[Janos]

Socialism varies in degree.

That does not help at all!
You talk about socialist countries and how they adopt selected politics, but if you are not able to define socialism in any practical sense then how can you really talk about socialist countries' tendencies to [whatever]?

Define it or the discussion is useless. Do social democracies count as socialistic countries? Do modern China and former USSR both qualify? If NK is socialistic country - which is pretty easy to say, seeing how they follow very strict form of communism -, then how does Venezuela rate as one? What?

[redmenace]

God Dammit this Pirate talk is ****ing annoying. Pure socialism that absolutly controls the means of production is a great hinderance for a number of obvious reasons. Now socializing an entire industry, is a great hinderance to economic reasons. It creates innefficiencies. I know the "reason" Chavez nationalized oil industry is he fealt they were getting screwed. BUT, I do wonder if he even attempted to negotiate [I do admit, I don't know the whole story]. But being as starchly against capitalism as I know Chavez to be, I can only imagine how much of a hard-liner socialist he is.

[Kosh]

E.    Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy. 

Explain Sweden, Germany, France, Finland, and all those other socialist countries.

Now socializin' an entire industry, is a great hinderance t' economic reasons.

The Scandinavian economies are doing quite well last I heard, best in the Eurozone and some of the best in the world.

An' fer China it's cheap goods

China is anything but a socialist country. Those days are long gone.

[redmenace]

Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.

Many of those European countries also rely on capitalism and really high taxes. It is hard to say socialism as a economic system can truly sustain its self.

The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.

[Kosh]

The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.

On the other hand look at it this way, are people in those European countries happier and more satisfeid with their lives than in the US?

[Janos]

Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.

Many of those European countries also rely on capitalism and really high taxes. It is hard to say socialism as a economic system can truly sustain its self.

The problem I have with socialism is that further that socialism is taken, the greater the chance economic freedoms are threatened.

I am just going to repeat myself and ask for your definition of socialism. And no, answers like "socialistic countries do things" don't qualify.

[Ford Prefect]

Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.

Oh yeah, Maggie fixed them up good.

[redmenace]

At the same time you cannot just send people around to dig ditches for no reason. Sometimes changes have to be made. Sucks as it must have been for the coal miners, it was a horrible innefficiency. The economics and public administration were no less tragic considering the fact that the nationalized industry was allowed to grow to become what it was. The postal system in Japan is another example or was I should say. Say what you would like about Margaret Thatcher and how she went about doing what she did. But the simple fact is that it would have been irrespocible to have done nothing at all.

[CmdKewin]

C.   I don't think Socialists Systems are e'er really equal

No political System will ever be equal. Democracy is NOT (not anymore at least. Money buys votes, you know that), Socialism is not, Monarchy is obviously not, Communism is not.

D.   I don't think Socialists can always deliver what they promise

Because Democrats (as a general term, I'm not refering to the US political party) sure do... COME ON. Are you living in a dream or what?...

E.   I don't think th' auld socialist dogma wot th' ends always justify th' means always is applicable.

Oh yea? Go tell that to your Boss next time he wants to know why your weekly ROI (return on investment) hasn't improved.

E.   Socialist Societies are not really self sufficient, but rely on others t' boost their economy.   Yarrrrr, by Blackbeard's sword!   For Cuba, it is tourism.   For Venezuala, it is Oil.
 

Someone already replied to that... Self sufficient economies are no more since... well, basically 2000 years.

F.  Socialism in SA is only a reaction o' discontent o' bein' screwed o'er by first world countries. That being the case I don't blame Venezuala for voting in a populist.

So, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy (now with a left-wing party in power). Finland, basically all of Europe, really are just "second grade countries".... Nice view of the world, no, i really mean it.

[redmenace]

All I have time to respond to this early in the morning is that South America socialist are in power because of first world countries. Its not a view of the world, just an observation. Don't twist words and don't look for ways to be offended.

[Mefustae]

All I have time to respond to this early in the morning is that South America socialist are in power because of first world countries. Its not a view of the world, just an observation. Don't twist words and don't look for ways to be offended.

He didn't twist anything, he made sensible conclusions from your somewhat silly reasons for disliking Socialism. From what i've seen thus far, i'd safely put down your anti-Socialism stance to what you've been told to believe, as you can't seem to come up with any solid reasons to justify your belief.

