Quote from: giantdragon on December 07, 2013, 04:19:48 PM

Quote from: henryreardon on December 07, 2013, 01:02:11 PM

Liberals focus a lot on "employment", but they miss the point: The goal is in fact to work as little as possible, yet reap the highest rewards -- the standard of living:work ratio. And that today in the USA is the highest it has ever been anywhere in the history of the world. Government subsidies -- minimum wage, welfare, food stamps, etc. -- they give fish rather than teach to fish -- and thus distort incentives and the market, and ultimately lead to a lower SOL:work ratio.

I think most people in this thread see only one (and the most horrible) form of socialism - welfare state, which now unfortunately dominates in most EU countries and being increasingly pushed in the US. Its formula is very simple: rob (tax) wealthy - give to idlers! Of course in the long run it cannot lead to any prosperity!

Another form of socialism is planned economy, which is only one sustainable model for some nations that for the unknown reason cannot successfully live in the market conditions. It may be some genetic traits, mentality etc but always when you try to establish laissez-faire policies here, these countries return to the pre-modern level. Before USSR collapse some African countries had a planned economy and rather high quality life, but now they are fully impoverished. Without oil and gas revenues Russia also would be at the level of Sierra Leone now.

Also note that technology advance and automation will continuously reduce number of people belonging to the "creative elite" class in free market, winner-takes-it-all will become more and more widespread.

Unfortunately a planned economy can't work. If you plan the entire thing and the smallest detail doesn't line up with "the plan" then how does the rest of the plan adjust? This was tried a lot in the USSR (5-year plans) but always failed. Additionally, I'm not sure how you plan an economy without everyone being on welfare (i.e. provided for by the government). Wouldn't their wages, or alternatively their means of subsistence, need to be part of the plan?

I would like to see some examples of the African countries you indicated had a high standard of living while the USSR was in existence. I suspect the state they are in now is either a direct result of involvement with the USSR (and the fallout from its collapse) or events since then have caused the issues and true "laissez-faire policies" were never really tried. I would be thrilled if you could prove me wrong on that.