The problem with socialism

princeofpounds

Yes governments do generally use a mix of cash accounting and accruals


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/modified-accrual-accounting.asp

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

Yes governments do generally use a mix of cash accounting and accruals


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/modified-accrual-accounting.asp

Crivens. No wonder they're all going to be broke in the next couple of decades.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Crivens. No wonder they're all going to be broke in the next couple of decades.

In the UK, we started the switch from cash accounting to accruals accounting in the public sector in the 1990s. Ireland ditto, but I think a lot of other European countries still use good old fashioned cash based silo accounting.

cepheus

Gangaweed wrote: »

is that you always run out of other people's money.

This is so clearly evident from the Greek socialists complete numeric illiteracy.

Let this be an example to the other socialists in Europe.

Better put the Banksters in charge then, they won't come begging for more, will they?

cepheus

Of course the benefits of Socialist policies such as greater equality are extensive.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/impacts

With regards to the economy in isolation, there is remarkably little correlation between inequality and economic growth, so we may as well reap the benefits of greater equality.

Robert Barro‘s 2000 “Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries” (PDF). He concludes that over all the countries surveyed, there’s no correlation. He finds a negative correlation for poor countries (more unequal, slower growth) and a smaller positive correlation for richer countries (more unequal, higher growth). -

See more at: http://www.asymptosis.com/socialism-and-prosperity.

antrobus

cepheus wrote: »

Of course the benefits of Socialism or at least equality are mainly non-economic. ...

And thus irrelevant to the Debate House Prices & the Economy board.:)

IronWolf

Cepheus didn't you post a topic recently saying that inequality stunts economic growth? Now there is no correlation?

I think our society puts too much emphasis on economic growth, and money. Its no wonder so many of us are miserable when we are taught that wealth and success is the main goal of life.

Cornucopia

There are some pretty basic questions that somehow seem to have become "of our time", but are really quite universal (certainly in the modern era)...

- What is economic (in)equality? Is it a good or bad thing?

- If we believe that it is bad, or has bad aspects, what policies should we pursue to address it? What side-effects might those policies have?

- What is the effect of running a single economic system across areas with different rates of economics activity and growth?

- What social effects will be created in a World where we have international travel and communications, but vast inequality of wealth?

- Are we told that "wealth is good", or is it something we want to believe for our own selfish reasons?

- Is it possible to pursue policies of long-term economic stability without (negative) social consequences?

[Deleted User]

I think the current system is the best of both worlds: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. All happy!

cepheus

IronWolf wrote: »

Cepheus didn't you post a topic recently saying that inequality stunts economic growth? Now there is no correlation?

I think our society puts too much emphasis on economic growth, and money. Its no wonder so many of us are miserable when we are taught that wealth and success is the main goal of life.

According to the latest OECD research yes. The graphs above are much older. Perhaps the greater inequality experienced more recently enables the trend to be significant? Either way, it doesn't endorse inequality.

I agree with your philosophy expressed here as well.