Socialism in one sentence

What was not fully understood at the time was that East Germany\’s whole economy was value-subtracting and cost-unconscious.

World Bank.

Socialism in another sentence:

The final output was worth less than the sum of the inputs.*

Socialism in a third sentence:

The Trabant operation was value-subtracting: valuable material, labor, and capital inputs went in at one end; shabby Trabies came out at the other, their bodies made from compacted trash.

 

 

 

* Something which, amazingly, means that the contribution of the Trabant plant to GDP was negative. Another one in the eye for the thought that rising GDP means increased consumption of resources. If a plant using resources has a negative contribution then you would actually have a rise in GDP by closing the plant and not using the resources at all!

3 thoughts on “Socialism in one sentence”

  1. Yep, the socialism is more efficient argument has died long ago, now they say socialism is more ecologically friendly(and that’s even more of a lie!)

  2. MikeinAppalachia

    The “more ecologically friendly” is demonstrably false as well. I guess they will have to use the “fairer” conundrum in the end. But, winning (“I won”) means you don’t even have to justify it.

  3. But Mike even “fairer” isn’t true.

    What’s fair about producing expensive sh*te and then restricting the choice of your poor benighted citizens so that that’s all they’re offered?

    It might just about be fair if
    a) other companies were allowed in to produce/sell cars of a higher quality at the same price or the same quality at a lower price
    AND
    b) you aren’t having to fund the losses of the company through your taxes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *