I can't believe I missed this little nugget of stupidity:
The example of national-socialism is even more ridiculous, because without external factors national-socialism wouldn't even have come to exist, let alone become the governing system in Germany. The admittedly impressive economic recovery Germany managed in the 1930s was fueled by the burgeoning military industry, which in turn was a result of expansionist policies directed against Germany's neighbors - in other words, "external factors".
If you want an example of a fully autarchic communist system at work, look no further than North Korea in the 1990s. Subsequent to the loss of Soviet fuel aid, North Korea was ravaged by a famine that claimed an estimated 3.5 million lives. Wow, their government sure did a great job supplying the people. Supplying them with death, that is.
In totalitarian systems governed by dogmatic ideologies the government has routinely made disastrous economic decisions that have resulted in famines, shortages, hyperinflations and mass emigrations, exacting an enormous toll in economic well-being and human lives.
Socialist planning is, and has always been, a recipe for disaster, and catastrophic decision making in communist countries has caused more deaths than both world wars combined. Only one economic "decision-maker" has ever proven itself to be consistently rational and effective at creating economic growth, and that is the invisible hand of the free market. Keeping in mind the inherent imperfection of the invisible hand, the role of the state in the economy should be restricted to two things: 1) intervention when the free market mechanisms fail, and 2) regulation to make sure these failures happen as rarely as possible.
Does the free market system guarantee prosperity and high standard of living for all? Not at all, other ingredients are needed as well, such as liberal democracy and the welfare state. I'll tell you what else it doesn't guarantee, though - it doesn't guarantee mass starvation and suffering of millions, which are the consistent net result of centralized planning, and the grim legacy of communism in those countries that were unfortunate enough to adopt it.
This is one of the most ignorant, delusional statements I have ever read. Seriously, pick up a history book, because this is just embarrassing. One of the principal reasons why communism failed is because it patently could not create enough commodities to supply its own people. Which is why communist nations suffered endemic famines which claimed millions of lives, and why they were afflicted by intermittent shortages of basic necessities. The only reason why Yugoslavia itself didn't starve is because it was reasonably open to the West, so it had open credit lines with western banks, as well as constant influx of foreign currency from emigres working abroad. Even with these advantages, shortages of things like fuel and coffee were endemic in Yugoslavia, as attested, for example, by the instatement of the even-odd policy for drivers in the 1980s.donperkan said:
The example of national-socialism is even more ridiculous, because without external factors national-socialism wouldn't even have come to exist, let alone become the governing system in Germany. The admittedly impressive economic recovery Germany managed in the 1930s was fueled by the burgeoning military industry, which in turn was a result of expansionist policies directed against Germany's neighbors - in other words, "external factors".
If you want an example of a fully autarchic communist system at work, look no further than North Korea in the 1990s. Subsequent to the loss of Soviet fuel aid, North Korea was ravaged by a famine that claimed an estimated 3.5 million lives. Wow, their government sure did a great job supplying the people. Supplying them with death, that is.
Sander already addressed this utterly idiotic claim, but you conveniently ignored his response, so let me try and give you a clue:
In totalitarian systems governed by dogmatic ideologies the government has routinely made disastrous economic decisions that have resulted in famines, shortages, hyperinflations and mass emigrations, exacting an enormous toll in economic well-being and human lives.
Socialist planning is, and has always been, a recipe for disaster, and catastrophic decision making in communist countries has caused more deaths than both world wars combined. Only one economic "decision-maker" has ever proven itself to be consistently rational and effective at creating economic growth, and that is the invisible hand of the free market. Keeping in mind the inherent imperfection of the invisible hand, the role of the state in the economy should be restricted to two things: 1) intervention when the free market mechanisms fail, and 2) regulation to make sure these failures happen as rarely as possible.
Does the free market system guarantee prosperity and high standard of living for all? Not at all, other ingredients are needed as well, such as liberal democracy and the welfare state. I'll tell you what else it doesn't guarantee, though - it doesn't guarantee mass starvation and suffering of millions, which are the consistent net result of centralized planning, and the grim legacy of communism in those countries that were unfortunate enough to adopt it.
. Something tells me that you were born in the 90's and have no idea what the bloody hell you are actually talking about.
