[Politics]How long until we eat the rich?

[Satinavian]

In this case the reward is indeed not for effort but rather risk and blocking of wealth you can no longer use for something else.

And that is wrong. It should not be his personal fortune that is at risk. And there should not be a reward proportional to the total investment for what is just an administrative decision.

People getting money for risking their health ? sure. People getting money for risking their wealth, treating "risking wealth" as some kind of service ? We should not have such a thing.

Is this meant to be ironic? I don't think North Korea is even remotely equal, while Kim Jong Un lives like a depraved billionaire millions are malnourished and there is a risk of famine. This idea communist societies were more equal is a myth caused by the destruction of the upper middle class. There was less wealth dispersion but there have always been rich elites and a vast majority of poor/lower middle class citizens. All that happened was the impoverishment of the higher middle class and the transfer of wealth from rich capitalists to rich party associates/leaders.

Well, no. In pretty much all the Warshaw pact the party officials had a pretty modest lifestyre. Sure, maybe they had access to a car or could go on a hunt or had a hollyday home, maybe other privileges like getting preferential treatment or not having to bother with shortages, but overall, living conditions were far more equal than everywhere in capitalism. And yes, we have statistics backing that up. And while Kim Jong Un indeed liveslike a billionaire that makes it still not more unequal than e.g. Dubai. And he is kind of an outlier. You won't find that in Cold-War Poland or Chechoslovakia or USSR or Cuba or Jugoslavia etc. Not even in Romania. The party elites had privileges everywhere but nothing that compaires even remotely to capitalis rich persons.

Are you honestly arguing for a system that has historically been proven to not work and never have worked any time it's been tried? How many time do we have to see communism and planned economies flounder and choke to death in their own blood before people will get the message through their thick skulls that it doesn't work? How can one argue that a system that destroyed the fourth largest lake in the world is somehow logical or rational?

I don't want it back. I was pretty clear about how it is inferior/less efficient in making investment desicions. I have lives through it and it was bad.

First we need the technology to replace the few good things of capitalism. Only then we should ditch it.

 

[McElroy]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Doctors Without Borders? More like Doctors Within Burgers! Amirite, lads?

Overpopulation is an easy question to solve: Go ahead, but we won't open the border if you come knocking.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Of course because the people who put themselves in harms way every day to save other's lives are part of the problem right? It is strange how when people see soldiers they say "Thank you for your service", but when they see a doctor they tell them something that is wrong with themselves or complain about some bill some other person sent them. Doctors put themselves at risk exposing themselves to everything under the sun just so they can help prevent other's suffering, both in peacetime and on the battlefield. Many do not realize that Doctors frequently come down with the very things they are trying to save others from. Part of my lungs are permanently damaged with no cure and cause me constant pain and lifelong medication after contracting a superbug that I was combatting so that others could live. So many doctors will tell you the same thing, that does not deter them from rushing in to see the next person coming in that needs help. The many Physicians I work with have spent their entire lives saving lives, risking their own lives and have spent their own time and money to fund other's people's treatments and medications, have built hospitals and worked relentlessly to try and find cures so that other's don't have to suffer needlessly.

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Doctors Without Borders? More like Doctors Within Burgers! Amirite, lads?

Overpopulation is an easy question to solve: Go ahead, but we won't open the border if you come knocking.

That is just it, Overpopulation is not even the biggest issue, in fact much larger populations are completely sustainable on earth with high standards of living. It is not a matter of there being too many people, it is a matter of too many people not putting back into the earth more than what they take. It is HOW they are choosing to live, their actions, the waste, the hoarding and unnecessary resource stripping. The reality is that the world has been under "bad management". Humans could choose to take care of the earth and can change their future for the better, they just have to act to do so and remove the "bad managers" from power and actually focus their efforts on doing so. People have to actually be mindful of their actions and make the necessary changes and be mindful of their actions. People have a choice, they can destroy the earth or they can build a paradise. They just need enough people want to do it badly enough to make it happen.

 

[Agema]

I used Huawei as an example as it's one of the most innovative and succesful Chinese companies that could only develop in a free market that is now as competitive(maybe even more so) as it's western contemporaries. Huawei is not to blame for misuse similarly as American ISPs are not responsible for PRISM or any kind of government mandated interception.

