The communist economic system was a total disaster, but it wasn’t because of excessive taxation. Communist countries generally didn’t even have tax systems.
The real problem was that communism was based on central planning, which is the notion that supposedly wise bureaucrats and politicians could scientifically determine the allocation of resources.
But it turns out that even well-meaning commissars did a terrible job. There was massive inefficiency and widespread shortages. Simply stated, notwithstanding the delusions of some left-wing economists (see postscript of this column), the system was an economic catastrophe.
Why? Because there were no market-based prices.
And, as explained in this video from Learn Liberty, market-based prices are like an economy’s central nervous system, sending signals that enable the efficient and productive allocation of resources in ways that benefit consumers and maximize prosperity.
And just in case it’s not obvious from the video, a price system can’t be centrally planned. Or, to be more precise, you won’t get good results if central planners are in charge.
Now let’s look at a bunch of economic policy questions that seem unrelated.
What’s the underlying reason why minimum wages are bad? We know they lead to bad effects such as higher unemployment, particularly for vulnerable populations, but how do these bad effects occur?
Why is it bad to have export subsidies such as the Export-Import Bank? It’s easy to understand the negative effects, such as corrupt cronyism, but what’s the underlying economic concern?
Or what’s the real reason why third-party payer is misguided? And why should people be concerned about high marginal tax rates or double taxation? Or Obamacare subsidies? Or unemployment insurance?
These questions involve lots of different issues, so at first glance there’s no common theme.
But that’s not true. In every single case, bad effects occur because politicians are distorting the workings of the price system with preferences and penalties.
And that’s today’s message. We generally don’t have politicians urging the kind of comprehensive central planning found is genuinely socialist regimes. Not even Bernie Sanders. But we do have politicians who advocate policies that undermine the price system on an ad-hoc basis.
Every tax, every regulation, every subsidy, and every handout is going to distort incentives for some people. And the cumulative effect of all these interventions is like a cancer that eats away at prosperity.
The good news is that we don’t have nearly as many of these bad policies as places such as France and Mexico.
But the bad news is that we have more of these policies than Hong Kong and Singapore.
The bottom line is that America could be much richer with less intervention. But that would require less ad-hoc interventionism.
P.S. There’s a bit of economic wisdom in these jokes that use two cows to explain economic systems.
P.P.S. Here are two other videos on the price system, both of which help explain why only a decentralized market system can allocate resources in ways that benefit consumers.
P.P.P.S. A real-world example of the price system helped bring about the collapse of communism.
[…] are people who want government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Sort of like Cuba, North Korea, or the former Soviet […]
[…] are people who want government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Sort of like Cuba, North Korea, or the former Soviet […]
[…] based on misguided policies such as government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Communism is a political system based on dictatorship and […]
[…] economic system based on misguided policies such as government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Communism is a political system based on dictatorship and […]
[…] information on the role of prices, I strongly recommend these videos from Professors Russ Roberts, Howard Baetjer, and Alex […]
[…] information on the role of prices, I strongly recommend these videos from Professors Russ Roberts, Howard Baetjer, and Alex […]
[…] should not interfere with prices, I’ve shared videos from Marginal Revolution, Don Boudreaux, Learn Liberty, and Russ […]
[…] The most important sentence in the above excerpt was Roy Wright’s observation about the role of prices. […]
[…] difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m wondering whether I should use […]
[…] socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) is an utter failure and is almost nonexistent today (only in a few basket-case economies like Cuba […]
[…] using the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls), there’s no difference. At least with regards to […]
[…] of socialism based on policies such as government ownership, central planning, and price controls, and a casual definition of socialism based on policies such as punitive tax […]
[…] definition of socialism based on policies such as government ownership, central planning, and price controls, and a casual definition of socialism based on policies such as punitive tax rates, welfare state, […]
[…] looking at the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) or the casual definition of socialism (punitive tax rates, welfare state, intervention), the […]
[…] as explained in videos from Marginal Revolution, Learn Liberty, and Russ Roberts, it’s a very bad idea to let politicians interfere with […]
[…] The technical definition of socialism is an economic system based on government ownership, central planning, and price controls). […]
[…] la forma en que los economistas lo definen (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central y control de precios) y la forma en que la gente normal lo define (muchos impuestos, redistribución e […]
[…] As I’ve also pointed out, there’s no government ownership, central planning, and price controls in nations such as Sweden and […]
[…] explain why that approach (genuine socialism, meaning government ownership, central planning, and price controls) was doomed to […]
[…] should be set by unfettered markets rather than politicians, regulators, or […]
[…] entre la forma en que los economistas lo definen (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central y control de precios) y la forma en que la gente normal lo define (muchos impuestos, redistribución e […]
