Report Why Socialism Fails in House prices and the economy Posted January 15, 2013 Couple of things First, the problem of calculation isn't relegated to "socialist" systems as others have pointed out. Indeed, this isn't a socialist system by any stretch of the imagination. Monarchy's, dictatorships, communist and other systems all suffer from this problem. However, socialism doesn't "fail" it's just not as good as a free market system at allocating resources. Socialism is better than monarchy and it's better than dictatorship at resource allocation. Not quite as good as capitalism and nowhere near as good as a free market. The next thing is the assumption that the market will get it right. It won't, that's the whole point. The market will get it wrong - but soon have to change through lack of funding. Whereas coercive systems get it wrong and can then carry on regardless for a long time. Next one - some on here think people don't want the NHS. I'm as hardline a free marketeer as you'll find and think they really do. The NHS was put in when the balance of power in UK society (i.e. guns and the will/ability to use them amongst returning soldiers) was at it's most equal. The problem with private healthcare systems is that most people become injured or physically debilitated entirely through chance (insurances can check this but as the point of insurance is to not pay out, not ideal, mutualism is better) or through work. This means that the owners and runners of business in a private healthcase system are expecting the people they injure to pay the owners rightful costs. Occassionally you'll get some class action lawsuit which changes things (ear protection in factories for example) but the profit motive basically means that the most sociopathic ******* wins in the absence of distributed force. Next one - whether you want correct resource allocation or not is a moral question. People in general do not give a toss about economic viability. They care about morality and empathy for others. Bills need paying, sure - but what for is the question. It doesn't seem to occur to the good professor that you could offer the choice of mistaken but empathic system of resource allocation or correct but non empathic system and people would (and have) picked the empathic one every time. Next one - NHS is easily affordable if we stop bailing bankers out. Next one - complicated medicine requires recognised authority to allocate voluntary of coerced, doesn't matter. Mrs. miggins who just broke her hip and also has a bladder infection hasn't got a ******ing clue what the best course of treatment is. Price won't tell her, either. People are predictably irrational (Dan Ariely) and will in the overwhelming number of cases pick the most expensive treatment thay can afford - if you know this you can highball shit treatment and get paid out a jackpot. The morality is clear, stealing is wrong - but the price calculation is irrelevent. No one cares. Very obviously so. Agree with other people. You have started to seriously undermine your credibility by making claims such as this. You know very well that the bank bail outs didn't involve real wealth - they were just paper guarantees the idea that this 'money' could be used to buy actual goods and services in the real world is nonsense and you know it.