...but do you honestly believe Valve, Netflix etc would have access to China weren't it for a free market in the first place?

Huawei's early success was based on reverse engineering - probably in effect IP theft. It's also deeply unlikely that a company in 70s/80s China wasn't getting contracts through political connections every bit as much as quality. We can also bear in mind that China takes effectively no action over its companies stealing IP, and even extracts technological IP from Western companies that want to do business in China, some of which is inevitably passed on to Chinese companies. Also consider that a lot of Huawei's success was based on domestic business, and depended in large part on the discrimination against foreign companies that China imposes (the West can do this too, but to a much lower degree). Finally, that the Chinese government handsomely subsidises a lot of its corporations - it's been estimated Huawei has been able to undercut rivals by selling its mobile phones 20-30% cheaper because of subsidies.

So a lot less free market you think. China is a semi-managed economy, where successful companies often obtain vastly more state support than ones in the West.

 

[McElroy]

That is just it, Overpopulation is not even the biggest issue, in fact much larger populations are completely sustainable on earth with high standards of living. It is not a matter of there being too many people, it is a matter of too many people not putting back into the earth more than what they take. It is HOW they are choosing to live, their actions, the waste, the hoarding and unnecessary resource stripping. The reality is that the world has been under "bad management". Humans could choose to take care of the earth and can change their future for the better, they just have to act to do so and remove the "bad managers" from power and actually focus their efforts on doing so. People have to actually be mindful of their actions and make the necessary changes and be mindful of their actions. People have a choice, they can destroy the earth or they can build a paradise. They just need enough people want to do it badly enough to make it happen.

We will fall short of the ideal. Globally we will fall super short.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Right... I'm at a loss here, what did doctors do?

 

[Sonmi]

SNIP

Are you honestly arguing for a system that has historically been proven to not work and never have worked any time it's been tried? How many time do we have to see communism and planned economies flounder and choke to death in their own blood before people will get the message through their thick skulls that it doesn't work? How can one argue that a system that destroyed the fourth largest lake in the world is somehow logical or rational?

Last time I checked, Cuba still rules itself, with a better literacy rate, infant mortality rate, and per capita contribution to humanitarian causes than the States. All that success while being neighbour to the strongest nation in the world, which is constantly trying to sabotage it.

It really makes you think.

 

[RaikuFA]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Of course because the people who put themselves in harms way every day to save other's lives are part of the problem right? It is strange how when people see soldiers they say "Thank you for your service", but when they see a doctor they tell them something that is wrong with themselves or complain about some bill some other person sent them. Doctors put themselves at risk exposing themselves to everything under the sun just so they can help prevent other's suffering, both in peacetime and on the battlefield. Many do not realize that Doctors frequently come down with the very things they are trying to save others from. Part of my lungs are permanently damaged with no cure and cause me constant pain and lifelong medication after contracting a superbug that I was combatting so that others could live. So many doctors will tell you the same thing, that does not deter them from rushing in to see the next person coming in that needs help. The many Physicians I work with have spent their entire lives saving lives, risking their own lives and have spent their own time and money to fund other's people's treatments and medications, have built hospitals and worked relentlessly to try and find cures so that other's don't have to suffer needlessly.

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Doctors Without Borders? More like Doctors Within Burgers! Amirite, lads?

Overpopulation is an easy question to solve: Go ahead, but we won't open the border if you come knocking.

That is just it, Overpopulation is not even the biggest issue, in fact much larger populations are completely sustainable on earth with high standards of living. It is not a matter of there being too many people, it is a matter of too many people not putting back into the earth more than what they take. It is HOW they are choosing to live, their actions, the waste, the hoarding and unnecessary resource stripping. The reality is that the world has been under "bad management". Humans could choose to take care of the earth and can change their future for the better, they just have to act to do so and remove the "bad managers" from power and actually focus their efforts on doing so. People have to actually be mindful of their actions and make the necessary changes and be mindful of their actions. People have a choice, they can destroy the earth or they can build a paradise. They just need enough people want to do it badly enough to make it happen.

The same doctors will make you take medicine you don?t need just to add another digit to their paycheck? The same ones that made my father take opioids for over 30 years even after he told them he cannot get the positive effects and they were destroying his body to the point that he tried to kill himself? The same con artists that think me vomiting and feeling my heartbeat throughout my whole body is ?just allergies?? These people are just poison peddlers that need to be removed from the world and no amount of #notalldoctors will redeem them.

