Cost of socialism vs. non-socialism

How to put this… some people advocate complete socialism, others do not want to pay for anybody else’s infrastructure, housing, health care, unemployment, etc., and still others (most?) prefer some middle ground.

The debate is, are there any convincing data on how much it indirectly costs one way or the other? Example: say all I care about is my own bottom line. It still might be cheaper in taxes to pay for universal health coverage than to absorb the costs created by large numbers of sick people who would not have been so sick if they had access to preventative medicine. Another example: maybe if I pay for a bunch of roads and rails and public transport, then I would save money because I would not need to own a car or at least not need to drive as much.

I think it’s a debate since there are a lot of ways to massage the numbers.

The question has been examined many, many times for health care, and the answer is quite clear that socialism is cheaper for everyone, by about a factor of two, than our system.

Some level of socialism is good, not only for the poor who benefit most directly, but for the well-to-do also, because it increases overall economic productivity.

Public schools produce good citizens…and good workers. A good health-care system maintains good workers. Public transit is how a lot of workers get to and from their jobs. They benefit and the bosses benefit.

The U.S. Social Security program is one of the best examples, even as ramshackle as it seems sometimes, of how some level of socialism benefits everyone. No argument against a national health care system has been put forward that would also work against Social Security. If the latter works, the former can certainly work also.

Latest data suggests people in the USA are starting to die younger.

Younger. It’s like slowly un-inventing medicine.

Another stat says life expectancy in the USA varies between counties by up to … 20 years.

Yeah, not months.

But it’s going to be okay, the Republicans have a plan!

Socialism isn’t “government doing stuff.”

Socialism is worker control of the means of production.

OK, it sounds like (at least for health care) there is a debate where one side is advocating everyone pay more money for the same or inferior thing. Because it’s good for private businesses? How is it quantified how everyone benefits more from that than from the alternative?

ETA: maybe “socialism” was the wrong terminology; feel free to change the title.

First thing to do is to stop being parochial - it’s not like 30 fully developed, industrialised, mature democracies around the world haven’t been perfecting a whole range of universal healthcare models for several decades.

Your examples illustrate the difficulties.

There is very little hard evidence that preventative medicine saves lives overall. One of the things used to sell Obamacare was that it would force people to buy insurance, they would have a primary physician, and then they would not use the emergency room as their PCP. It didn’t work - ER visits increased under Obamacare. And the famous promise that it would reduce the premiums of the average family by $2500 a year. That didn’t work either.

Your other example is similar - light rail and high speed rail is usually used less and costs more than the public planners say it will, and consumers also give greater weight to factors that the proponents of rail downplay, like convenience and transit time.

Socialism always sounds like it will work, which is why it gets tried so much.

The free market is more efficient in allocating limited resources than any other system. Socialism is run by governments, which have other priorities besides efficiency and the kind of hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis that is preferred by people with their own money at stake, instead of someone else’s.

Regards,
Shodan

Yes and no… There are looser and stricter definitions of words.

After all, “Democracy” means that everyone gathers in the plaza and discusses matters and then votes. Except not any more.

Today, “Socialism” is understood to mean things like Canada’s health care system. It may not be strictly correct, but, hey, some days linguistics is murder.

Actually, the argument is that the US public pays more per capita on health care than in other industrialised democratic countries, and yet does not provide health care for everyone, with poorer results than in countries with universal health care.

Other industrialised democratic countries pay less public money per capita, get universal health coverage, with better outcomes overall than in the US.

Be sure to tell your doctor that one before your next scheduled prostate exam. :rolleyes:

My, so MANY false and unsupportable statements of “fact” in one post.

  • the “free market” is NOT “more efficient in allocating limited resources.” All there is to the reality, is that limited resources end up going to people with more cash, whether it’s best for the people as a whole, or not.

One classic modern example: private enterprise did NOT build international trade to the extent and amount of wealth it shows today. That resulted from the SOCIALIST STYLE approach, of taxing everyone, and then having a central government (or a collection of them) build navies to destroy piracy, and make agreements to hold tariffs down.

  • The greater use of Emergency rooms(if it even happened) has NOT been shown to have been due to people with insurance going to them more. So that’s a simple lie.

  • in every case where true Free Market economics has been tried, the result was chaos and crime and high prices for everything. Because without regulation, there is only a profit incentive, and no cooperation or safety incentives. The fantasy version of capitalism that so-called Free Market advocates keep promoting, is always based on the ENTIRELY IMAGINED ASSUMPTION that all participants will be educated, AND moral, AND have the best interests of the entire society in mind.

ISTM that socialism might succeed if it was tried in a country that is already well off and prosperous to begin with, which can absorb the effects of it, but that trying it in a poor country might simply mean that it would never get off the ground.

“There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”

How very Marxist of you!

One thing to consider is that most taxation to fund socialist programs are progressive. The income tax is progressive, corporate tax is progressive, estate tax is progressive, etc.

So the end user will likely end up paying more in a private system since they will be fully responsible for their own part of the bill. That can be used as an argument against socialism by some people, but for the end user it will cost more because most of us are not and never will be rich.

Having said that, I really don’t know in what situations the public sector is better than the private, or situations where compulsory services are more expensive than voluntary ones. With health care, you can make a very good argument that mandatory health care with heavy government regulation is cheaper and better than private unregulated health care. Every rich country other than the US has cheaper health care than we do, and within the US the public health care systems are cheaper than the private ones.

There is also the fact that many public investments increase GDP, which increases per capita GDP. So I really don’t know, I’m not an economist. Maybe without public roads, public health or regulated utilities, per capita GDP in the US would only be $30,000 a year instead of 50k. So people may spend less, but they’d earn less and the % of their total income that is spend on compulsory vs private services would still be higher as a % despite being lower as a number.

