Socialism and Shortages

It's ironic that the current continued problem with shortages has little to do with a national move towards more socialism, in fact pro-socialism advocates might be able to make a case that our capitalist system is more like the problem with today's particular mess

I say ironic because when you look at the pluses and minuses of a totally socialist system, it's almost certain that one of the minuses is going to be the development of shortages. It often works like this: a manager of a state owned sausage factory, say, starts to find he is having a problem getting meat because the government has tried to control the prices if not the production of the meat. Soon there is a shortage of sausages. The manager initially worries about this, in fact maybe the previous manager got blamed and got fired. But at some point some manager finds that shortages are good for him. The elites eventually come to him and say "we know the store shelves are empty, but we need you to take care of us and ours." And they in turn take care of him, of course, so now you have a feedback loop where the people taxed with the production *want* the shortages ... 

I am not paranoid enough to think that the virus was foisted upon us on purpose by socialists, but I imagine the following is probably true: The people who want more socialism are probably viewing all this as an experiment. They're looking at the way people are reacting to the shortages and probably talking about this. One can see the conclusion as being "it didn't go so bad. People are dealing with it OK. The riots that have taken place have really had little to do with the shortages per se. " 

Of course the Bernie Sanders types are figuring they themselves will not have to suffer from the shortages. Going to the people in charge of production and getting them to make sure of this is in place right from the start as part of the plan.

Other than people who call themselves socialist like Bernie Saunders, who do you define as a socialist? Is believing that social security should be maintained, enough to label someone a socialist?

Quote: rxwine

Other than people who call themselves socialist like Bernie Saunders, who do you define as a socialist? Is believing that social security should be maintained, enough to label someone a socialist?

All economies are mixed (at least in the West, there are some truly socialist countries left like North Korea, but they are getting fewer).

Most people believe that the government has a major role to fill, and also believe in private innovation.

There are no countries that have no government and thrive (Somalia for a period of time, is one example that anarcho-capitalists point to, but I did not see anyone clamoring to move there). When there is no government warlords and tribes fight each other and take what they want.

Quote: Gandler

All economies are mixed (at least in the West, there are some truly socialist countries left like North Korea, but they are getting fewer).

Most people believe that the government has a major role to fill, and also believe in private innovation.

There are no countries that have no government and thrive (Somalia for a period of time, is one example that anarcho-capitalists point to, but I did not see anyone clamoring to move there). When there is no government warlords and tribes fight each other and take what they want.

It is not socialism or "no government." Socialists usually give the "but who would build the roads?" Never mind that building roads is a constitutional role of government. It is about control of the economy in general and industries in particular. And it is a system that sentences the population to poverty.

Today young people for some reason are seduced by socialism. They ignore how bad it is when tried, look at Cuba and Venezuela. They believe "the right people have just not been in charge." I fear what happens as more and more believe it.

SOCIALISM---You vote your way into it but have to shoot your way out of it.

Quote: rxwine

Other than people who call themselves socialist like Bernie Saunders, who do you define as a socialist?

I think it can be a difficult call sometimes as you suggest, but if basically you want *a lot more* income distribution it's not too crazy to be called a socialist, should such a person not want that label?

Quote:

Is believing that social security should be maintained, enough to label someone a socialist?

SS is a constant reminder that our country has a certain amount of socialism and, for me, a reminder that it would be very hard and probably undesirable to go back to when there was almost none. On the other hand SS is a system that was flawed from the beginning* and will in fact be hard to maintain and keep from going to hell.

*that we would go from something like 20-30 workers supporting one retiree to just a handful for each was an inevitable feature of its design

Quote: odiousgambit

*that we would go from something like 20-30 workers supporting one retiree to just a handful for each was an inevitable feature of its design

Libbies did that on purpose because they're sneaky little sons of guns. Ironically the young libbies who buy their BS will be the ones who end up getting bitten. Everyone else will be dead when their schemes fall apart.

Quote: AZDuffman

Today young people for some reason are seduced by socialism. They ignore how bad it is when tried, look at Cuba and Venezuela.

It's idealism. Hemingway was seduced
by it when he was young. He covered
the Spanish Civil War on the Socialist
side and fought along side of them.
He soured on it when he saw his
friends basically steal a property
form a land owner and then claim
it as their own and become just
as mean and tyrannical as the former
owner was. He realized Socialism
was just another form of greed,
under a different name.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think it can be a difficult call sometimes as you suggest, but if basically you want *a lot more* income distribution it's not too crazy to be called a socialist, should such a person not want that label?
SS is a constant reminder that our country has a certain amount of socialism and, for me, a reminder that it would be very hard and probably undesirable to go back to when there was almost none. On the other hand SS is a system that was flawed from the beginning* and will in fact be hard to maintain and keep from going to hell.

*that we would go from something like 20-30 workers supporting one retiree to just a handful for each was an inevitable feature of its design

IMO, if you want to help neutralize socialism

1. Don't elect ridiculous characters like Trump EVEN if they represent your ideas.

2. Promote profit sharing companies as much as possible.

3. If you think taxes are free money that just spoil lazy freeloaders, then focus your main efforts on making them about something you believe in. Work. And if you have to redistribute, put it in job training. Free job training. I know you guys hate free on your own dime, but it is actually an investment in your own welfare. Not just a Bandaid. Because, sorry, taxes aren't going away.

I look at your investment in jobs this way.

How can you get laid off if we free trained you in 3 or 4 other jobs you could take up instead? Unemployment? Go suck it.

This doesn't work so much for jobs which take intense training for years but many of those jobs aren't usually the employment problem.

Quote: rxwine

I look at your investment in jobs this way.

How can you get laid off if we free trained you in 3 or 4 other jobs you could take up instead? Unemployment? Go suck it.

This doesn't work so much for jobs which take intense training for years but many of those jobs aren't usually the employment problem.

It is up to YOU to make yourself marketable. We have a community college system for this sort of thing already.

If you will not invest in yourself, why should the public do so?