Also add teachers to that list. They?re just glorified babysitters that abuse children.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I like to use the analogy of a garden to describe capitalism. Some gardens can do well with minimal oversight, but that tends to be under very narrow circumstances that are unique to the time and place (ex. Desert Gardens/Hong Kong). Most gardens require substantial maintenance and observation to insure that they are not overgrown or killing off themselves. Sometimes that's giving it the proper food and nutrients to insure some smaller ones grow, other times it's pruning the larger ones and pulling up weeds to make sure they don't choke out the rest of them and prevent other plants from growing, and occasionally removing dead or rotten plants so that something can grow in their place. The plants cannot do this themselves, so it is up to the gardener (i.e. the government) to do it themselves.

I think that's a pretty good description.

I feel that a lot of capitalism has b tyecome extremely ideological rather than pragmatic. There's this huge drive to free markets, deregulation and non-interference on the assumption it must be the best thing, without really identifying whether it truly is or not. In particular, I feel ideological capitalism seems to take the stance that the point of society is to enact capitalism, not that capitalism is to be enacted for the benefit of society. A lot of these pour over narrow and reductionist measures of economic success (e.g. GDP growth), and seem to be blind to forms of rot developing elsewhere.

Indeed.
One of the reasons why I was cured from "high school libertarianism", i suppose. Good chunk of those enamored with hard laissez-faire approach, like to sell themselves as pragmatists, yet talk about the "Invisible hand" like it's an actual entity, not merely an useful description.
This borderline zealotic approach, on top of being annoying, torpedoes even the discussion about necessary changes.

 

[McElroy]

The same doctors will make you take medicine you don?t need just to add another digit to their paycheck? The same ones that made my father take opioids for over 30 years even after he told them he cannot get the positive effects and they were destroying his body to the point that he tried to kill himself? The same con artists that think me vomiting and feeling my heartbeat throughout my whole body is "just allergies"? These people are just poison peddlers that need to be removed from the world and no amount of #notalldoctors will redeem them.

Also add teachers to that list. They're just glorified babysitters that abuse children.

While my initial reply to you was in jest, I won't sympathize with you here.

However, it is wrong that you and your dad have had to suffer. There is little solace in claiming yours was an outlier or just a mistake or a compounded error, but I hope that despite your terrible experience most people that seek help actually get it. You've rightfully dug into a hostile pit, but I also hope you can climb out of it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Of course because the people who put themselves in harms way every day to save other's lives are part of the problem right? It is strange how when people see soldiers they say "Thank you for your service", but when they see a doctor they tell them something that is wrong with themselves or complain about some bill some other person sent them. Doctors put themselves at risk exposing themselves to everything under the sun just so they can help prevent other's suffering, both in peacetime and on the battlefield. Many do not realize that Doctors frequently come down with the very things they are trying to save others from. Part of my lungs are permanently damaged with no cure and cause me constant pain and lifelong medication after contracting a superbug that I was combatting so that others could live. So many doctors will tell you the same thing, that does not deter them from rushing in to see the next person coming in that needs help. The many Physicians I work with have spent their entire lives saving lives, risking their own lives and have spent their own time and money to fund other's people's treatments and medications, have built hospitals and worked relentlessly to try and find cures so that other's don't have to suffer needlessly.

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Doctors Without Borders? More like Doctors Within Burgers! Amirite, lads?

Overpopulation is an easy question to solve: Go ahead, but we won't open the border if you come knocking.

That is just it, Overpopulation is not even the biggest issue, in fact much larger populations are completely sustainable on earth with high standards of living. It is not a matter of there being too many people, it is a matter of too many people not putting back into the earth more than what they take. It is HOW they are choosing to live, their actions, the waste, the hoarding and unnecessary resource stripping. The reality is that the world has been under "bad management". Humans could choose to take care of the earth and can change their future for the better, they just have to act to do so and remove the "bad managers" from power and actually focus their efforts on doing so. People have to actually be mindful of their actions and make the necessary changes and be mindful of their actions. People have a choice, they can destroy the earth or they can build a paradise. They just need enough people want to do it badly enough to make it happen.

