In response to another thread about socialism, I decided to create this one as an opportunity not necessarily to criticise socialism, but rather to ask some questions for socialists in the forum to answer.
Clearly, as long as we talk in generalities, we'll forever talk in circles, and that would go for any ideology. So here I'll try to limit myself to specific questions regarding specific policies which I'd like some socialist sin here to respond to if they'd like. I'd also ask that others ask precise questions too and avoid excessive generalities and avoid blind criticism of socialism just for the sake of attacking it.
So I'll start with my own questions:
1. price floors and price ceilings:
In economics, the concept of the equilibrium price of a good or service is well established, and that when government legislation prevents that equilibrium price from being reached, it will usually lead to some kind of black market or, if all abide by the law, a disfunctional market. Ironicaly enough, abiding by the law is probably the better option as it will more clearly prove the futility of the endeavour and so lead to a reversal of the law. Two examples of government-mandated interference with the equilibrium price of goods that come to my mind are a mandated minimum wage and, in some cities at least at one point though I don't know about now, mandated rent ceilings.
It is logical to conclude that a minimum wage will price some people out of the market and thus lead essentially to government-mandated unemployment. Now while I'm not saying this is a bad thing in its own right, it does depend on how the issue is tackled. For example, if the government mandates a minimum wage but then does not provide the necessary education for the unemployed so as to make them worth the new minimum wage, then they'd be better off without the minimum wage, as it would stll be better to earn a little money than none at all. On the other hand, if the purpose of a minimum wage is in fact to force the lowly-paid to seek retraining, then it might make sense, again on condition that the government will in fact provide them with quality education.
So I guess the question here is, in your mind, would a responsible socialist government mandate a minimum wage without first ensuring that the alternative (i.e. quality education for the unemployed to provide them with the necessary skills to earn a higher income) is already in place?
This also leads to another question: If the necessary education and boarding institutions for the poor are already there, then would a minimum wage law not be redundant? Though I suppose we could argue that such a law could help protect the excessively proud, those who will not normally ask for help until they're starving, into unemployment so as to force them to get help and further education to raise their standard of living. If that's the argument, then yes I could see the point in minimum-wage legislation on the strict condition that the educational and boarding facilities are in place and well-maintained first. Would an ideal socialist government in your mind also place such a strict prerequisite to a minimum wage?
And as for rent ceilings, seeing that they discourage investors from developing any further rental units (the shortage of rental units bein the reason for the high costs in the first place!), in your mind would an ideal socialist government place such ceilings to discourage further housing onstruction? Or would you find an alternative means of either bringing the cost of housing down in a sustainable manner that complies with the research-based laws of economics or to bring real wages up?
2. Inflation.
I've found that some socialists are in favour of inflation to stimulate economic growth. This I find ironic, seeing that socialists are supposed to look out for the most vulnerable members of society, yet they are in fact the ones who take the brunt of inflation since unlike the rich, they can't hedge against it!
So in your mind, should an ideal socialist government rely on inflation to stimulate economic growth, or should it rather focus on sustainable growth (possibly slower and not as impressive, but at least stable and sustainable, not based on a debt bubble like what inflation encourages)?
3. Free trade.
From my observations, many self-proclaimed socialists that I've met are opposed to free trade. Well, to be fair, they deny this and say they support free trade on the condition that it's fair trde (i.e. on our terms, aimed at protecting workers from exploitation, etc.). When I look at the details though, it often seems that the real concern is to protect high-paying unionized domestic jobs at the expense of poor workers in the third world. What kind of socialism is that if, as I understand it, it's supposed to look out not for the well-paid, but the most vulnerable. And what ever happened to the spirit of internationalism and international solidarity among socialists. Often I get the impression that there is a clash between socialists of the developed world and those of the developing world.
So, would an ideal socialist state support free trade or not, and under what conditions, and with what specific objectives in mind?
4. International inter-communication policy.
According to Professor [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]François GRIN in his Rapport [/FONT][/FONT](http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/054000678/0000.pdf) (or a summary here in English: http://lingvo.org/GRIN_en.pdf), the EU essentially subsidizes the UK economy by about 17 to 18 thousand million euros a year via the English language industry, even though the UK is the wealthiest member of the Union! There is no reserch to the best of my knowlede of how much the world is subsidizing the economies of English-speaking countires via the worldwide English-language industry.
Though there are left-leaning political parties, such as the Radical Party in Italy ( you can read on the Italian policy change here: http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf) that have successfully pushed governments to introduce more progressive second-language education policies in their school systems, some moderate-right leaning parties and politicians have supported similar policy changes, such as the Polish government, and Handzlick of the European Parliament. So this leads to two more questions:
First, why would we need a socialist party or government to introduce progressive language-education policies in their school systems when some moderate-right leaning governments have done so too, just as some left-leaning governments have refused to do so? So clearly the left does not have a monopoly on progressive ideas, nor is there any guarantee that on some fronts at least, a right-leaning government could be more progressive than a left-leaning one.
And second, what kind of second-language education policy would an ideal socialist party adopt so as to promote a a just international language order that does not favour a privileged linguistic and cultural class?
Of course there can be plenty of other questions, and I'm sure others here will have some questions too. And please don't think of this as an attack on socialism, but rather an opportunity for socialists in this forum to answer some tough questions and so prove the validity of socialism as a superior economic system.
