Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The funniest thing about fear of socialism is that while it afflicts a lot of people on the right, the vast majority of those fear-stricken conservotards would stand to benefit if wealth were more evenly distributed. In fact, if existing wealth in the US were distributed totally evenly, only about 3% would lose personal net worth while 96% would gain. Yet the vast majority of the 96% have been successfully brainwashed by The Few into believing that socialism means they have to give up their 1994 Chrysler K Car, or let some "poor" person use it.

Welfare isn't Socialism. No matter how many people the social safety net might benefit, it has nothing to do with Socialism.

 

[ZiprHead]

The funniest thing about fear of socialism is that while it afflicts a lot of people on the right, the vast majority of those fear-stricken conservotards would stand to benefit if wealth were more evenly distributed. In fact, if existing wealth in the US were distributed totally evenly, only about 3% would lose personal net worth while 96% would gain. Yet the vast majority of the 96% have been successfully brainwashed by The Few into believing that socialism means they have to give up their 1994 Chrysler K Car, or let some "poor" person use it.

Welfare isn't Socialism. No matter how many people the social safety net might benefit, it has nothing to do with Socialism.

I think socialism was a poor choice of words for the system you refer to. That's, imho, a part of the reason for the confusion over the term.

 

[Elixir]

The funniest thing about fear of socialism is that while it afflicts a lot of people on the right, the vast majority of those fear-stricken conservotards would stand to benefit if wealth were more evenly distributed. In fact, if existing wealth in the US were distributed totally evenly, only about 3% would lose personal net worth while 96% would gain. Yet the vast majority of the 96% have been successfully brainwashed by The Few into believing that socialism means they have to give up their 1994 Chrysler K Car, or let some "poor" person use it.

Welfare isn't Socialism. No matter how many people the social safety net might benefit, it has nothing to do with Socialism.

I think socialism was a poor choice of words for the system you refer to. That's, imho, a part of the reason for the confusion over the term.

Doesn't matter how it is definied - socialism is BAAAAD. Just ask any conservotard.
Jason appears to confuse welfare with even distribution of wealth, but that's irrelevant to the reason socialism is BAAAAD.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think socialism was a poor choice of words for the system you refer to. That's, imho, a part of the reason for the confusion over the term.

Doesn't matter how it is definied - socialism is BAAAAD. Just ask any conservotard.
Jason appears to confuse welfare with even distribution of wealth, but that's irrelevant to the reason socialism is BAAAAD.

Even if it is good, it is still not the same thing as wealth redistribution.

 

[bilby]

Wealth redistribution is the primary function of a modern developed world government.

It's the means by which the money is caused to circulate, when it would otherwise pool in a few places, rendering it useless.

Money is a signal - a universal, multipurpose Kanban - that tells an economy what it needs to do. If the signals all say "provide for Warren Buffet" and none say "provide for Joe Lunchpail", then the system will break down, and the large numbers of Joe Lunchpails will stop using the economy to provide for their needs, and use other means - such as theft and robbery; or will develop their own economies (black markets); or more likely, a combination of all three.

Ideology has fuck all to do with it - it's best for everyone (including the wealthy) for the government to take some of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The only questions are how much of this to do to get the optimum results for everyone, and the details of the tax structure and benefits structure that are employed.

Of course, the big problem is that people don't treat money as a signal; they rather foolishly regard it as property - leading to the erroneous conflation of taxes with theft.

But then, I never said people were very clever.

 

[arkirk]

The funniest thing about fear of socialism is that while it afflicts a lot of people on the right, the vast majority of those fear-stricken conservotards would stand to benefit if wealth were more evenly distributed. In fact, if existing wealth in the US were distributed totally evenly, only about 3% would lose personal net worth while 96% would gain. Yet the vast majority of the 96% have been successfully brainwashed by The Few into believing that socialism means they have to give up their 1994 Chrysler K Car, or let some "poor" person use it.

Welfare isn't Socialism. No matter how many people the social safety net might benefit, it has nothing to do with Socialism.

There you go again, Jason. Your statement indicates you don't have the slightest idea what socialism is or could be. The reason you can't consider it is that you are afraid. You don't need that old 1994 Chrysler K Car and can do without it. Give us a break and give up your fearful rants against socialism. Or are you one of the 3%?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The funniest thing about fear of socialism is that while it afflicts a lot of people on the right, the vast majority of those fear-stricken conservotards would stand to benefit if wealth were more evenly distributed. In fact, if existing wealth in the US were distributed totally evenly, only about 3% would lose personal net worth while 96% would gain. Yet the vast majority of the 96% have been successfully brainwashed by The Few into believing that socialism means they have to give up their 1994 Chrysler K Car, or let some "poor" person use it.

