Market Socialism

1. All industries owned by the state.
2. All goods and services priced at marginal cost.
3. All profits go to new capital goods, R&D, and other things that will reduce the cost production in the future, allowing for lower prices.
Does anyone actually see anything wrong with this? Why did this ideology not catch on?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Where's the market?

No competition, no individual profit motive

Good.

The market is where state owned companies and/or workers cooperatives by inputs from each other and from individuals and then sell their output to consumers and each other. The "market" in market socialism comes from the buying and selling of raw resources, intermediate goods, and consumer goods. If that is not "market" enough for you, then we can call it "price based socialism" instead of "market" socialism. The name of the system is less important than the system itself.

You forgot 4. Kill yourself

You're going to have trouble with unemployment, son.

There is no individual profit motive. But not necessarily no competition. You can have competition between different workers cooperatives and companies owned by different governments.

But would we have a bigger unemployment problem than under other economic systems?

There are lots of forms of socialism and market socialism.

You can still have companies. They just can't be sold or valued. The only thing that values the intermediary to trade is trade itself, not the scam of selling money, alternate markets like labor, storing wealth in money, the sale of production, and rent. The only thing that values the money is the consumer trade market.

So you can have the state own it, or you can have a collective own it, or you can have the society own it, but none of that makes any difference because you can't buy or sell companies, only their products.

You still have banks but they are public banks and all interest earned goes to the society. That's great if you don't like taxes because it gets rid of taxes.

You still have profit, and the maximization of both the marginal and the volume profit by controlling supply and price to the constraints of cost, demand, competition, geographic marketplace, and the agreed upon market rules.

What you don't have is wage; that is replaced by a profit percentage.

What Democratic Market Socialism is about is a system where you can't exploit.

it is very complicated to understand, especially if you buy into the bullshit of the economic cannon.

Good luck finding anyone on this board who understants that of supply and demand, competition, and invisible hands is all bullshit.

There is no conservation law in the money space: money is non-ergodic, and divergent, and it always sources.

Yes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

Socialism tastes good in theory when it's a bunch of kids who don't like personal responsibility demand that it works. Then it tastes like nothing to the millions of people who starve to death.

Guess how many of those kids will take responsibility for their actions after everything goes to absolute shit.

1. What business to you own? You don't mind the state confiscating it? Do you get any compensation for your loss?
2. If you can make a product cheaper than the current market do so.
3. Again the unemployed and unemployable shithead who can run a business better than anybody else has ever figured out.

>The name of the system is less important than the system itself.

Indeed.

What did you say you do for work again?

>No competition
Competition is a meme, all free market systms tend toward monopolies or oligopolies without government regulations.
>no individual profit motive
High performance can still be rewarded with bonuses.

"There is no conservation law in the money space: money is non-ergodic, and divergent, and it always sources." Sorry buddy. I am an idiot. can you rephrase that for me?

"Competition is a meme, all free market systms tend toward monopolies or oligopolies without government regulations." I don't think that that is true. Sure, there are natural monopolies brought about by increasing returns to scale, like with consumer software and large commercial aircraft. But, there are also industries with no real increasing returns to scale, like gas-stations and taxis. With those, the only way to get a monopoly is if the state actually steps in to create one.

>You can have competition between different workers cooperatives and companies owned by different governments.
why would they compete?

We don't have to do exactly what Yugoslavia did. Market socialism doesn't necessarily preclude Keynsian counter-cyclical fiscal policy or even a full-employment program.

Will result in inefficiencies as their is no profit motive to sufficiently encourage innovation or hard work. Talented people will devote their energies to other, likely criminal ventures as a way to boost their social status and get women (which is what making a lot of money is always motivated by). Extra profits given to them, even in a market, would be less than a free market. Lack of competition will slow innovation. Will eventually lead to stagnation and likely lead to implementation of quotas to make people produce enough, which will be cheated on, as is always the case.
>That's about all, peace out

There is a difference. I actually am calling it socialism. I am not Trojan Horsing socialism into your republic.

I'm sorry the communist experiment failed. The need for worker syndicates owning production is the future buddy.

What's the motivation to innovate? If the state owns all the industry there's no competition.

To find out whose version of the product people like the best. The way you figure out which methodology is the best is you run multiple methodologies side by side and compare the outcome, which in economics, translates into competition.

If you put half the effort into sorting yourself out as you do into dreaming up new ways to steal other people's shit you might just find some success in life.

Your statement is true. Its just not relevant.

The motive to innovate is that you will have multiple municipal governments and/or workers cooperatives all competing against each other for customers.

why would you want that?
what's thr motivation to find the best version?

Whoever finds the best version gets the most customers, and the most money to pay themselves and spend money on new sexy projects.

You'll quickly realize government is incompetent.

That implies competition, which is the opposite of what happens when everything is owned by a single entity (the got).

Been reading Mises.org lately?

Fake quote probably

It's three lines of text you spewed on an image board...doesn't matter what it couldn't possibly do anything but generate arguments