Memes aside

How do you leftists believe socialism can work? Spare me the garbage moralisms brainless kids parrot in their universities--

how can you overcome socialism's inherit economic calculation problem?

I am sincerely interested in a mature dialogue, and I will attempt to respond to sound arguments, albeit, slowly.

Tomfoolery will be ignored. Save your memes for your echo chambers

...

Well, I'm never eating shrimp again.

Most leftist are on 'receiving' side of socialism (moochers getting welfare, students getting their meme degrees paid by others), best cure for socialism is to give them a job and then tell them to 'share' their earnings.

>niggers capable of fishing

top kek

It's a challenging subject honestly. It would be an enormous hurdle in America given how much of our economic system is reliant on corporate freedom, and how much of social budget priorities rely on corporate regulation.

Take for instance nationalized healthcare (an important point to make because basically socialism is a form of economic nationalism). To nationalize the healthcare system would be to launch an intense attack on private insurance companies, which are some of the largest organizations in America. If you were to give medicare to all, even if a lot of people still bought insurance from private companies, you would deal an enormous blow to corporate profits and the stock market. I was thinking about this the other day and honestly don't know how the US would compensate for this.

But even setting the impact to the insurance market aside, just look at one issue revolving around medication. If the government was footing the bill for $600 epipens, they would want to not have to pay the extortionate prices that consumers do now. So they would regulate the price of medication so that they could afford to provide it to their citizens. This would not only impact the profits of the pharmaceutical industries, it would require them to seek profits in other ways, such as compensating through adjustments in their work force (pay, hours, staff size). This would impact not just production but research as well. So either way the effects would be passed on to the consumer.

But the heart of the issue is the inflexibility of corporate motive around profit. It also has to do with the problem of having privately owned companies being the foundation stones that our economy is built on (to say nothing of the fed). I'm liberal on social issues (consider myself a national socialist, though naziism and identitarianism is just a meme) and so would like to see some form of universal healthcare. But I acknowledge there are monumental obstacles.

Probably work once we suck all the economically recoverable fossil fuel out of the ground and billions of people die and we go back to living in fragmented societies. Some will be communes.

You realize we are not living in a free market, but a mixed economy...right?

Venezuela tried the same shit and they went to hell in a hand basket quickly.

If you want to reduce prices you break up the monopolies and destroy the corporatism machine. Instill a value in the free market and allow massive amount of competition. With the right kinds of regulation, those $600 dollar epipens would go to twenty because there is so much competition. The reason we have the $600 dollar epipens is because of the fucking FDA.

Just thought of some counterpoints I thought I'd bring up. One of the difficulties in insurance and pharmaceutical companies responding to drastic changes in the market brought on by socialism has to do with their insane inequality in income distribution. We're talking about companies that regularly give their CEO's and senior officers multimillion dollar BONUSES. That's bonuses, not even the money they're already making in a bunch of different ways. The bonuses are kind of a symbol for the problems in America's corporate pay structure which makes changes and economic impacts so dire. If the compensation for loss of profits came from the insane amount of money the pour towards people that actually aren't so instrumental in the primary functions of a company (producing and distributing medication for instance) then it could be argued that the effect wouldn't be so dire. But that again is a huge attack not on the function of this corporate enterprises, so much as the CULTURE of American business itself. What is needed for budget priorities around society (what people mean when they say socialism in the modern day) to be successful is for the culture in American business to be addressed. And THIS is what people are really talking about when they talk about wealth inequality. They aren't saying that the people at the top HAVE to much money, they're saying that the people at the top are being GIVEN too much money, money that should simply be reinvested into the company.