I'm learning a lot about Socialism on this board, but I'm still puzzled.More than once, posters have written that because Socialism only produces what is "needed", it is more efficient.
In America, we use prices to signal what should be produced. When people want more of something, they bid up the price. Producers then have an incentive to increase production.
When workers don't like their wages or working conditions, they strike. Employers must either pay more money or find other workers who are willing to work for the market wages.
Of course, there are bad flaws in the system. Corporations buy off the government and use it to break unions. Prices of many goods are too low and do not reflect their environmental and political costs. Also people need money to send out a price signal. Poor people may "need" something but the market only serves those who have money to pay.
But I still believe that reforming Capitalism is better than Socialism.
Without a price system, who would decide what the society "needed"? Who would decide who deserves a televison set and who deserves only an AM radio?
I love to eat steak. It requires large amounts of resources labor to produce a steak dinner. I work extra hard so I can afford to have one every now and then. Under Socialism, who would determine how much steak I'm allowed to have? Who, other than myself, the chef, and the farmer has the right to make this decision?
- nat
