Galt's Gulch

Socialist-Motion Trainwreck: France Mistakenly Orders 2,000 Trains Which Are Too Wide For Its Platforms | Zero Hedge

Posted by straightlinelogic 11 years, 9 months ago to Business
23 comments | Share | Flag

In socialism, nothing succeeds like failure. I'm sure whoever is responsible will be getting a promotion, raise, and bigger budget.
SOURCE URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-20/socialist-efficiency-france-mistakenly-orders-2000-trains-which-are-too-wide-its-pla

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 9 months ago
    In Nancy Pelosi's world, this is positive economic activity. I think they have some undug holes that need moving as well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 9 months ago
    Well look on the bright side, At least, they acknowledge the problem and are prepared to remedy the situation. if this had happened in Russia the engineers would have just hammered the sides of the trains to fit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 9 months ago
    What does this have to do with Socialism? This just sounds like bad planning, not Socialism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 9 months ago
      Because in socialism everybody pays for the mistakes of the few. If it was a privately owned rail way they would suffer the loss, and not make everyone in the country a stake holder.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 9 months ago
        Actually, under Socialism, nobody would pay for anything because one of the fundamental tenants of Socialist theory is the abolition of all forms of money and currency. It's not possible to achieve, of course, as a monetary system of some kind is an indispensable part of any industrialized society. But regardless, state ownership and control of public transportation systems cannot rightly be called "socialism" by anyone who has ever read socialist theory and understands what it actually entails, and those who apply the label of socialism to such a thing simply reveal their own ignorance.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 9 months ago
          Agreed, you're talking to the guy who used to be a communist. It's the same problem that happens when people blame capitalism for the failures here. It isn't really capitalism, it's a mixed economy.

          Then again, conversation might flow more smoothly if we could refer to more government control as socialist and less as capitalist. Instead of going into long conversations about how I can't understand someone else's perspective because I haven't completely studied their theories.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 9 months ago
            I actually strongly dislike that definition, because it makes one think that socialism is simply the government, and that any action a government takes is therefore socialism. This is not a helpful way to view things, and only serves to confuse the issue and make capitalists antagonistic towards government. The definition of socialism that I use is government control over production. This is a much more useful and precise definition, it allows us to recognize real socialism without falling into the trap of believing that everything the government does is inherently socialist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Solver 11 years, 9 months ago
          Wow!
          “Under Socialism, nobody would pay for anything”

          You seem to have a big misunderstanding of the word “pay.”

          “pay,” suffer a loss or other misfortune as a consequence of an action.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 9 months ago
            I was thinking of the word "pay" in a strictly monetary sense (that is, directly involving money). If you want to use the word "pay" in a more general sense, such as meaning any form of loss or misfortune, we could certainly make a legitimate argument towards that end. But I would ask that you not insult me simply because I used a definition of the word "pay" that was more narrow than the definition you yourself would prefer to use.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Solver 11 years, 9 months ago
              Sorry, but the very idea that no one pays for socialism is ludicrous. It sounds like something that would be forced into the minds of children by central socialist education planners. Even the idea that a large socialist society would not involve some form of money is ludicrous and, as you say, not possible.

              Since this is a pro-objectivism site, I'll use this famous quote from Atlas Shrugged,
              “Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce.”
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo