if some things weren't socialized you couldn't buy a vacuum cleaner from any company. All you assholes in cities wouldn't have any water or sewer either.

[LiquidIce]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

Yes.

A corporation gets a hell of a lot more done on much tighter budgets. Every movement has to be calculated in order to survive.
Any successful private enterprise has to do that.

On the contrary, EU parliament sessions could be held utilising web technology or using other ways. Instead, they migrate between two different cities - all of the ~20k staff. That costs huge amounts of money. And they only assemble for about 2 weeks a month. Not to mention, that their usefulness as simply stamping through various directives is debatable.

The attitude is completely different when you are managing someone else's money, the money you didn't earn. A private non-profit enterprise would've been much more efficient.

And do you like how corporations treat their employees? I wouldn't like to be treated that way by my government. The corporations I know work shit, yes, they bring in an income but they do it just as sloppily as the government does it's job. A corporation's employees have shit to say about their job, it resembles fascism with a centrally planned economy.

Originally Posted by Rust

They didn't go bust; and many of them would have survived without government intervention (government intervention was mainly to make it so the populace didn't get most of the bad results from all these companies trying to save their asses). But that's irrelevant. The point is that corporations can easily make bad, inefficient decisions. Inefficiency is not found solely in government; its found in anywhere that people assemble.

If "they go bust" is a good excuse for corporations, then it's is a good excuse for government too.




Yes, and all I'm saying is that you are comparing apples to oranges. They intend to achieve very different things, carry different responsibilities, and are nowhere near the same in scope. The comparison is a flawed one.

It's tantamount to going to a family with a stay-at-home mom and a father that works, and berating the mom for running a net deficit while the father runs a profit. They have completely different responsibilities.

I agree with this point. A corporations is interested in making money, it's job is to make some money. A government is supposed to manage and organize the peoples of a nation. They are two very different entities, which may similar because both handle money, both organize, however they have different aims and means to them.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by BurningChrome

And do you like how corporations treat their employees? I wouldn't like to be treated that way by my government. The corporations I know work shit, yes, they bring in an income but they do it just as sloppily as the government does it's job. A corporation's employees have shit to say about their job, it resembles fascism with a centrally planned economy.

You are drawing the wrong parallels here; we are not the employees. If anything, they are our employees, as we hire them and pay them money in exchange for certain services.

But that's precisely my point. I don't want to be an "employee" of the government, but that appears to be the general trend.

If governmental structures, especially those of the EU (as there is almost no direct public control over them, and therefore it is easier to see on their example how inefficient government-run services are), were run as efficiently as successful commercial structures are run, I would've been pretty happy.

Originally Posted by BurningChrome

I agree with this point. A corporations is interested in making money, it's job is to make some money. A government is supposed to manage and organize the peoples of a nation. They are two very different entities, which may similar because both handle money, both organize, however they have different aims and means to them.

You seriously believe there is any excuse for it to cost 2 billion euros to run what is effectively a discussion group?

[LiquidIce]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

You are drawing the wrong parallels here; we are not the employees. If anything, they are our employees, as we hire them and pay them money in exchange for certain services.

But that's precisely my point. I don't want to be an "employee" of the government, but that appears to be the general trend.

If governmental structures, especially those of the EU (as there is almost no direct public control over them, and therefore it is easier to see on their example how inefficient government-run services are), were run as efficiently as successful commercial structures are run, I would've been pretty happy.



You seriously believe there is any excuse for it to cost 2 billion euros to run what is effectively a discussion group?

But the corporation aims at profit, not the wellbeing of the consumer. Look at mcdonalds - sure it's successful, however, is it ethical? Not too much.

And no, I don't believe that those 2 billion euros are well spent, I believe there are ways to make things cheaper and actually work, however I don't think it's something like implementing a corporation in the place of a government.
I'm more into stuff like Switzerland, although I don't know how it would fare on a much larger scale.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

You seriously believe there is any excuse for it to cost 2 billion euros to run what is effectively a discussion group?

First of all, where are you getting 2 billion Euros? As far as I know it's less than that.

Second of all, it's hardly just a discussion group. Not only are you providing fault figures, but you're providing a faulty picture of what they do.

Third of all, of course there are inefficiencies. That's not an argument in regards to the impossibility of "socialism", that's an argument in favor of better accountability and more efficient work. Inefficiency can result in any human assembly; whether its private or public.

It seems you've given a flawed figure, with a flawed, parodied, representation of what the European Parliament does, and then decided that all socialism cannot work because of that. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by BurningChrome

But the corporation aims at profit, not the wellbeing of the consumer. Look at mcdonalds - sure it's successful, however, is it ethical? Not too much.

Mcdonalds only exists because people buy their stuff. They are as ethical as their customers are. Which is fair play in my eyes.
But that's beside the point - there are non-profit private enterprises, charities and all kinds of stuff. When someone has a private interest - which is not necessarily profit - you can guarantee the attitude is going to be different.

Originally Posted by BurningChrome

And no, I don't believe that those 2 billion euros are well spent, I believe there are ways to make things cheaper and actually work, however I don't think it's something like implementing a corporation in the place of a government.
I'm more into stuff like Switzerland, although I don't know how it would fare on a much larger scale.

I agree with you on this one - and I am against having a corporation for a government! I am for having a Switzerland-like type of governing, but it needs to be ensured that the government is not allowed to grow past a certain degree. Otherwise, it can very easily and gradually slip into a parasitical structure.

Ideally, in the long run (and just to give you an idea of the general vector), I would like the government to only take on functions that are absolutely essential. Currently, the vector in Europe is pointing in the opposite direction, and we are seeing uncontrolled growth of the bureaucracy.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

First of all, where are you getting 2 billion Euros? As far as I know it's less than that.

It's in the order of 2 billion.

Originally Posted by Rust

Second of all, it's hardly just a discussion group. Not only are you providing fault figures, but you're providing a faulty picture of what they do.

Oh really? Please enlighten us. To my knowledge, the Parliament proposes, amends and rejects legislations, and can also make inquiries. It is, in it's essence, a "discussion group".

Originally Posted by Rust

Third of all, of course there are inefficiencies. That's not an argument in regards to the impossibility of "socialism", that's an argument in favor of better accountability and more efficient work. Inefficiency can result in any human assembly; whether its private or public.

However, there are numerous efficient private enterprises, but I can only name a handful of efficient state-run organisations.

Speaking of which, not sure why one would even want to implement socialism. But that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by Rust

It seems you've given a flawed figure, with a flawed, parodied, representation of what the European Parliament does, and then decided that all socialism cannot work because of that. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

I have used it as it's probably the most obvious example.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

It's in the order of 2 billion.

What does that even mean? Can you not cite a source for that number?

Oh really? Please enlighten us. To my knowledge, the Parliament proposes, amends and rejects legislations, and can also make inquiries. It is, in it's essence, a "discussion group".

Are you honestly suggesting that amending legislation alone (ignoring everything else it does) can accurately be described as a "discussion group"? Stop being unreasonable.

Anyway, I'll let this describe its functions for me. Its far more accurate than your parodies, that's for sure:

"Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time. It performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and exercises a degree of supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. Although the EP does not formally initiate EU legislation, it shares “co-decision” power with the Council of Ministers in many policy areas, giving it the right to amend or reject proposed EU legislation. The recently ratified Lisbon Treaty increases the EP’s role further, giving it amendment and veto authority over the vast majority of EU legislation (with some exceptions, such as tax matters and foreign policy). Moreover, supporters argue, as the only directly elected EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an important checks-and-balances role on behalf of Europe’s citizens."

The European Parliament.
CRS Report for Congress.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21998.pdf

However, there are numerous efficient private enterprises, but I can only name a handful of efficient state-run organisations.

Speaking of which, not sure why one would even want to implement socialism. But that's beside the point.

Baseless conjecture. You didn't even get a figure on the EU Parliament right, yet you expect us to believe you when it comes the efficiency of all enterprises, public and private, in the world?

As for implementing "socialism"... You just said a couple of minutes ago: "I am for having a Switzerland-like type of governing". Given that you are using "socialism in the loose, colloquial sense", how does that not apply to a Switzerland-like type of governing?

[Ocalan]

Yup socialism in Europe is terrible thats why we have so many french, german, and Scandinavian immigrants i can barely walk down the streets of the United States without seeing 30 Finns wandering around looking for jobs. its because they are all fleeing their shithole of a continent.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

What does that even mean? Can you not cite a source for that number?

Alright, there you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ng-budget.html

£1.6 billion, which is 1.8 billion euros.

Originally Posted by Rust

Are you honestly suggesting that amending legislation alone (ignoring everything else it does) can accurately be described as a "discussion group"? Stop being unreasonable.

Anyway, I'll let this describe its functions for me. Its far more accurate than your parodies, that's for sure:

"Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time. It performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and exercises a degree of supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. Although the EP does not formally initiate EU legislation, it shares “co-decision” power with the Council of Ministers in many policy areas, giving it the right to amend or reject proposed EU legislation. The recently ratified Lisbon Treaty increases the EP’s role further, giving it amendment and veto authority over the vast majority of EU legislation (with some exceptions, such as tax matters and foreign policy). Moreover, supporters argue, as the only directly elected EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an important checks-and-balances role on behalf of Europe’s citizens."

The European Parliament.
CRS Report for Congress.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21998.pdf

So? They discuss and vote.

Originally Posted by Rust

Baseless conjecture. You didn't even get a figure on the EU Parliament right, yet you expect us to believe you when it comes the efficiency of all enterprises, public and private, in the world?

That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by Rust

As for implementing "socialism"... You just said a couple of minutes ago: "I am for having a Switzerland-like type of governing". Given that you are using "socialism in the loose, colloquial sense", how does that not apply to a Switzerland-like type of governing?

I was talking about their political system.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Ocalan

Yup socialism in Europe is terrible thats why we have so many french, german, and Scandinavian immigrants i can barely walk down the streets of the United States without seeing 30 Finns wandering around looking for jobs. its because they are all fleeing their shithole of a continent.