The same doctors will make you take medicine you don?t need just to add another digit to their paycheck? The same ones that made my father take opioids for over 30 years even after he told them he cannot get the positive effects and they were destroying his body to the point that he tried to kill himself? The same con artists that think me vomiting and feeling my heartbeat throughout my whole body is ?just allergies?? These people are just poison peddlers that need to be removed from the world and no amount of #notalldoctors will redeem them.

Also add teachers to that list. They?re just glorified babysitters that abuse children.

No, " not the same doctors", it sounds like you had a bad doctor. However, you do not blame all doctors for the actions of the few. There are good and bad people in all fields and careers known to humans, that does not mean you blame all fields an careers for the actions of the few. You have great doctors, great teachers, great scientists.. there are a lot more good people in these fields than there are bad. Yes you can have bad doctors and bad teaches, that does not mean that the majority of them are. Most doctors put their life on the line to save others. the actions of the few does not change that.

 

[RaikuFA]

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Of course because the people who put themselves in harms way every day to save other's lives are part of the problem right? It is strange how when people see soldiers they say "Thank you for your service", but when they see a doctor they tell them something that is wrong with themselves or complain about some bill some other person sent them. Doctors put themselves at risk exposing themselves to everything under the sun just so they can help prevent other's suffering, both in peacetime and on the battlefield. Many do not realize that Doctors frequently come down with the very things they are trying to save others from. Part of my lungs are permanently damaged with no cure and cause me constant pain and lifelong medication after contracting a superbug that I was combatting so that others could live. So many doctors will tell you the same thing, that does not deter them from rushing in to see the next person coming in that needs help. The many Physicians I work with have spent their entire lives saving lives, risking their own lives and have spent their own time and money to fund other's people's treatments and medications, have built hospitals and worked relentlessly to try and find cures so that other's don't have to suffer needlessly.

Only if we can add doctors and politicians to that list.

Doctors Without Borders? More like Doctors Within Burgers! Amirite, lads?

Overpopulation is an easy question to solve: Go ahead, but we won't open the border if you come knocking.

That is just it, Overpopulation is not even the biggest issue, in fact much larger populations are completely sustainable on earth with high standards of living. It is not a matter of there being too many people, it is a matter of too many people not putting back into the earth more than what they take. It is HOW they are choosing to live, their actions, the waste, the hoarding and unnecessary resource stripping. The reality is that the world has been under "bad management". Humans could choose to take care of the earth and can change their future for the better, they just have to act to do so and remove the "bad managers" from power and actually focus their efforts on doing so. People have to actually be mindful of their actions and make the necessary changes and be mindful of their actions. People have a choice, they can destroy the earth or they can build a paradise. They just need enough people want to do it badly enough to make it happen.

The same doctors will make you take medicine you don?t need just to add another digit to their paycheck? The same ones that made my father take opioids for over 30 years even after he told them he cannot get the positive effects and they were destroying his body to the point that he tried to kill himself? The same con artists that think me vomiting and feeling my heartbeat throughout my whole body is ?just allergies?? These people are just poison peddlers that need to be removed from the world and no amount of #notalldoctors will redeem them.

Also add teachers to that list. They?re just glorified babysitters that abuse children.

No, " not the same doctors", it sounds like you had a bad doctor. However, you do not blame all doctors for the actions of the few. There are good and bad people in all fields and careers known to humans, that does not mean you blame all fields an careers for the actions of the few. You have great doctors, great teachers, great scientists.. there are a lot more good people in these fields than there are bad. Yes you can have bad doctors and bad teaches, that does not mean that the majority of them are. Most doctors put their life on the line to save others. the actions of the few does not change that.

The thing is, that?s just from this year. I can bring up the doctor that sued my mom over her having a heart attack, telling her they take her insurance then when the bill came all of a sudden they don?t take her insurance. Or the one who botched my dads spinal surgery because he complained about having to wait hours past his appointment time. Or my child psychologist who I told about being molested shrugged it off saying ?boys can?t be molested?. Or my child therapist telling me that it was my own fault for getting beat up by other kids because I was so different. I can keep going on. I?ve never met a doctor who didn?t go by profit over patients.

 

[RaikuFA]

The same doctors will make you take medicine you don?t need just to add another digit to their paycheck? The same ones that made my father take opioids for over 30 years even after he told them he cannot get the positive effects and they were destroying his body to the point that he tried to kill himself? The same con artists that think me vomiting and feeling my heartbeat throughout my whole body is "just allergies"? These people are just poison peddlers that need to be removed from the world and no amount of #notalldoctors will redeem them.

Also add teachers to that list. They're just glorified babysitters that abuse children.

While my initial reply to you was in jest, I won't sympathize with you here.
However, it is wrong that you and your dad have had to suffer. There is little solace in claiming yours was an outlier or just a mistake or a compounded error, but I hope that despite your terrible experience most people that seek help actually get it. You've rightfully dug into a hostile pit, but I also hope you can climb out of it.

That?s ok. I?ve long give up on people being good and kind. If there?s anything to take from my experiences it?s dont help others because they?d never do the same for others if the roles were reversed.

 

[Marik2]

 

[generals3]

People getting money for risking their health ? sure. People getting money for risking their wealth, treating "risking wealth" as some kind of service ? We should not have such a thing.

Why not? Wealth is health, holidays, housing, food, leasure,... Would you risk your savings in a risky investment if it were not rewarded?

Well, no. In pretty much all the Warshaw pact the party officials had a pretty modest lifestyre. Sure, maybe they had access to a car or could go on a hunt or had a hollyday home, maybe other privileges like getting preferential treatment or not having to bother with shortages, but overall, living conditions were far more equal than everywhere in capitalism. And yes, we have statistics backing that up. And while Kim Jong Un indeed liveslike a billionaire that makes it still not more unequal than e.g. Dubai. And he is kind of an outlier. You won't find that in Cold-War Poland or Chechoslovakia or USSR or Cuba or Jugoslavia etc. Not even in Romania. The party elites had privileges everywhere but nothing that compaires even remotely to capitalis rich persons.

On numeric metrics not taking into account the concept of decreasing utility of wealth, sure but that doesn't take into account the reality behind those numbers. To take North Korea as a prime example, let's say that the top 1% own "only 1000x" (on avg per person) more than the bottom 10% (pp) does that make it less unequal than a country like the US where it is likely a much higher factor? Knowing that in North Korea being part of the bottom 10% means being malnourished and at a risk of dying due to famine while in the US that might mean having access to social welfare, not allowed any luxury and watching every penny you spend but definitely not dying due to a lack of access to food, is the latter more "unequal"? Let's not forget that for poor people a dollar is worth a lot more than for a rich person. So when you increase the wealth of both by 1$ you actually drastically reduce true inequality, heck even if it's 1$ vs 10$.

And that was the general problem with the planned economies, due to a lack of wealth generation and high spending in the military lower social classes were worse off. But yes that also meant less to redistribute to the privileged political classes. But I'd rather have a middle class income in a country with wealthy people being as wealthy as Jef Bezos than poor in a country with the wealthy being on Trump level. Even if on a purely numeric scale the latter might be considered more unequal.

Now off course if you assume that a planned economy would now generate more economic output and the redistribution curve would remain similar to those in the ex USSR it might make sense. But why believe that? Why believe these regimes would have spent more than they needed on the lower classes than the minimum to keep them from revolting? Again, the humans leading and potentially perverting a planned economy belong to the same species as those who are "leading" and perverting the capitalist system. The only difference is that you'd be concentrating even more power into a couple of hands.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Are you honestly arguing for a system that has historically been proven to not work and never have worked any time it's been tried? How many time do we have to see communism and planned economies flounder and choke to death in their own blood before people will get the message through their thick skulls that it doesn't work? How can one argue that a system that destroyed the fourth largest lake in the world is somehow logical or rational?

As opposed to Capitalism which is on its way to destroying the entire planet? We should not make the mistake of confounding Plan Economy with Communism. The latter has plenty of blood on its hands, but Plan Economies are somewhat sustainable if much more rigid then Free Market economies. The harsh truth is that we need to start rationing our necessities and cutting back on our luxuries if we want to have a chance in hell of preserving the current ecosystem on Earth. Capitalism simply can't do that, because it would, literally, destroy the very foundation upon which capitalism rests. Plan economies are, however, very suited for rationing and lean living, simply because the goal is not to make profit by constantly providing more product, but to make as much product as mandated.

Realistically, neither system is a good fit for the challenges facing mankind in the coming decades, but I'd rather take the system that won't race us to our doom over the one which is structurally incapable of slowing down production.