Welfare isn't Socialism. No matter how many people the social safety net might benefit, it has nothing to do with Socialism.

There you go again, Jason. Your statement indicates you don't have the slightest idea what socialism is or could be.

Except that is what it is.

The reason you can't consider it is that you are afraid.

Idiotic Ad Hom and mindreading.

Give us a break and give up your fearful rants against socialism.

There you have it people. Reading the actual definition is a fearful rant.

Is there some reason you want Socialism to remain undefined?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don2, I know you're upset, but down-repping me for saying that wealth redistribution isn't socialism won't magically turn it into socialism.

 

[JohnG]

Wealth redistribution is the primary function of a modern developed world government.

It's the means by which the money is caused to circulate, when it would otherwise pool in a few places, rendering it useless.

Money is a signal - a universal, multipurpose Kanban - that tells an economy what it needs to do. If the signals all say "provide for Warren Buffet" and none say "provide for Joe Lunchpail", then the system will break down, and the large numbers of Joe Lunchpails will stop using the economy to provide for their needs, and use other means - such as theft and robbery; or will develop their own economies (black markets); or more likely, a combination of all three.

Ideology has fuck all to do with it - it's best for everyone (including the wealthy) for the government to take some of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The only questions are how much of this to do to get the optimum results for everyone, and the details of the tax structure and benefits structure that are employed.

Of course, the big problem is that people don't treat money as a signal; they rather foolishly regard it as property - leading to the erroneous conflation of taxes with theft.

But then, I never said people were very clever.

Can you explain "money as a signal" - do you mean as a way to track wealth?

 

[bilby]

Wealth redistribution is the primary function of a modern developed world government.

It's the means by which the money is caused to circulate, when it would otherwise pool in a few places, rendering it useless.

Money is a signal - a universal, multipurpose Kanban - that tells an economy what it needs to do. If the signals all say "provide for Warren Buffet" and none say "provide for Joe Lunchpail", then the system will break down, and the large numbers of Joe Lunchpails will stop using the economy to provide for their needs, and use other means - such as theft and robbery; or will develop their own economies (black markets); or more likely, a combination of all three.

Ideology has fuck all to do with it - it's best for everyone (including the wealthy) for the government to take some of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The only questions are how much of this to do to get the optimum results for everyone, and the details of the tax structure and benefits structure that are employed.

Of course, the big problem is that people don't treat money as a signal; they rather foolishly regard it as property - leading to the erroneous conflation of taxes with theft.

But then, I never said people were very clever.

Can you explain "money as a signal" - do you mean as a way to track wealth?

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

 

[JohnG]

Wealth redistribution is the primary function of a modern developed world government.

It's the means by which the money is caused to circulate, when it would otherwise pool in a few places, rendering it useless.

Money is a signal - a universal, multipurpose Kanban - that tells an economy what it needs to do. If the signals all say "provide for Warren Buffet" and none say "provide for Joe Lunchpail", then the system will break down, and the large numbers of Joe Lunchpails will stop using the economy to provide for their needs, and use other means - such as theft and robbery; or will develop their own economies (black markets); or more likely, a combination of all three.

Ideology has fuck all to do with it - it's best for everyone (including the wealthy) for the government to take some of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The only questions are how much of this to do to get the optimum results for everyone, and the details of the tax structure and benefits structure that are employed.

Of course, the big problem is that people don't treat money as a signal; they rather foolishly regard it as property - leading to the erroneous conflation of taxes with theft.

But then, I never said people were very clever.

Can you explain "money as a signal" - do you mean as a way to track wealth?

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

 

[bilby]

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

Advertising and marketing are parasitic on an economy. They distort the signal and as a result needless things are made and wasted.

But advertising isn't as bad as central planning at screwing up an economy. It should nevertheless be discouraged.

And continual growth is not required. But it is desirable - growth means more of everything for everyone. Unless wealth isn't sufficiently well redistributed, in which case it means more of everything for the rich.

 

[JohnG]

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

Advertising and marketing are parasitic on an economy. They distort the signal and as a result needless things are made and wasted.

But advertising isn't as bad as central planning at screwing up an economy. It should nevertheless be discouraged.

And continual growth is not required. But it is desirable - growth means more of everything for everyone. Unless wealth isn't sufficiently well redistributed, in which case it means more of everything for the rich.

