Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Centrally planned economies essentially have no corrective measures to efficiently allocate and distribute resources. At times, things are so expensive that the collective route is the only way to go, but then costs come down in a race to get closer to what is truly desired.
Most communists probably meant well, and really tried to implement Marxist ideology. But central planning can't work because economic systems are complex. The human mind can only grasp fragments of complex systems.
Also, the lack of competition means there is nothing to protect freedom or fairness.
Communists/progressives don't like competition because it isn't nice. Somebody wins and someone else loses. They don't like that. But competition is necessary and is found throughout nature, keeping things in balance.
The communist/progressive mind feels it knows better than nature.
It seems like you're saying central planning would have worked better than free supply and demand. It might have in that case, but it doesn't work in most cases.
But we have plenty of central planning going on now, as I said. The Fed's interventions and bailouts. And the tax-payer funded vaccine development.
The pandemic has been an excuse for the rulers to increase their power.
I'm saying, that supply-and-demand is a theory, but it doesn't always work when you need it. This line that conservative economists were able to float for a couple of decades, about how the market magically directs itself, is BS. Regulations were there for a reason; deregulation was a disaster in many cases. A blend of systems seems to work best, kind of like how unfettered capitalism leads to unfettered exploitation, so laws and also Social Security and other safety net measures are needed.
Medical research and development has always been taxpayer funded. Where did you think the NIH gets its funding? There's always been privately-funded R&D as well, and also grants, many of which also are publicly funded. It's in the public interest, meaning: the State's interest, to move medical research forward to improve the nation's health.
Who could possibly have a problem with that? There's too much risk of privately-funded research having a hidden agenda, which has been proven time and again. Do you really want research on the risks of smoking to be handled by the tobacco companies, or science research to be handled by corporations interested in "proving" their products aren't harmful? I don't.
Most communists probably meant well, and really tried to implement Marxist ideology. But central planning can't work because economic systems are complex. The human mind can only grasp fragments of complex systems.
Also, the lack of competition means there is nothing to protect freedom or fairness.
Communists/progressives don't like competition because it isn't nice. Somebody wins and someone else loses. They don't like that. But competition is necessary and is found throughout nature, keeping things in balance.
The communist/progressive mind feels it knows better than nature.
Why are you lumping progressives together with communists?! You've really gone over the edge, now. What progressives don't like competition? Since when do communists care about whether something is "nice"? What are you nattering on about? Please explain.
Communist economic systems didn't bother funding competing industries because it was a waste of resources. Why would they spend their money on unnecessary duplication? Who needs two brands of oatmeal when one will do? Why build two car factories, when one is enough to meet demand? Of course, the downside to that is, that then, the one factory can charge whatever it wants.
I'm saying, that supply-and-demand is a theory, but it doesn't always work when you need it. This line that conservative economists were able to float for a couple of decades, about how the market magically directs itself, is BS. Regulations were there for a reason; deregulation was a disaster in many cases. A blend of systems seems to work best, kind of like how unfettered capitalism leads to unfettered exploitation, so laws and also Social Security and other safety net measures are needed.
Medical research and development has always been taxpayer funded. Where did you think the NIH gets its funding? There's always been privately-funded R&D as well, and also grants, many of which also are publicly funded. It's in the public interest, meaning: the State's interest, to move medical research forward to improve the nation's health.
Who could possibly have a problem with that? There's too much risk of privately-funded research having a hidden agenda, which has been proven time and again. Do you really want research on the risks of smoking to be handled by the tobacco companies, or science research to be handled by corporations interested in "proving" their products aren't harmful? I don't.
None of this is simple. By the way, most drug research is funded by drug companies. And no, that is not good.
I don't think there are many free market economists who don't want any regulations. Just like we need traffic laws, we need economic laws. That seems perfectly obvious.
Sometimes we need the government to intervene, but that doesn't mean we should always let the government intervene. Yes the government protects us from crooks -- but there are crooks everywhere, including in the government.
Power corrupts, that is a fact and progressives don't seem to believe it. We need balance, in everything. It is not either-or.
Why are you lumping progressives together with communists?! You've really gone over the edge, now. What progressives don't like competition? Since when do communists care about whether something is "nice"? What are you nattering on about? Please explain.
Communist economic systems didn't bother funding competing industries because it was a waste of resources. Why would they spend their money on unnecessary duplication? Who needs two brands of oatmeal when one will do? Why build two car factories, when one is enough to meet demand? Of course, the downside to that is, that then, the one factory can charge whatever it wants.
Your tone is too insulting, I am not going to debate this with you.
I'm saying, that supply-and-demand is a theory, but it doesn't always work when you need it. This line that conservative economists were able to float for a couple of decades, about how the market magically directs itself, is BS. Regulations were there for a reason; deregulation was a disaster in many cases. A blend of systems seems to work best, kind of like how unfettered capitalism leads to unfettered exploitation, so laws and also Social Security and other safety net measures are needed.
It's particularly problematic in health care where you often get the best outcomes by allowing an effective monopoly in some areas (repeated studies show that the best surgical outcomes for patients comes with doctors who are extreme specialists in specific procedures so you have incentive to limit the number of doctors allowed to, say, perform heart transplants in order to keep procedure volume high for those allowed to perform a procedure) but at the same time the effective monopoly creates a public good in terms of best outcomes, you must also balance that with the idea that allowing monopoly pricing for that procedure isn't necessarily in the best interest of the public either, especially when you talk about high opportunity costs if monopoly pricing is allowed.
Enter regulations that strive to balance cost containment with the greatest public good.
With due apologies, you have no idea what you talking about. You simply repeat propaganda stuff from the West and, even that, you got mixed up and upside down.
^^^This!
A lack of education and a susceptibility to brainwashing = clueless regarding capitalism, socialism and communism and what each of those truly means.
There are areas that capitalism does well in terms of generating resources and allocating them to make society better, and there are areas where capitalism does poorly. A hybrid system like you get in Norway or Sweden (which gave the world IKEA, Electrolux, and H&M among others) that lets the free market do what it does well and then lets the government-directed side do what it does well can lead to high quality of life outcomes for its residents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
