Free Debate Always a Good Thing? I Think Maybe Not if One Side Has No Merrit...

 Throughout the history of economic thought there has been a debate between socialistic theories and capitalistic or market based theories.   This debate has consumed huge amounts of resources and altered the areas of study in many cases to fit the points of contention in the debate.  I would like to look at the development of our understanding of market structures relative to the socialistic alternatives for information solutions.  From my study to date I do not see a clear cut socialistic proposal which would remedy the loss of the market as an informational data base type structure.  As unfair or inappropriate as markets may seem to the separate schools of socialist thought it appears to me that without such a structure there can be no control of relative utility. Without such control on relative utility then there cannot be the prediction of a net gain since the inherent inefficiencies created by the loss of such information would create a scenario where any gains are necessarily a fluke.   While the capitalists are trying to understand how markets work and what we can learn from them it appears that socialists simply refuse to consider them on moral grounds.  I can’t separate this method of thinking from a doctor refusing to believe that someone is dead simply because on moral grounds death is not the best alternative.  

                Looking at markets there are certain pieces of information which are derived by producers and consumers and even signals to those on the sidelines.  These signals among other things include signals showing the aggregate utility of certain production as well as the relative difference in separate uses of the same resources.  Markets allow and encourage producers to use the resources in their control to produce those things which have the greatest utility to the public relative to the basket of potential products using the same or similar resources.  This efficiency of utility output from inputs is the driving force behind the benefits of capitalism.  I would like to address the ability of a socialist thought structure to address the alterations and inefficiency in utility data if such markets no longer existed.  I would like to study the various alternatives posed by the separate schools of socialism and communism and determine if any of these schools have meet the scientific burden necessary to make the claims they have made.  I suspect that I will find that when socialists and communists talk about fairness, equity and equality they fail to look at the likely mean or median welfare of the very people they attempt to help.  It is my hypothesis that these pseudo-scientists enjoying talking about a flaw in the present system and then directly leap to the assumption that it is not optimal because it is flawed. The problem is a system is only not optimal if there is a better system available or in the alternative a method to correct the inefficiencies of the present system.  It is my expectation that instead of looking to reform the current system or prove the existence of alternatives the separate schools of socialists simply jump to theoretical and normative alternatives without dealing with all of the necessary proofs of increased performance to justify their claims of increased welfare, equity, equality or anything else they “predict” would accompany their wholesale restructuring of a way of life.  They fail to consider liberty and other rights based reproductions as well as the most important things to us economists; utility. 

                If socialism has scientific justification and can truly answer the question regarding information dissemination without natural signals is correct then it warrants development and consideration however, if it does not meet this standard, as I suspect, then it is nothing but a drain on the field.  Quite simply this study of the validity of the debate itself would clarify the validity of the vast expenditures of time energy and money on this debate that has raged for decades.  If there is no alternative then pointing out the inefficiencies of an existing system without proposal for correction is simply a waste.  We must ask the right questions but to do that we must start with the proper premises.  Does socialism warrant the honor of a debate if not then what is the scientific reason and if so what is the possible benefit of such conversation.