What is it about central planning that screws up an economy? Is it a problem on the labour end of things? I could see that.

Marketing seems intrinsic to a capitalist society. Wherever there's competition there's gonna be cheating/lying of one kind or another. My impression of pure libertarianism is just tribalism on a macro level, and I don't see us evolving past being animals as long as that kind of "dog-eat-dog" mentality rules the day.

 

[bilby]

Advertising and marketing are parasitic on an economy. They distort the signal and as a result needless things are made and wasted.

But advertising isn't as bad as central planning at screwing up an economy. It should nevertheless be discouraged.

And continual growth is not required. But it is desirable - growth means more of everything for everyone. Unless wealth isn't sufficiently well redistributed, in which case it means more of everything for the rich.

What is it about central planning that screws up an economy? Is it a problem on the labour end of things? I could see that.

The problem with central planning is that it's computationally impossible.

Like computer models of the weather, it simply cannot ever work for more than very short timescales; The system being modelled is chaotic, so you cannot have a good enough knowledge of current conditions to calculate future conditions. The best you can do is a short term forecast, and even that only works out sometimes.

Marketing seems intrinsic to a capitalist society. Wherever there's competition there's gonna be cheating/lying of one kind or another. My impression of pure libertarianism is just tribalism on a macro level, and I don't see us evolving past being animals as long as that kind of "dog-eat-dog" mentality rules the day.

The strength of the money driven economy is that it tends to be fairly stable - it can still work despite significant disruption. (A centrally planned economy is an example of unstable equilibrium; disruptions in such economies tend to multiply, because the response to the unexpected is always and inevitably too slow. Interestingly, national disasters and total war can be managed effectively by central planning, because in those extreme cases, all production is subordinate to a single nationwide goal. But in peacetime, the economy has almost as many objectives as it has participants. You can't plan for that).

A money driven economy need not be capitalism, and capitalism isn't the most effective or efficient form for money driven economies. Mixed economies, with some capital driven elements, and some government run elements, are generally best. Note that government run elements can still be responsive to monetary signals; They need not imply central planning. The government can say "we propose to build a freeway from A to B, because there is expensive congestion developing at C. Who will do that for us at the lowest price?". The decisions are driven by monetary signals; The project is paid for with new money created by the government, and if the infrastructure doesn't result in sufficient new growth to prevent that money creation from causing inflation, then the difference can be extracted from the economy as taxes.

Natural monopolies and the provision of infrastructure are generally best run by government, with profit motive secondary to social benefit. In fields with robust competition and suitable regulations to prevent the exploiting of externalities, profit motive generally gets optimum outcomes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

The overproduction is far worse in command economies. Russia produced great piles of goods that were just left outside because some other factory wasn't doing their part of the job and the result wasn't a useable product.

Or look at the ghost cities of China.

And just because you didn't know you needed it doesn't mean it's of no value. Sometimes it's simply that you didn't realize there was a better answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Advertising and marketing are parasitic on an economy. They distort the signal and as a result needless things are made and wasted.

But advertising isn't as bad as central planning at screwing up an economy. It should nevertheless be discouraged.

And continual growth is not required. But it is desirable - growth means more of everything for everyone. Unless wealth isn't sufficiently well redistributed, in which case it means more of everything for the rich.

What is it about central planning that screws up an economy? Is it a problem on the labour end of things? I could see that.

The problem is it replaces the pretty reliable signal of money with the incredibly unreliable signal of politics.

 

[Juma]

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

The overproduction is far worse in command economies. Russia produced great piles of goods that were just left outside because some other factory wasn't doing their part of the job and the result wasn't a useable product.

Or look at the ghost cities of China.

And just because you didn't know you needed it doesn't mean it's of no value. Sometimes it's simply that you didn't realize there was a better answer.

or look at the ghost cities of USA.
most companies fail. most product projects fail. enormous amounts of human workhours are wasted in capitalistic economies.

 

[Axulus]

Wealth redistribution is the primary function of a modern developed world government.

It's the means by which the money is caused to circulate, when it would otherwise pool in a few places, rendering it useless.

Money is a signal - a universal, multipurpose Kanban - that tells an economy what it needs to do. If the signals all say "provide for Warren Buffet" and none say "provide for Joe Lunchpail", then the system will break down, and the large numbers of Joe Lunchpails will stop using the economy to provide for their needs, and use other means - such as theft and robbery; or will develop their own economies (black markets); or more likely, a combination of all three.

Ideology has fuck all to do with it - it's best for everyone (including the wealthy) for the government to take some of the money from the rich and give it to the poor. The only questions are how much of this to do to get the optimum results for everyone, and the details of the tax structure and benefits structure that are employed.

