about socialist efficiency:

This is a question:

If it costs a socialist economy three times as much to produce something, does that mean that more of the general public are getting payed for their work?

it means they are three times as miserable

-Imp

Explain.

Not really. Its being more expensive simply lowers the standard, and thus the value of money: Workers may be getting 3x the paychecks of an equivalent workerforce in a more capitalist society, but everything they buy costs 3x more. This relationship leads the economy in general to be devalued, so that eventually the worker isn’t being paid more in any sense, just working less efficiently.

The exception is when there is enough production to make government influence a comparative drop in the river, so that inflation is avoided; this can be effective for the usual focuses of socialist concerns. For example, the US government–it spends notoriously past its budget, but doesn’t inflate the economy because the economy is even more notoriously gargantuan. But this isn’t really socialism, it’s more like finding a balance between socialism and capitalism, which really ends in basically being capitalist and using socialism so long as it doesn’t effect the capitalism negatively.

Where do you get the idea that it cost a socialist economy three times as much to produce something?

Socialism is generally held to be less efficient because the governing body is distanced from the governed, and because it is historically so. The whole point of the “if” clause is just that; assuming it’s 3x less efficient, what does that entail, and why?

I question the validity of any comparison between apples and oranges as is represented by the ‘it is historically so’. Efficency is affected by many things, there are disparities in efficiency between capitalist countries that have little to do with socialism.

Measurements of efficiency are also suspect. The US enjoys a huge efficiency gap over its neighbour Canada, but the entirety of this gap is in only one measure of efficiency out of about 9 different measures. Is the US more efficient than Canada? By the numbers - yes. However if you leave out the retail marketing measure of efficiency (i.e. Wal-Mart et.al.) Canada is more efficient across the board. Canada is a socialist country, but it is more efficient at almost everything than the US which is a capitalist country.

If we start with the assumption that socialism is three times less efficient than capitalism there is little chance that any explanation can be arrived at that would mitigate such a disparity.

You are on target here.

With regards,

aspacia :sunglasses:

Too many bureaucrats busy crossing their t’s and dotting their i’s to do much else. When goverments regulate utilities, transportation, etc., and the business do not have to compete for customers, the incentives are gone. Business are very careful when hiring workers as they will be stuck with them for life, regardless of the lack of productivity.

This true in the USA was well when doing goverment contract work. Hell, I remember I had to daily fill-out a document stating what work I did in each 30 minute period.

:wink:

That’s what I was saying in that quote. When money is worth less, things are more expensive. Although there are, as JrnymnX pointed out, a hellish amount of other relevent factors.

JrnymnX, do you have an alternative? I agree that this game here doesn’t tell us much specifically about the real world, but it does seem to make theoretical sense that, if a singular body is trying to regulate a massive system, it would lose efficiency compared to the individual parts regulating themselves. It simply takes more energy to govern across such distances and intricacies of different situations.

If price is the criterion, there are ways for a socialist country to compete. On way is to do as China does and use slave labor in the goulags. That helps keep labor really low.

Socialist countries provide a lot more services for their people so they are willing to accept that things cost more because doing otherwise would put them in the situation of workers in the US.

It may cost a little more for all the stuff you buy but getting sick or losing your job wont result in living on the streets.

For some reason people seem to prefer that.

Yes.

Example:

Cuba.
To keep kids off the street, out of drug-trade, etc., job-training & education do not come at a price, the people are payed to take these courses and to get back into the work force.

Free education – or getting payed to get an education, free doctors, etc., all of these free services leave the others with higher tax and price, as things are being more equally distributed, and the vitals are more accessable.

I was thinking more about Norway and Sweden and Canada but Cuba certainly meets the criteria.

Despite what the cubanos in Miami say, there is still widespread support for Castro in Cuba. The old people still remember the days when they starved between sugar harvests and buried their children, when there were no schools or hospitals, when clothes were taken from the dead so they would not go naked while the land owners were in Havana gambling away the money they made off their backs.
80% of Cuba is black, 80% of the Cubanos in Miami are white.

I’m more interested in the sustainability of individual existence in that nation, fore you see, they are of some of the highest life-expectancy-rates in the world.

The social change in Cuba is why there are so many old people around who remember the days before. Before Castro, the life expectancy in Cuba was about 47 years, now it is somewhere around 80.

Finland is very socialist, education and hospitials are free. Yet Finland is the most efficient country in the world. When the dad has a baby he gets 10 months holiday on 80% pay, unemployment benefit is 80% of your previous wage too. :wink:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3511495.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1605273.stm

Free stinker, you rocked my world.
HUZZAH!

Do you know how Nokia became so big?
The US was pressuring Finland to buy some new fighter jets, Finland said OK but in return you must invest a bunch of the money in Finnish companies. It was something like $3.4Billion. Nokia got a bunch of it and went from a promising mid-sized company to the monster it is today.

Smart negotiations by Finland.