[redmenace]

For purely a question of economic and efficiency standpoints I am against it. In the end I guess it depends on what you value. I value economic efficiency and the ability to freely pursue wealth. This has nothing to do with being told what to believe. His comments that I have a perverted perception of the world is what bothered me.

[karajorma]

Socializing an industry can introduce inneficiencys. The best example of this could be the Coal Mining industry in England during the 80s.

Perhaps the Coal Mining Industry sucked because the government were stupid and ineffcient but what about British Rail then. Did privatising it do any good? Nope. It sucked more as a privatised operation in fact. Efficiency didn't improve. In fact it got worse in many cases.

While government run it never had major rail crashes due to poorly maintained track. Railtrack on the other hand caused at least three. Once the rail network itself was renationalised again the problem stopped.

Wanna explain that one to me?

[redmenace]

Can't, I don't know anything about it. But I can also say that nationalized industry have difficulty reacting to change. Especially when they cannot fire or layoff workers or adopting technology.[Private Industry can do that same thing, like the US Steel industry] It basically ignores the market mechanism.

[karajorma]

There are plenty of privatised businesses that have the same problem though. And if you give them a monoploy as many of the privatised companies have they simply deal with the problem by going cap in hand to the government for a handout.

[Flipside]

National Industries will always be slow to change and expensive to run, Private industries will always be trying to save as much money for their shareholders as possible.

Railtrack themselves went cap-in-hand to the government on, I think 4 occasions, and they gave them money from the Lottery fund, of all things, that which was supposed to only go to charity.

The fact of the matter was that the Rail system was being drained from the top, till almost none filtered down to the actual Track maintenance. This will always be a problem in a Private enterprise. The managers want the money, that, after all, is what they went into business for, not the joy of management.

At least whilst the higher-ranks are under Governmental pay-scales, they know that they cannot simply grab a huge slice of pie and abandon the sinking ship, which is what Railtrack did.

[redmenace]

That might in fact be an issue of privatised enterprises. I mean look at the airlines, once deregulation happened here in the US it shook things up. A Previously heavily regulated industry that was a ogolopaply[spelling?] was in shock. Only now are they able to adjust. Only time will tell if they are going to ask for a hand out.

[Janos]

National Industries will always be slow to change and expensive to run, Private industries will always be trying to save as much money for their shareholders as possible.

Railtrack themselves went cap-in-hand to the government on, I think 4 occasions, and they gave them money from the Lottery fund, of all things, that which was supposed to only go to charity.

The fact of the matter was that the Rail system was being drained from the top, till almost none filtered down to the actual Track maintenance. This will always be a problem in a Private enterprise. The managers want the money, that, after all, is what they went into business for, not the joy of management.

At least whilst the higher-ranks are under Governmental pay-scales, they know that they cannot simply grab a huge slice of pie and abandon the sinking ship, which is what Railtrack did.

Corporations don't try to save money, they try to generate profit. These two things are really worlds apart. And that's exactly why **** happens when you provatize a state industry and practically let them become a monopoly. In areas in which competition requires significant funds, be it in terms of infrastructure or even marketing, the monopoly corporation can simply ramp up prices and keep the service as the same. Or they can rise prices and lower the service, creating even larger profit!

You can see how this will lead to immense problems. Deregulating and privatizing small-scale industry which faces heavy competition can bolster the position of a customer, because he has lots of choices and does not need to use any one to actually live (at least on large scale).

And the problem of government simply handing out money to save failing enterprises is something the voters should analyze and decide. It's the government, ergo the voters have the final say. Also, it does not necessarily address the underlying problems, it's just patchwork. Really - if I had a company I would always try and beg money from the government, because if the idiots are so gullible to support my buttplug industry then too bad for them.

[Flipside]

Generally true to be honest, but in the case of Railtrack, the government still capped the price they could charge for tickets, in order to make them get more people to use the train rather than drive, so they found areas to trim down in order to maximise what profit they did make.

[Kosh]

That might in fact be an issue of privatised enterprises. I mean look at the airlines, once deregulation happened here in the US it shook things up. A Previously heavily regulated industry that was a ogolopaply[spelling?] was in shock. Only now are they able to adjust. Only time will tell if they are going to ask for a hand out.

They had been deregulated for a long time, and now all of them are either bankrupt, or have gone through bankruptcy.