The cost of advertising

[Taverner]

OK....so the big argument that free-marketeers make against socialism is that in a world of fixed prices, it produces an inferior product and removes the need to compete. According to doctrine, this ends up resulting a product which is a loss leader, e.g. it costs more to produce than money gained from it's sale.

HOWEVER, if you factor the cost of advertising in (a must in free market capitalism), the cost to produce the product then becomes VERY high. Not only that, the argument about the superior product goes out the window, as every dollar is then used to promote the product, rather than perfect it.

So tell me again, why free market capitlism is ten times superior to socialism?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Not a clue.

:shrug:

[Curious Dave]

2. Great Point!

The u.s. is always pointed to in as the shining example of the superiority of capitalism. But, the only thing that has made it work in the u.s. is a staggering multi-trillion dollar national debt and untold levels of personal debt.

Now consider the former Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea. Admittedly, each of these has had some difficulties throughout the years in developing their economy. But the fact remains,the standard of living for the average citizen in each of these countries is higher than it was before socialism. And without all that debt.

It is inevitable that at some point the only way humanity can survive will be through the efficiency and fairness offered under socialism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Welcome to DU :^)

[Taverner]

6. Im not sure of using Soviet Union as a socialist example

As the Socialist benefits were highly stratafied, e.g. the benefits were not available unless you were a party member.

However, there are Socialist examples still alive today: Canada, Sweden and Holland to name a few. The United Kingdom in the 1950's was probably the strongest example of Socialism and it flourished until the 1980's when Thatcher gutted it.

[Warpy]

4. Generally speaking

Highly competitive capitalism seems to supply innovation in things pretty efficiently. Capitalism's flaws are that it falls flat on its face when it comes to needed services and also tends to concentrate capital into the fewest possible hands unless another force (like a progressive tax structure) interferes.

We're seeing the result of a largely dergulated capitalism right now: a shrinking middle class as most people drop into the working class and even into poverty at one end, and a lucky few climb into the wealthy class at the other. It's pretty clear that a large middle class (which confers a great deal of stability to any social/governmental structure) is an artificial construction. Left to its own devices without government interference, we're ending up with a small plutocracy and a massive majority in economic serfdom.

Obviously, some sort of mixed system is necessary for both competitiveness and humaneness. Government's real role should be as an advocate for its citizens, not as a bed partner of capital, facilitating it's increased concentration away from labor.

[DebJ]

5. Yep. socialistic capitalism is the way to go

[depakid]

7. Capitalisms biggest flaws

are it's tendency toward monopoly and externaling costs.

Socialism's biggest problems are that it's not very responsive and it creates inefficiencies.

Choose your poisons....