I would like to see the stats, if anyone has those. It would be interesting to compare how many people emigrate to the US from the EU countries, and vice versa.

[Ocalan]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

I would like to see the stats, if anyone has those. It would be interesting to compare how many people emigrate to the US from the EU countries, and vice versa.

its wikipedia but still
from Europe

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Ocalan

its wikipedia but still
from Europe

Thanks, yep, I have seen that before - I'm yet to find any stats for US-to-Europe immigration. From my personal experience, the figures should be much smaller.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

Alright, there you go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ng-budget.html

£1.6 billion, which is 1.8 billion euros.

Excellent. Thanks. Not only is that the proposed budget - which does not take place until 2011 yet here you are trying to attribute it to them now - but its what roughly 200,000 million euros below what you said? A proposed budget that doesn't take place till a year from now, is still not as large as you were accusing them.

So? They discuss and vote.

Right. And the President of the United States just "talks and signs"... Stop being unreasonable. You know full well that their functions cannot be accurately described as "a discussion group".

That's not what I said.

You didn't say it, but unless you were making an irrelevant point, it seems you're implying your "knowledge" on the efficiency of a few enterprises means something.

I was talking about their political system.

And what political system is that, and how do you think its better than others?

[Jeff Gatherer]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

I used the word "socialism" in the loose, colloquial sense.

and your argument is bullshit because of this.
I use bullshit in a colloquial sense

[Zay]

Take some business courses or work closely with a small business startup as it starts up(both of which I've done) if you really want a reality check on how the world works vs how it "should" work. Watching a struggling company grow is an exhilarating thing. It certainly makes you roll your eyes whenever you hear some faggot would-be central planners say "X people should do this, x people should do that, x people need this taxed and that curbed and that controlled and ZOMG CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL"

[Zay]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah. You wouldn't find leaders of a corporation flying in a private jet with only two people or giving out millions dollar bonuses to executives or to the underlings that gave awful advice- like I don't know, to invest in faulty mortgages... Nope.

They're accountable to their stockholders. Their money, their problem. It can be voluntarily withdrawn whenever.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Not only do they seek to achieve different things, but they do so in different ways. You cite 2 billion dollar Konami turn over as if, for example, the European Parliament was selling anything for profit. It's absurd.

You're right. The EU is more efficient because they can do whatever they want and just use force to get their shit done. All they need to do is pamper their citizens a bit to convince them that the EU needs to exist while they carry on protecting their ranks and screwing over the 3rd world through arbitrary control and power ploys.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Zay

They're accountable to their stockholders. Their money, their problem. It can be voluntarily withdrawn whenever.

So? What does that have to do with there existing glaring inefficiencies? The point was that inefficiency are a possible result of any human endeavor; private or otherwise. Singling out the EU Parliament and ignoring similar inefficiencies in the system he proposes is ridiculous.

You're right. The EU is more efficient because they can do whatever they want and just use force to get their shit done. All they need to do is pamper their citizens a bit to convince them that the EU needs to exist while they carry on protecting their ranks and screwing over the 3rd world through arbitrary control and power ploys.

I wasn't arguing it was more efficient. There are inefficiencies, that much is clear. Yet those inefficiencies are neither solely found in socialism nor proof that socialism does not work. [Yes, I've ignored your silly little attempt at propaganda].

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

but its what roughly 200,000 million euros below what you said?

That's pretty much how public money is generally counted.

When you don't have to work for it, who gives a shit about the number of 0s?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

That's pretty much how public money is generally counted.

When you don't have to work for it, who gives a shit about the number of 0s?

Yeah, that wasn't you talking out of your ass or anything...

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

And what political system is that, and how do you think its better than others?

It's closer than that of any other state to direct democracy.

Representative democracy, especially that dominated by a two-party system, can very easily drift into a situation where the political elite starts dictating the rules - and suddenly, "We, the People" become just meaningless words.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, that wasn't you talking out of your ass or anything...

1.8 billion is in the order of 2 billion.

Anyway, let's get back to the point.

As I said, I prefer the political system of Switzerland. Speaking of the economic policies that I favour, I would recommend that you look into the libertarian reforms that have been carried out by Saakashvili's government in Georgia since 2004.

http://translate.google.com/translat...2F&sl=ru&tl=en

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...rich-and-free/

[Rust]

Originally Posted by SHODAN

1.8 billion is in the order of 2 billion.

Which is an adjective you added when you saw you had been caught talking out of your ass. And again, that's in a proposed budget that hasn't taken effect yet. It's hardly honest for you to suggest that you were in the ballpark of a figure isn't reality yet, might not be reality, and if it is will only be reality in 2011.

But yes, lets get back to the point:

Inefficiencies can exist in any human system; yet that hardly means they are impossible. Any inefficiency you find in the European Parliament is an argument for better accountability and better efficiency, not an argument in favor of the impossibility of socialism; especially not when you're using such a broad and vague definition of "socialism".

[WAN]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatherer

and your argument is bullshit because of this.
I use bullshit in a colloquial sense

lol