This assumes that any government knows what needs to be done or that a government can even stop people from doing things. Prohibition was an attempt by the US government to prevent people from drinking and it failed miserably because so many people love drinking that all it did was make people do it in private and look the other way when they saw someone else do it. Even worse, it gave huge strength to crime because those criminals could provide something that the government was preventing people from doing lawfully.

The only way to enforce a planned economy is punishment that is harsh enough to get people to stop doing things which leads to the same kind of system that they got in Soviet Russia. I am not arguing that Capitalism doesn't have its problems but planned economies fail to do anything at all. The hoi polloi are ultimately what decide how things turn out, neither the left nor the right speak for them, both sides try to lead them along by appealing to the base desires of those masses, if a political machine can't get them to follow them willingly then the only way is to force them to and when a government starts having to force people to do things, even if for the right reasons and with the best of intentions, all it takes is for one person with an ulterior motive to make that system work only for their own desires.

I don't want it back. I was pretty clear about how it is inferior/less efficient in making investment desicions. I have lives through it and it was bad.

First we need the technology to replace the few good things of capitalism. Only then we should ditch it.

Then we seem to be in accord.

 

[Satinavian]

Why not? Wealth is health, holidays, housing, food, leasure,... Would you risk your savings in a risky investment if it were not rewarded?

I would gladly give up my ability to generate more wealth by using my savings if that meant no one could and people only got what they earned via labor and social programs. I am perfectly willing to actually work for my money and spend accordingly. And give a big chunk of what i earn to be sistributed to those that can't sustain themself.

There is nothing about being rewarded for investment that i would ever miss. Savings are savings. They don't need to grow. If i can get as much purchasing power out as i put in it is fine.

On numeric metrics not taking into account the concept of decreasing utility of wealth, sure but that doesn't take into account the reality behind those numbers. To take North Korea as a prime example, let's say that the top 1% own "only 1000x" (on avg per person) more than the bottom 10% (pp) does that make it less unequal than a country like the US where it is likely a much higher factor?

Yes, of course it makes it more unequal. Equality is how you fare in relation to other members of your society. It is absolutely not about average quality of life.

And that was the general problem with the planned economies, due to a lack of wealth generation and high spending in the military lower social classes were worse off. But yes that also meant less to redistribute to the privileged political classes.

Lack of wealth generation was a problem. That is why the average standard of living was lower. So much so that not even the far more equal distribution of wealth could fully counter it.

As for military spending, that has nothing to do with planned economies.

 

[Agema]

On numeric metrics not taking into account the concept of decreasing utility of wealth, sure but that doesn't take into account the reality behind those numbers. To take North Korea as a prime example, let's say that the top 1% own "only 1000x" (on avg per person) more than the bottom 10% (pp) does that make it less unequal than a country like the US where it is likely a much higher factor? Knowing that in North Korea being part of the bottom 10% means being malnourished and at a risk of dying due to famine while in the US that might mean having access to social welfare, not allowed any luxury and watching every penny you spend but definitely not dying due to a lack of access to food, is the latter more "unequal"? Let's not forget that for poor people a dollar is worth a lot more than for a rich person. So when you increase the wealth of both by 1$ you actually drastically reduce true inequality, heck even if it's 1$ vs 10$.

And that was the general problem with the planned economies, due to a lack of wealth generation and high spending in the military lower social classes were worse off. But yes that also meant less to redistribute to the privileged political classes. But I'd rather have a middle class income in a country with wealthy people being as wealthy as Jef Bezos than poor in a country with the wealthy being on Trump level. Even if on a purely numeric scale the latter might be considered more unequal.

Now off course if you assume that a planned economy would now generate more economic output and the redistribution curve would remain similar to those in the ex USSR it might make sense. But why believe that? Why believe these regimes would have spent more than they needed on the lower classes than the minimum to keep them from revolting? Again, the humans leading and potentially perverting a planned economy belong to the same species as those who are "leading" and perverting the capitalist system. The only difference is that you'd be concentrating even more power into a couple of hands.

At peak, the USSR had a GDP/capita about about 50% of Western Europe ~1970 (although this declined as it stagnated in the 70s-80s). Contextually, we also might note that before the Bolshevik revolution, Russia had GDP/capita about 35% of the Western Europe: hence that to the 1970s, there really was a credible belief, even fear, that Communism was economically competitive. It's only towards the end of the 70s with stagnation it became clear the USSR was struggling.