[…] From an economic perspective, socialism and communism are the same. They’re both based on government ownership, central planning, and price controls. […]
[…] which didn’t even exist back then) was not feasible in part because governments have no rational way of setting prices and sensibly allocating […]
[…] a difference between how economists define it (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) and how normal people define it (lots of taxes, redistribution, and […]
[…] a difference between how economists define it (government ownership, central planning, and price controls) and how normal people define it (lots of taxes, redistribution, and […]
[…] Regular readers already know that Denmark is not a socialist nation. Indeed, it’s never been socialist. By world standards, there’s basically no history of government ownership, central planning, or price controls. […]
[…] not understanding the real definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, and price controls), so this next meme appealed to […]
[…] difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m wondering whether I should use […]
[…] system” is a core feature of capitalism, as explained in videos from Marginal Revolution, Learn Liberty, and Russ […]
[…] The technical definition of socialism is outright government ownership and control of business (along with other policies such as central planning and price controls). […]
[…] lesson to be learned is that politicians should let markets determine prices. Price controls of any kind, as indicated by the cartoon, will cause people to withhold goods, […]
[…] lesson to be learned is that politicians should let markets determine prices. Price controls of any kind, as indicated by the cartoon, will cause people to withhold goods, […]
[…] imply the technical meaning of socialism, involving government ownership, central planning, and price controls? If so, then world history suggests the correct answer is […]
[…] instance, I know we shouldn’t abolish wages since that would be an extreme version of price controls. So “disagree” was the only sane […]
[…] In pure socialist systems, governments own and operate companies (the “means of production“). Such an approach also requires central planning and price controls. […]
[…] repeatedly noted, genuine socialism involves government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Economists from the Austrian school, such as Mises, were the ones who explained that governments […]
[…] But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions” are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices. […]
[…] (since he presumably didn’t have any views about government ownership, central planning, or price controls), he wasn’t a […]
[…] nations don’t have any of the policies – government ownership, central planning, or price controls – that are characteristics of a socialist […]
[…] Some people, when they talk about socialism, are referring to government ownership, central planning, and price controls. […]
[…] though, is government ownership of the means of production, which entails central planning, price controls, and other forms of intervention. So, at the risk of being pedantic, is that how the term should be […]
[…] I don’t think either Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actually understand that socialism is an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, augmented by central planning, and price controls. […]
[…] show that genuine socialists, with their advocacy of government ownership, central planning, and price controls, aren’t really the same as other leftists (and I’ve made the unconventional claim that […]
[…] Many of them don’t realize it implies government ownership, central planning, and price controls. Heck, some of them probably think the market-oriented Nordic welfare states (which have similar […]
[…] true to his socialist ideology. Rather than promoting government ownership, central planning, and price controls, he has behaved like a conventional left-wing politician. Indeed, there was almost no difference […]
[…] That would be horrible news. The leader of the Labour Party is an unreconstructed hard-core socialist. A real socialist who would move the country toward government ownership, central planning and price controls. […]
[…] In other words, he wants real socialism (i.e., government ownership). And that presumably means he also supports central planning and price controls. […]
[…] still adhere to the technical definition, which means government ownership, central planning, and price controls. While others assume that socialism is high tax rates and lots of […]
[…] In any event, Denmark is not a socialist country. As I wrote, “There’s plenty of bad policy, but no government ownership, no central planning, and no price controls.” […]
[…] The bottom line is that Denmark isn’t socialist. At least not if we use the technical definition. There’s plenty of bad policy, but no government ownership, no central planning, and no price controls. […]
[…] Price controls are spectacularly misguided. […]
[…] But as Muravchik notes, those nations aren’t technically socialist (i.e., they don’t have government ownership, central planning, price controls). […]
[…] Soviet rule, Czechoslovakia was genuine socialism (i.e., government ownership, central planning, price controls), which obviously is more damaging than what many people think of today as socialism (i.e., […]
[…] between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m wondering whether I should use […]
[…] entre la definición técnica de socialismo (propiedad del gobierno, planificación central, controles de precios) y la definición cotidiana (mucha redistribución), me pregunto si debería usar “estado de […]
[…] difference between the technical definition of socialism (government ownership, central planning, price controls) and the everyday definition (lots of redistribution), I’m wondering whether I should use […]
[…] These countries don’t actually practice socialism since there is no government ownership of the means of production, no central planning, and no government-dictated prices. […]
