Socialism Would Have Solved This Problem

A little irony here obviously.  Socialism solves little except to tax a need and otherwise get firmly in the wa causing economic suppression.

Sound  labor protocols, support for the weakened, and even good medical policy are all legitimate  problems to be solved in order for capitalism to flourish.  Access to capital is also important as well.

Political socialism is all about grabing political control and then  exploiting that power.  This is not a great plan as it is one long step away from the act of creation of wealth.  Whatever happened to those warehouses of consumer goods in the ole Soviet Union?

We recruit way too many C students and then brainwash them with whitewash and expect something positive to arise..

.

Socialism Would Have Solved This Problem 

By Tom Woods

March 14, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/thomas-woods/socialism-would-have-solved-this-problem/

Everything about this virus situation is making me crazy.

Including this kind of thing, from socialists:

So it’s “capitalism” that makes people fight over toilet paper at a time when toilet paper isn’t a product they particularly need.

Socialism, they tell us, is “a system in which scarcity is no longer an issue.”

So when there’s an unanticipated pandemic, socialism will evidently have huge warehouses of toilet paper sitting there for no reason, waiting for consumers who don’t actually need it to get all they need.

Well, that seems like a rational approach to production.

How about the fact that it’s capitalism itself that’s made it seem normal and unremarkable that everybody you know readily purchases and uses soap, disinfectants, and sanitizers?

Which European king had all of these?

Scarcity is always an issue. If we produce A with resources B, C, and D, we cannot simultaneously produce F with B, C, and D. If we employ labor in the service of one line of production, we cannot simultaneously employ it in the service of another.

Here is the situation we face:

Billions of people have an enormous number of conflicting preferences.

We have to figure out a way to satisfy as many of those preferences as possible, but arrange the means of production in such a way that in satisfying one preference we are not inadvertently depriving more urgent preferences of the resources necessary for them to be satisfied.

The market economy, with its price system, accomplishes this seemingly impossible task — or at least approaches it as closely as mankind is capable of — without coercion or central direction.

It does it so well that people consider it automatic, like a spontaneously occurring feature of human existence.

Instead of marveling at it, they complain — and risk destroying the very thing that in all likelihood makes their own existences possible.

I might add, incidentally, that one thing the market provides that socialism surely would not, is home education.

The kind of system being described above would place indoctrination of the young fairly high on its list of goals, so good luck homeschooling.

Meanwhile, we’ve created the Ron Paul Curriculum, which — gasp — presents students with more than one point of view, while at the same time giving them a top-notch education in all the major subjects, plus others: like how to speak effectively, how to run a small business, how to operate a blog, or how to manage money.

There’s going to be more demand for it in the coming weeks, for obvious reasons.