Obviously, Soviets were still much poorer than Westerners throughout, but they were comparable to the likes of Spain, Portugal and Greece. Planning mostly worked up until the point the economy became too advanced and complex for the planners to cope ~1970. In absolute terms, Communism significantly improved its citizens' living standards for a long time. It still was improving living standards (albeit at a slow rate) post-1970: just poorly relative to the capitalist West, and had become particularly weak at meeting household desires (cars, white goods, etc.), leading to dissatisfaction. They met the basics pretty well, however: the Soviet system really was actually quite well focused in intent if not always practice at delivering for the masses rather than the elites. Soviet corruption was not gouging by the elites, but bureaucratic fiddling: failing to meet targets led to to falsification of data, which further compounded the difficulties of centralised planning. Soviet economic elites pretty much didn't exist: high ranking jobs came with job perks, but personal income and wealth was more around the senior professional / mid-upper management level.

 

[generals3]

I would gladly give up my ability to generate more wealth by using my savings if that meant no one could and people only got what they earned via labor and social programs. I am perfectly willing to actually work for my money and spend accordingly. And give a big chunk of what i earn to be sistributed to those that can't sustain themself.

There is nothing about being rewarded for investment that i would ever miss. Savings are savings. They don't need to grow. If i can get as much purchasing power out as i put in it is fine.

And the last phrase is key, as investments are risky you do not necessarily get as much purchasing power out of it. In essence you're contradicting yourself, on one hand you deem it innatural for risk to be rewarded but deem it normal for your savings to be risk free.

Yes, of course it makes it more unequal. Equality is how you fare in relation to other members of your society. It is absolutely not about average quality of life.

Yes and how you fare doesn't depend on the nominal amount of $ you have but on the needs and desires you can accomodate with the wealth you have. Whether someone owns 1 or 2 billion $ usually doesn't impact his ability to meet his necessities or desires and the utility of each additional desire is tiny. 1000$ or 2000$ is a totally different story.

Lack of wealth generation was a problem. That is why the average standard of living was lower. So much so that not even the far more equal distribution of wealth could fully counter it.

As for military spending, that has nothing to do with planned economies.

The latter doesn't necessarily come hand in hand with planned economies but it does in part explain why the political elites had less wealth to distribute to themselves.

And again, why would anyone believe a group of people who are in charge of the legislative power AND the entire economy would end up abusing it less than people who merely partially owns means of production? All the scandals we have had here in Belgium with regards to the para-public sector and politicians filling their pockets with the taxpayer's money has shown they can't be trusted any more than "capitalists". Heck the absurdity is even bigger, because now they're supposed to change the laws and rules to regulate themselves... And as someone who doesn't just like to believe what they tell us and who looked deeper into the new rules I have noticed they have done nothing that will actually help solve this issue and it's mostly useless measures with minimal impact which they sell as "solid governance".

People like to complain about lobbies who influence politicians to take measures in their favor. Well now in a planned economy politicians and lobbyists have become one, great...

 

[Satinavian]

And the last phrase is key, as investments are risky you do not necessarily get as much purchasing power out of it. In essence you're contradicting yourself, on one hand you deem it innatural for risk to be rewarded but deem it normal for your savings to be risk free.

There is nothing contradictory about wanting no risk and no reward for anyones savings.

And again, why would anyone believe a group of people who are in charge of the legislative power AND the entire economy would end up abusing it less than people who merely partially owns means of production?

Basically yes. There are a couple of differences :

- In capitalism the people owning the means of production thing they deserve income from it and the public approves, that they are justified to take a cut and the public is ok with that. In communism you get at best something like what would be a fond manager or an administrator in capitalism. There is no expectation of deserving a lot of money for that and people would not approve of taking more.

- In communism money is less relevant. It doesn't get you social status to be rich. That leads to people persuing wealth for wealths sake far less.

- Pretty much every way to enrich yourself significantly beyond a normal person would be illegal. Showing huge wealth would be like showing you have stolen public property and diverted funds because there would not have been an existing legal, socially accepted way to get there.

You will find lots of power abuse in communism. But most of that was not about enriching the elite. Which was pretty content to live a relatively modest life for the most part.