In the military, I believe private contractors cost more than using soldiers to perform the same jobs.

I do know that some charities that invest in education and basic health care in Africa make claims like ‘every $1 invested in childhood education or public health results in $7 of economic activity’. I’m not sure how true that is, but these are things that would result in a pretty high ROI. Education and basic health care both offer a lot of improvement in human capital.

I know that there has never been so much as a single VALID comparison made between a pure capitalist economy and a pure socialist economy, because there has never been a pure capitalist or pure socialist economy.

More significant, I don’t think there has ever been a single VALID comparison between any of the actual partly capitalist societies and partly socialist societies that we DO have, because the task of making a VALID comparison between any two, is so complicated as to be functionally impossible.

Think about the details a little. Have you ever REALLY found out why ANYTHING costs whatever it does? It’s not as simple as the basic economic theorists describe: it isn’t a simple matter of adding up various costs of materials and labor and adding profit margin. Anyone who tells you it is, is either extremely ignorant of real life, or is purposely lying to get their way (or is purposely oversimplifying it all because you are a rank beginner at school, and need a cartoon to chew on first).

In a capitalist situation, something small, like maybe a light bulb, costs whatever it does for a TON more reasons than cost of materials and labor plus profit. Woops! You forgot the cost of keeping the factory going before and after the bulb was made. That’s got to be in the price too, if you want to have another bulb after this one burns out. And there’s the cost of locating new materials when the existing mines are tapped out. And there’s the real cost of keeping your underpaid workers available, including replacements for the future.

Switch over to the Socialist situation, and you can’t MAKE a one-to-one comparison, because everything is figured differently. The cost of labor is calculated differently, the cost of materials likewise, and the cost of managing it all as well, and so on and on.

Most people who want you to choose the capitalist model, will pretend that most of the real costs never existed on their end of things, even though they are included on the other list that they are using for their checklist.

And then there are the many what we could call “social assumptions.” The socialist version includes the cost of the entire lives of all the participants. The capitalist system assumes that the laborers spring into existence full grown and fully trained, and then disappear and add zero cost after they reach a certain age. In order to appear to be cheaper, the capitalist systems examined always pass all sorts of real costs on to other people or other generations.

Anyway. I hope you can see the point. I know the fanatic anti-socialists and the fanatic anti capitalists will purposely miss the point, but that’s always true. The point is, no one ever HAS made a true and valid comparison, because it’s so complicated, and more, because no one yet has actually WANTED to make a fair comparison.

Side note, just FYI: I am NOT a pro-socialist OR a pro-capitalist. If anything, I am a “use the system that works best for the application” person, just as the forefathers of the US were, and as 99% of the people who have run this country have always been (even when they didn’t realize they were).

Just think, after all: since inception, our armed forces have ALWAYS been run using SOCIALIST processes. Whenever capitalist processes were tried in the military, it went to crap, as rich people bought off their responsibilities, and promotions were based on bribes rather than military competence.

The mail system has always been mostly socialist. You pay what you pay so that EVERYONE can mail letters. Otherwise, sending your paycheck to you or your bank, would cost whatever it does to hire an armed man to travel from your bosses office to your bank and back.

It’s perhaps worth noting that Obamacare is about as conservative as you can make UHC without the name “UHC” being an utterly Orwellian bastardization. You can’t get further to the right and still ensure a basic standard of care for everyone. And, big shocker, it doesn’t work very well. It’s better than the alternative, and very few people would like to see a return to the days when you paid into health insurance for years, got cancer, and got informed that it was related to a pre-existing condition and therefore would not be covered, but it’s still a lot worse than single payer, or having a public option would be. To make the system better, you have to move further to the left. Nothing else does the job.

This seems like a very American perspective; here in Europe, intercity rail is extremely popular. In fact, here in Germany, we privaized ours. It works… But not as well as it did back when it was public! Since then it’s gotten substantially more expensive and less functional. Interesting, huh? Maybe the problem in the USA is something specific to the USA, like, say, politicians who will fight tooth and nail against anything they perceive as “socialism”?

Of course, missing from this analysis is a key problem with the free market: sometimes, hard-nosed cost-benefit analysis misses the public good completely and the bottom line is not the bottom line. For example, in medicine. You want a hard-nosed, bottom-line approach? Vaccines are a hell of a lot cheaper to produce and administer than treatment for millions of cases of measles. Everyone in the health care industry has a vested financial interest in not getting people vaccinated. And that’s not even a classic “tragedy of the commons” scenario, such as pollution. I bet those coal plants would be a heck of a lot cheaper if they didn’t have to invest in carbon capture technology.

Well, of course. When it comes to health and medical care, one is the sum total of a whole range of decisions resulting from the interaction of individual service providers, insurance companies and patients; the other is the sum total of a whole range of decisions resulting from the interaction of individual service providers, government and voters.

Either of those includes a multiplicity of variables. It comes down to a value judgement as to which combination of decision-makers is more or less likely to get closer to whatever is generally considered optimal results (however you define optimal). Experience suggests you are more likely to get tighter cost controls when governments regulate markets and have a set cycle of accountability to the voters and taxpayers, but to what extent will vary between countries and within countries over time.

Or in other words, this isn’t really capable of being decided on the figures.

With regards to the rail system, it is the population density: the majority of the USA would not be efficiently served with a rail system. Now, on the margins, a lot of the East Coast lands might be rail-friendly given governmental support, but are not currently due to American Exceptionalism, but the rest of America would be expensive or a money sink no matter who owned the system.