Of course, the big problem is that people don't treat money as a signal; they rather foolishly regard it as property - leading to the erroneous conflation of taxes with theft.

But then, I never said people were very clever.

Can you explain "money as a signal" - do you mean as a way to track wealth?

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

Stock prices or real estate values increasing has almost no impact on the supply of money in the economy.

When you are talking about rich people demanding things and the economy supplying them as a result, you are talking about consumption.

Why have you refused to discuss consumption inequality and instead focus on wealth inequality?
What you are really arguing about is consumption inequality as a societal problem.

What does the data say about that?

 

[bilby]

No, as a way to tell producers what to make, and how much.

If you own a Zinc mine, how do you decide how much ore to extract and process each year? In the absence of money as a signal, there's no difference between employing a dozen miners and making the ore body last a millennium, and employing a million miners and getting out all of the ore in a week.

Money is a signal that tracks the relationship between costs and sales. The more ore you process, the higher your labour costs, and the lower the price you can charge for the finished zinc ingots. And how do the miners decide to take your job, rather than work for the lead miner down the road?

It's very complex - there are millions of goods, and millions of jobs; How do we decide how many zinc miners we need; how many lead miners; how many hotdog salesmen and dog meat packers and people who put little balls of cotton wool into the top of medicine bottles we need? The Soviets tried to separate money from economic signalling, and just told factories how much stuff to make based on calculations made by a central planning agency; and it was a disaster. But money automatically solves these riddles - you aim to maximise profits, your workers chose to work for the guy who is paying the best wages. And magically, the application of these signals across every commodity and workplace on the planet prevents shortages. If a commodity is in short supply, up goes the price, and producers have an immediate incentive to increase production. If there's a glut, the price collapses, and producers are incentivised to make less stuff.

The problem is that money tends to collect in a few hands, leading to an economy that favours making the things rich people demand, instead of making things that most people demand.

Redistribution allows poor people to signal their needs to the market. It's absence leads to needless want.

We generate enough food for everyone; people only go hungry when redistribution is inadequate.

Stock prices or real estate values increasing has almost no impact on the supply of money in the economy.

I am not convinced of that; Those assets are frequently used as collateral for loans, and loans create money in a fractional reserve system such as is typical of modern economies. But it's not particularly important to my argument. Any money oversupply is eliminated by inflation or taxation. the impact on (in)equality is small.

When you are talking about rich people demanding things and the economy supplying them as a result, you are talking about consumption.

Yes.

Why have you refused to discuss consumption inequality and instead focus on wealth inequality?

I have made no such refusal. Nor do I have any such focus.

What you are really arguing about is consumption inequality as a societal problem.

Yes.

What does the data say about that?

That it is increasing in a similar way to income inequality and wealth inequality. Of the three measures, Consumption inequality is the lowest, and wealth inequality the highest; But as we are interested in the way inequality changes - in whether people are becoming more equal or less equal over time - any of the three will do to demonstrate the trend. Comparisons between these measures are of little use; I am not particularly concerned which one is used, as long as the choice of measure is fairly consistent, and as long as they roughly track together - which the data appears to indicate that they do, within a given economy:

We find that the consumption inequality implied by savings behavior largely tracks income inequality between 1980 and 2007

(source)

Wealth inequality has risen modestly in Australia over the past decade or so by about the same amount as income inequality.

(source [pdf] pp.15)

By any of the three measures, inequality is growing; And while wealth inequality provides nice big figures for scary headlines, what people actually see when they look around is consumption inequality. A homeless man watching a hedge fund manager drive past doesn't see wealth - unless the guy is driving past in his tax return. He sees consumption - the sharp tailored suit, the Maserati, the Rolex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, I get it. I'm not going to defend communism, but don't we generally see more waste, or overproduction in a capitalist society? There is a lot of things produced that no one knew they needed until they saw the commercial. It needs continual growth, no.

BTW, I agree with that it is about finding the right balance, and even that's a moving target.

The overproduction is far worse in command economies. Russia produced great piles of goods that were just left outside because some other factory wasn't doing their part of the job and the result wasn't a useable product.

Or look at the ghost cities of China.

And just because you didn't know you needed it doesn't mean it's of no value. Sometimes it's simply that you didn't realize there was a better answer.

or look at the ghost cities of USA.
most companies fail. most product projects fail. enormous amounts of human workhours are wasted in capitalistic economies.

The USA has nothing like the ghost cities of China.