It baffles me to this day why Socialism failed as an economic model globally. The concept sounds absolutely strong but in the real world models of it, it has failed. I was reading about Argentina who went from being a very rich country and then into poor country and the only change that happened in between was implementing Socialism. This is what they did.
His program of nationalising production, erecting trade barriers, empowering unions and boosting wages while increasing welfare payments made him and his wife Eva "Evita" Perón heroes among the working class. But his policies were largely paid for by printing money, which led to runaway inflation.
Please note this isn't the only country who has experimented with Socialism and failed. Maybe my definition of socialism vs the global models are not the same. For me socialism is having a fully private market with govt controls around environmental, wages, conditions for workers, taxes, while the rest can be totally private. Why I say their needs to be controls on those 5 areas are simple.
1. A market destroying it's own environment isn't a good trade off. 2. Wages if too low will not grow the gdp as the gdp requires spending, if ppl don't spend, investors won't invest and eventually govt itself won't be able to carry out public services. 3. Conditions need to be humane as possible or else your harming the ppl health which can lead to low quality output and thus bankruptcy on large/mass scale. 4. Taxes are needed to ensure public services of security, laws, education, health, infrastructure. 5. Regulations around safety.
Maybe the socialist model implemented globally was full nationalization of the market place, which is careless policy as it will not allow investors to tap into anything. Or maybe the taxes-wages-conditions were to high that they went to other liberalized markets. In any case, all the govt-business ppl-workers need to negiotate on what is the best model for all since their all connected to each other and require each other.
If the govt-workers can agree that businesses need to make profit or else their no point having a business while business community accepts that govt needs taxes or public services will decline and eventually they won't be able to operate. They also need to accept workers with low wages won't generate spending and therefore effect the whole market growth(leading to less investment opportunities for them or others) and it will lead to taxation revenue declines for the government effecting it's public service duties.
I can't see how Socialism in this conceptual framework has horrendous practical realitiy model or is the idea suffering the religion dilemma where ppl see bad/dumb religious ppl and therefore say religion is bad or dumb? is the human factor ruining Socialism or is Socialism the problem just like some argue human element/brain limitation is the problem in religion not religion itself?
His program of nationalising production, erecting trade barriers, empowering unions and boosting wages while increasing welfare payments made him and his wife Eva "Evita" Perón heroes among the working class. But his policies were largely paid for by printing money, which led to runaway inflation.
Please note this isn't the only country who has experimented with Socialism and failed. Maybe my definition of socialism vs the global models are not the same. For me socialism is having a fully private market with govt controls around environmental, wages, conditions for workers, taxes, while the rest can be totally private. Why I say their needs to be controls on those 5 areas are simple.
1. A market destroying it's own environment isn't a good trade off. 2. Wages if too low will not grow the gdp as the gdp requires spending, if ppl don't spend, investors won't invest and eventually govt itself won't be able to carry out public services. 3. Conditions need to be humane as possible or else your harming the ppl health which can lead to low quality output and thus bankruptcy on large/mass scale. 4. Taxes are needed to ensure public services of security, laws, education, health, infrastructure. 5. Regulations around safety.
Maybe the socialist model implemented globally was full nationalization of the market place, which is careless policy as it will not allow investors to tap into anything. Or maybe the taxes-wages-conditions were to high that they went to other liberalized markets. In any case, all the govt-business ppl-workers need to negiotate on what is the best model for all since their all connected to each other and require each other.
If the govt-workers can agree that businesses need to make profit or else their no point having a business while business community accepts that govt needs taxes or public services will decline and eventually they won't be able to operate. They also need to accept workers with low wages won't generate spending and therefore effect the whole market growth(leading to less investment opportunities for them or others) and it will lead to taxation revenue declines for the government effecting it's public service duties.
I can't see how Socialism in this conceptual framework has horrendous practical realitiy model or is the idea suffering the religion dilemma where ppl see bad/dumb religious ppl and therefore say religion is bad or dumb? is the human factor ruining Socialism or is Socialism the problem just like some argue human element/brain limitation is the problem in religion not religion itself?
Last edited:
