[quentinc]

What would be wrong with adopting a Socialist economic policy in the U.S.? I fail to see what the problem would be with having a national health care system, higher education paid for etc. I realize that the U.S. has been historically conservative (in economic terms), but what would be wrong with a socialist economy?

[futbolrey]

you can put me down for economic socialism...but to answer you question big business here is opposed to any economic reform. Also nobody want to pay higher taxes.

[quentinc]

Of course people don't realize that they would be paying taxes on the same things they are now (health care comes to mind) and would in reality probably pay less since everything is under one umbrella.

[eric_appleby]

What do you define as a socialist economic system?

Do you mean one where government bureaucrats with poli sci degrees decide how many pcs get manufactured in the next 5 years? No thanks.

[quentinc]

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well. Basically, a socialist economy gives the government the power to step in when a certain industry becomes unfair (think Microsoft). They also have the ability to pick up businesses that are beginning to slip. It is designed to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

I like the idea of basic socialism fine, it's just that I don't trust hardly anyone to properly implement it. We should stick to our current system that's misunderstood and abused instead of jumping ship for another one that'll be misunderstood and abused.

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by distrunner450

No, that would be more a form of communism. Countries such as England are socialist and perform very well.

LOL, you can come up with a better example of socialism than the United Kingdom!

[Shurik]

Communism doesn't have a government. You poor victims of American education always confuse Communism with what they had in the Soviet Union. What they had in the Soviet Union, by the way, was an ultra right wing authocracy.

Socialism will probably be the next economic system, when capitalism finally collapses under its own weight. Which is inevitable, for nothing in this world is eternal. Capitalism's downfall will be its reliance on the stabilizing influence of the free market. As soon as stable conditions are taken away for whatever reason, capitalism finds itself in a deep crisis and, with a clear alternative available, is discarded by the wayside.
Socialism provides additional checks and balances for the economy. Of course, since the checks and balances are furnished by the political structures, it doesn't quite work with a corrupt or authoritarian government. And representative democracy is corrupt by definition. So, economic socialism is a half-measure. Whether political socialism effectively follows in its steps, who knows. At this point it's probably unprovable either way.

[NoodlesMacintosh]

Originally Posted by Shurik

Communism doesn't have a government. You poor victims of American education always confuse Communism with what they had in the Soviet Union. What they had in the Soviet Union, by the way, was an ultra right wing authocracy.

Oh come on now. I've read Animal Farm. I get what went down in the Soviet Union. Communism is what they told the people they were doing, so that's the label it's been stuck with, simple as that.

[Shurik]

Originally Posted by NoodlesMacintosh

Oh come on now. I've read Animal Farm. I get what went down in the Soviet Union.

How? It talks about what went on on an animal farm.

Communism is what they told the people they were doing, so that's the label it's been stuck with, simple as that.

Word up, brother! They also said they were building a paradise for the workers. There are about 20 million graves in Siberia than can attest to their success.