[…] definition, which involves government ownership of the means of production, central planning, and government-dictated prices. But most people assume it simply means big government, in which case it’s hard to find […]
[…] we’re going to analyze his proposal for price controls on certain prescription […]
[…] though, is government ownership of the means of production, which entails central planning, price controls, and other forms of intervention. So, at the risk of being pedantic, is that how the term should be […]
[…] though, is government ownership of the means of production, which entails central planning, price controls, and other forms of intervention. So, at the risk of being pedantic, is that how the term should be […]
[…] though, is government ownership of the means of production, which entails central planning, price controls, and other forms of intervention. So, at the risk of being pedantic, is that how the term should be […]
[…] though, is government ownership of the means of production, which entails central planning, price controls, and other forms of intervention. So, at the risk of being pedantic, is that how the term should be […]
[…] is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] theory is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] theory is correct, but only if capital is being allocated by the private sector in a system governed by market prices. Government investment, by contrast, is a recipe for pork, inefficiency, corruption, and […]
[…] common thread is that government intervention interferes with the normal operation of the price system and thus leads to distortions since markets are prevented from functioning […]
[…] augment Stossel’s analysis, here’s a video from Learn Liberty that explains why politicians shouldn’t interfere with the price […]
[…] Stossel’s analysis, here’s a video from Learn Liberty that explains why politicians shouldn’t interfere with the price […]
[…] And his second idea is even stranger because economic conservatives have a theory of just prices. It’s whatever emerges from competitive markets. […]
[…] But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions” are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices. […]
[…] process in a market economy. Every success and every mistake leads to feedback, both via the price system and also via profits and losses. All of which leads to continuous changes as people – […]
[…] But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions” are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices. […]
[…] But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices. […]
[…] But there’s another economic problem caused by government – price controls on insurance – that is very important. Indeed, the fights over “community rating” and “pre-existing conditions are actually fights about whether politicians or competition should determine prices. […]
[…] essential part of a free market economy is the price system. The competitive pricing of goods and services transmits information to producers and consumers and creates incentives for the efficient […]
[…] essential part of a free market economy is the price system. The competitive pricing of goods and services transmits information to producers and consumers and creates incentives for the efficient […]
[…] of Obamacare also should be shared widely. You also should watch their videos on job creation, the price system, public choice, and the Food and Drug […]
[…] Learn Liberty video explains why the rule of law is critical for a productive society. Though the one on the importance of the price system also needs more […]
[…] Learn Liberty video explains why the rule of law is critical for a productive society. Though the one on the importance of the price system also needs more […]
[…] It’s very difficult to measure the degree to which various governments interfere with the price system by imposing controls (either minimum or maximum price […]
[…] here’s something else to add to the list. Notwithstanding 40 centuries of evidence that price controls are a form of economic malpractice, the government has decided to use coercion to prohibit voluntary transactions between consenting […]
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
What more can I say, except “Exactly!”
“Every tax, every regulation, every subsidy, and every handout is going to distort incentives for some people. And the cumulative effect of all these interventions is like a cancer that eats away at prosperity.”
laws and regulations created and enforced by a bloated and out of control federal government have the same effect on freedom… every new law… every petty regulation… every new tax… takes away free choice from an American somewhere in the republic… the cumulative effect of all of these interventions is like a government “cancer” that eats away at the personal freedoms of our citizens… diminishes our quality of life… and ultimately will reduce America to a third rate fascist welfare state… freedom is what made America great… if we allow it to be taken away… we are indeed lemmings headed over the cliff…
In communism, there was no taxation. Just the dictat that everyone’s work was worth about the same.
Actually, in general, the percentage of GDP that is consumed/collectivized by government encapsulates a country’s communist content.
So for example, upon entering France, there should be a sign: “Warning, this country contains more than 50% communism”.
But the American voter lemming, in the world’s top three-four percent of the prosperity rankings is apparently always overworked and under-compensated. “I earn less because someone else is taking my reward”. It’s becoming a democracy where all voters are worse than average, as Garrison Keillor would put it.
So the voter lemming is attracted to his democratic ability to vote for and impose central planning, the collective control of ever larger proportions of total economic activity, even when he recognizes that it is less efficient.
At the root of it all is the voter-lemming’s inability to understand the catastrophic and irreversible effect of compounding sub-par growth. He fails to understand that even small differences in growth rates compound to huge divergences. Some do understand it but still choose the temporary but immediate benefit of redistribution over long term perpetually compounding growth.