It seems to me that people get lost in the philisophical battle. Socialism just "sounds" good. Help out your brother and all that. Of course, when you get to the principles, capitalism trumps socialism in all respects, even when you're talking about socialism light which is Keynesian economics. However, most people don't really understand the principles or take time to learn them.
So, i think the best layman's argument is empirical evidence. Two ways to make the argument is:
1) compare the most socialist countries versus the most capitalist countries and ask yourselves, in which are the people, the average man, better off?
2) How do people vote with their feet?
The 2nd one is easy to answer. Ask yourself, where you have the exact same people, where do they attempt to escape to? Did someone have to put up a wall to stop people in West Germany fleeing to east Germany or was it the other way around? Was the iron curtain put up to stop all those people living in the West from escaping into the USSR, or was it the other way around? Do people flee from North Korea into the South, or are people killing themsevles to flea to communist North Korea? Are people from Mexico fleeing to the USA or are people from the USA fleeing to Mexico? DO people in Florida risk their lives to sail over to communist Cuba or is it the other way around? The empirical evidence is all around you.
The 1st one is made easy by the Heritidge foundation. They use objective evidence in order to rate which countries are most capitalist versus which countries are most collectivist/socialist. They call it their index of economic freedom. Below, I'm going to list their top 10 freest economies (most capitalist countries) and their 10 least free economies (most socialist countries), and you decide, which ones are the people best off in?
Top 10 Capitalist countries with the freedom index score:
1) Hong Kong 89.9
2) Singapore 87.5
3) Australia 83.1
4) New Zealand 82.1
5) Switzerland 81.1
6) Canada 79.9
7) Chile 78.3 (now the richest per capita in Middle/South America)
8) Mauritius 77
9) Ireland 76.9
10) USA 76.3 (so sad, #10)
Top 10 Socialist countries in the world:
1) North Korea 1.0
2) Zimbabwe 26.3
3) Cuba 28.3
4) Libya 35.9
5) Eritrea 36.2
6) Venezuala 38.1
7) Burma 38.7
8) "Democratic" Republic of Congo 41.1
9) Iran 42.3
10) Equatorial Guinea 42.8
The World Bank ranks countries by how friendly to business, and even though I don't remember all of the specific criteria they use, they ranked the USA as number 4 in the most recent survey. Singapore was number one, and I see they are number one on the Heritage Foundation survey as well.
Notice that the lowest ranked countries on the Heritage Foundation's list are not only socialist, they are as far as communist as possible while still maintaining a state.
Myself, I prefer that they allow themselves to wallow in the muck of socialism. They can have their nationalistic pride in their "revolution", we can have all the gold, oil and other resources to keep prospering. While North Koreans are having parades for their Dear Leader, the USA is inventing new drugs. While Cubans sit around smoking cigars, the USA is mass producing automobiles. I don't want those guys to get busy and start competing with us for resources.
One problem you will face in any responses to this thread is that people believe that you can keep a modern economy running even after a transition to socialism. So, the US will stay rich forever, even if we went to a socialism or social democracy style economy.
Nonsense. At first, there would be little difference, but year over year and decade over decade, decline would be inevitable and inexorable as more and more people lost the incentive to make investments in productivity and efficiency. In a couple of generations, there would be a revolt similar to the one that took down the Soviet Union. It would all be a grand waste of time and resources in the pursuit of folly.
Even still, because there are enough people without the ability to foresee this, it could happen.
It would be awesome if, like in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", there was a "ghost of socialism future" to show people what it would really be like beyond the rhetoric. Unfortunately, no such supernatural entity exists.
The World Bank ranks countries by how friendly to business, and even though I don't remember all of the specific criteria they use, they ranked the USA as number 4 in the most recent survey. Singapore was number one, and I see they are number one on the Heritage Foundation survey as well.
Notice that the lowest ranked countries on the Heritage Foundation's list are not only socialist, they are as far as communist as possible while still maintaining a state.
Myself, I prefer that they allow themselves to wallow in the muck of socialism. They can have their nationalistic pride in their "revolution", we can have all the gold, oil and other resources to keep prospering. While North Koreans are having parades for their Dear Leader, the USA is inventing new drugs. While Cubans sit around smoking cigars, the USA is mass producing automobiles. I don't want those guys to get busy and start competing with us for resources.
Your line of thinking, unfortunately, is the main problem with socialist or the far left in the USA as far as i can see. They seem to believe that the pie is fixed, that it's a zero sum game and for one to prosper the other has to be hurt. Believe me, resources don't become resources unless there is progress and invention. The combustion engine was not created and then they said, look at this, what luck, we created the the engine and by luck, it uses gasoline! It was created to use gasoline because gasoline was available at an incredibly cheap price. In fact, gasoline used to be a by-product of kerosene. Crude oil was processed for the kerosene to be used in lamps and the like, while gasoline was a by-product, too combustable for lighting purposes, and was thus a hazardous by-product of the production process (garbage). Until there was an invention which made use of gasoline.
If there was no oil on the planet, believe me, we would still have cars, they would just use a different resource for fuel.
My overall point is, production//invention/innovation/etc is the engine for prosperity. And EVERYONE can be richer, it's not a fixed pie. Believe me, if Mexico had a higher per-capita income than the USA due to all their inventions and production, the USA and its people would be MUCH better off, not worse off. We would take advantage of their drugs/automobiles and other inventions. When a man like Bill Gates becomes super wealthy, he did not become super wealthy by taking from people, he become super wealthy by GIVING to people. The products Microsoft created have helped advance the human race, they made BILLIONS of other people wealthier, not just in the USA but around the world. Becuase of their invention, productivity increased accross the planet.
It's not a fixed pie, believe me, there is no difference between Washington state versus California, or the USA versus China or Mexico. If Washington state creates new things and produces more, it helps California, it doesn't hurt it. Just like if the rest of the world were free and capitalist and prosperous, it would help us not hurt us here in the USA.
One problem you will face in any responses to this thread is that people believe that you can keep a modern economy running even after a transition to socialism. So, the US will stay rich forever, even if we went to a socialism or social democracy style economy.
Nonsense. At first, there would be little difference, but year over year and decade over decade, decline would be inevitable and inexorable as more and more people lost the incentive to make investments in productivity and efficiency. In a couple of generations, there would be a revolt similar to the one that took down the Soviet Union. It would all be a grand waste of time and resources in the pursuit of folly.
Even still, because there are enough people without the ability to foresee this, it could happen.
It would be awesome if, like in Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", there was a "ghost of socialism future" to show people what it would really be like beyond the rhetoric. Unfortunately, no such supernatural entity exists.
I agree with most of what you say, except the point about at first there would be little difference. Believe me, you would see the collapse immediately if the USA turned 100% socialist. It's not just about incentives, it's mainly about the allocation of resources. The most prosperous economy is one in which the resources of that economy are allocated most efficiently. How many resources should be dedicated to consumption of food, or investment of drugs, or mining for minerals, etc. How much corn versus soybeans should be planeted, etc. That's why government spending as "stimulus" is so detrimental. All it is doing is redirecting resources from somewhere else to where the government says it should go. Most of the time it comes from investment and savings (money in the bank that is loaned out to start up companies for instance) and is directed into consumption (stimulus). This is a misallocation of resources which causes tremendous long term harm at the expense of extremely short term bump in GDP and MAYBE employment.
Mexico is one of the most right wing countries in the world. They damn sure aint fleeing to get away from socialism. You want to see what USA would look like without socialism, spend some time down in Mexico.