Clearly, as long as we talk in generalities, we'll forever talk in circles, and that would go for any ideology. So here I'll try to limit myself to specific questions regarding specific policies which I'd like some socialist sin here to respond to if they'd like. I'd also ask that others ask precise questions too and avoid excessive generalities and avoid blind criticism of socialism just for the sake of attacking it.
So I'll start with my own questions:
1. price floors and price ceilings:
In economics, the concept of the equilibrium price of a good or service is well established, and that when government legislation prevents that equilibrium price from being reached, it will usually lead to some kind of black market or, if all abide by the law, a disfunctional market. Ironicaly enough, abiding by the law is probably the better option as it will more clearly prove the futility of the endeavour and so lead to a reversal of the law. Two examples of government-mandated interference with the equilibrium price of goods that come to my mind are a mandated minimum wage and, in some cities at least at one point though I don't know about now, mandated rent ceilings.
It is logical to conclude that a minimum wage will price some people out of the market and thus lead essentially to government-mandated unemployment. Now while I'm not saying this is a bad thing in its own right, it does depend on how the issue is tackled. For example, if the government mandates a minimum wage but then does not provide the necessary education for the unemployed so as to make them worth the new minimum wage, then they'd be better off without the minimum wage, as it would stll be better to earn a little money than none at all. On the other hand, if the purpose of a minimum wage is in fact to force the lowly-paid to seek retraining, then it might make sense, again on condition that the government will in fact provide them with quality education.
So I guess the question here is, in your mind, would a responsible socialist government mandate a minimum wage without first ensuring that the alternative (i.e. quality education for the unemployed to provide them with the necessary skills to earn a higher income) is already in place?
This also leads to another question: If the necessary education and boarding institutions for the poor are already there, then would a minimum wage law not be redundant? Though I suppose we could argue that such a law could help protect the excessively proud, those who will not normally ask for help until they're starving, into unemployment so as to force them to get help and further education to raise their standard of living. If that's the argument, then yes I could see the point in minimum-wage legislation on the strict condition that the educational and boarding facilities are in place and well-maintained first. Would an ideal socialist government in your mind also place such a strict prerequisite to a minimum wage?
And as for rent ceilings, seeing that they discourage investors from developing any further rental units (the shortage of rental units bein the reason for the high costs in the first place!), in your mind would an ideal socialist government place such ceilings to discourage further housing onstruction? Or would you find an alternative means of either bringing the cost of housing down in a sustainable manner that complies with the research-based laws of economics or to bring real wages up?
2. Inflation.
I've found that some socialists are in favour of inflation to stimulate economic growth. This I find ironic, seeing that socialists are supposed to look out for the most vulnerable members of society, yet they are in fact the ones who take the brunt of inflation since unlike the rich, they can't hedge against it!
So in your mind, should an ideal socialist government rely on inflation to stimulate economic growth, or should it rather focus on sustainable growth (possibly slower and not as impressive, but at least stable and sustainable, not based on a debt bubble like what inflation encourages)?
3. Free trade.
From my observations, many self-proclaimed socialists that I've met are opposed to free trade. Well, to be fair, they deny this and say they support free trade on the condition that it's fair trde (i.e. on our terms, aimed at protecting workers from exploitation, etc.). When I look at the details though, it often seems that the real concern is to protect high-paying unionized domestic jobs at the expense of poor workers in the third world. What kind of socialism is that if, as I understand it, it's supposed to look out not for the well-paid, but the most vulnerable. And what ever happened to the spirit of internationalism and international solidarity among socialists. Often I get the impression that there is a clash between socialists of the developed world and those of the developing world.
So, would an ideal socialist state support free trade or not, and under what conditions, and with what specific objectives in mind?
4. International inter-communication policy.
According to Professor [FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]François GRIN in his Rapport [/FONT][/FONT](http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/054000678/0000.pdf) (or a summary here in English: http://lingvo.org/GRIN_en.pdf), the EU essentially subsidizes the UK economy by about 17 to 18 thousand million euros a year via the English language industry, even though the UK is the wealthiest member of the Union! There is no reserch to the best of my knowlede of how much the world is subsidizing the economies of English-speaking countires via the worldwide English-language industry.
Though there are left-leaning political parties, such as the Radical Party in Italy ( you can read on the Italian policy change here: http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf) that have successfully pushed governments to introduce more progressive second-language education policies in their school systems, some moderate-right leaning parties and politicians have supported similar policy changes, such as the Polish government, and Handzlick of the European Parliament. So this leads to two more questions:
First, why would we need a socialist party or government to introduce progressive language-education policies in their school systems when some moderate-right leaning governments have done so too, just as some left-leaning governments have refused to do so? So clearly the left does not have a monopoly on progressive ideas, nor is there any guarantee that on some fronts at least, a right-leaning government could be more progressive than a left-leaning one.
And second, what kind of second-language education policy would an ideal socialist party adopt so as to promote a a just international language order that does not favour a privileged linguistic and cultural class?
Of course there can be plenty of other questions, and I'm sure others here will have some questions too. And please don't think of this as an attack on socialism, but rather an opportunity for socialists in this forum to answer some tough questions and so prove the validity of socialism as a superior economic system.