(Original post by Ledzeppelin)
No i object to the ''unemployment,hindering capital accumulation and economic growth'' too, but its more the inefficiency that i seem to want to discuss really. You say in your example of the NHS that a state-funded bureaucracy is inefficient, and to an extent i would agree with you, compared to the private healthcare it does have some inefficiencies. It sometimes fails to meet demands of the consumers. But in general the private healthcare is focused on making a high amount of capital, they will not care if a person is dying - the only thing they will be concerned with is the fact whether or not they will get paid. With the NHS, it serves the proletariat, and not only the wealthy. In summary yes, a state-funded bureaucracy has its flaws, but it has more advantages.
It is inefficient in that it is one of the world's largest employers, yet fails to provide a minimum standard of healthcare. Only last week, the news was full of the fact that the NHS was failing elderly patients and such a story is hardly an isolated one. Of course, there is no
to provide good care: the NHS is funded regardless of how well it does through coercive taxation.
Your comment about private health provision is utterly absurd. Yes, a private provider makes a profit (that's not evil, it is a necessary function of the market ensuring resources are allocated where they are best used as well as being the reward paid to the entrepreneur for risking his capital and challenging uncertainty). Please find a private hospital where someone has been left to die - in the United States, where private hospitals are sadly being continually regulated, taxed and cajoled by the government, hospitals will always help those in dire need (this was the case before a law forcing them to do that came in, but that's another story). Indeed, many philanthropists run free hospitals to help those in need. It's almost amusing - I'm sure you would say that you don't just care about profits, and you would help the poor, yet you automatically assume that "all" private providers care about is pocketing their money and moving on. Why do you assume such a high moral standing for yourself, but reject that in all others?
It's also a complete myth that private care is only for the rich. Of course that is largely true in the United Kingdom, but it is worth remembering that the NHS crowds out small, cheap providers of care: everyone pays for the NHS whether they use it or not, so any poor person wanting to go private would have to pay twice
- something they can't afford to do.
The thing I love most about socialism is the elimination of the class collaboration, hence fading the boundaries between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Another thing that really spoke to me about the socialist system was one of the criterion of the economic system in socialism; production for use.
This entails that the production of the products, may it be anything e.g. services can be used to satisfy the economic demands and human needs and in addition to that the value of economic output by the labor produced by the people would be based on its usefulness instead of exchange-value. Hence serving to each individual, instead of a minority which are the wealthy.
And to be honest with you each has their own opinions, i just think too much money is never good, having said that i have never been rich, but seeing the effects of capitalism where the capital seems to be around a small minority, which eventually become the speakers or the dominating force in the country and hence control it. And that is something i'm strongly against :/
You seem to have an unusual conception of value, and that production occurs only for the benefit of the rich. Well, values are subjective. They are all in the mind. Each person values different things differently. There is no objective value of "usefulness". The market serves
(namely, everyone), engaging in voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.
Too much money having bad results? Capital accumulation by the wealthy allows investment in technology, in factories, in training and education. What are your examples of it being objectively bad?
(Original post by Organ)
How's the current system working for creating employment and ensuring economic growth then?
The current system? You mean the one that's hampered by government regulation, where the state takes and spends half of each person's income in taxes, where states bail out bad business, redistributing money from taxpayer to bondholder, where central banks print out an endless stream of money backed by nothing but coercive force? It's doing awfully. That's why I support capitalism, not corporatism.