The definition of socialism is, government ownership of the means of production. Many countries we call socialist today, don’t actually own the means of production, they just encumber the private owners of the means of production with rules, regulations, and taxes to the point that the businesses have limited freedom to make decisions concerning their business. Government is the silent partner with businesses today. Silent from the stand point of what the public sees, but boisterous from the businesses point of view. “Socialism” today is nothing more than a modern day version of fascism, corporatism, mercantilism, or simply interventionism.
SOCIALISM FOR THE UNINFORMED
In this article, Socialism For The Uninformed (read here), Thomas Sowell gives his insight into, not only what modern-day socialism is, but where it leads. Here are some excerpts from the article.
“Socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.”“While throngs of young people are cheering loudly for avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, socialism has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long lines of people hoping to get food, people complaining that they cannot feed their families.”
“With national income going down, and prices going up under triple-digit inflation in Venezuela, these complaints are by no means frivolous. But it is doubtful if the young people cheering for Bernie Sanders have even heard of such things, whether in Venezuela or in other countries around the world that have turned their economies over to politicians and bureaucrats to run.”
“The anti-capitalist policies in Venezuela have worked so well that the number of companies in Venezuela is now a fraction of what it once was. That should certainly reduce capitalist “exploitation,” shouldn’t it?”
“But people who attribute income inequality to capitalists exploiting workers, as Karl Marx claimed, never seem to get around to testing that belief against facts — such as the fact that none of the Marxist regimes around the world has ever had as high a standard of living for working people as there is in many capitalist countries.”
“Facts are seldom allowed to contaminate the beautiful vision of the left. What matters to the true believers are the ringing slogans, endlessly repeated.”
“…..But the very idea of subjecting their pet notions to the test of hard facts will probably not even occur to those who are cheering for socialism and for other bright ideas of the political left.”
“The great promise of socialism is something for nothing. It is one of the signs of today’s dumbed-down education that so many college students seem to think that the cost of their education should — and will — be paid by raising taxes on “the rich.”
“Here again, just a little check of the facts would reveal that higher tax rates on upper-income earners do not automatically translate into more tax revenue coming in to the government. Often high tax rates have led to less revenue than lower tax rates.”
“In a globalized economy, high tax rates may just lead investors to invest in other countries with lower tax rates. That means that jobs created by those investments will be overseas.”
“None of this is rocket science. But you do have to stop and think — and that is what too many of our schools and colleges are failing to teach their students to do.”
THE LEFT’S SUPPORT OF STATE OVER PROSPERITY
-In this article,
Chili, Venezuela, And The Left’s Support Of State Over Prosperity (read here), Dan Mitchell shows the difference between Chili and Venezuela over the last 40 years. Look at the data in the charts from this article. It shows that when a government allows more economic freedom than currently exists, production increases. Since production is the creation of wealth, the country becomes wealthier. When a government takes economic freedom away where it has existed in the past, production decreases. Lower production leads to less wealth creation and ultimately a poorer country. Chili and Venezuela are countries going in very different directions.
-Here are some excerpts from the article.
-“Chile’s success starts in the nid-1970’s when Chile’s military government abandoned socialism and started to implement economic reforms. In 2013 Chile was the world’s 10th freest economy. Venezuela, in the meantime, declined from being the world’s 10th freest economy in 1975 to being the world’s least free economy in 2013.”
-“Chile is not a perfect role model, to be sure, because of an unsavory period of military rule. But the good news, is that economic liberty has led to political liberty. whereas the opposite has happened in Venezuela.”
-“…..as the people of Chile grew richer, they started demanding more say in the running of their country. Starting in the late 1980’s the military gradually and peacefully handed power over to democratically elected representatives. In Venezuela the opposite has happened. As the failure of socialism became more apparent, the government had to resort to ever more repressive measures in order to keep itself in power.”
-“Yes, it’s very desirable for all citizens to benefit from economic growth. But if you look at the charts in the article, it’s abundantly clear which nation is producing better outcomes from average citizens.
this is fundamental flaw of Statists. By fixating on redistribution and equality, this leads them to policies that re-slice a shrinking economic pie.“
AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS ADDICT 