Socialism

scb wrote:

But we ALREADY HAVE government-funded healthcare, social security, a volunteer corps, etc. So I still don't get it. It's not like he's creating some totally new society or inventing taxes or something.

I don't think anyone said it was a new idea, with the glory of discovery being his. Quite simply, Obama's policies seek to maintain and even extend the reaches of socialism in America, and therefore it is a title he duly receives.

SundaySilence wrote:

The definition of socialism is that the government controls the means of production. That will not happen.

The government controls the ONLY means of production -- MONEY -- and i call that the biggest monopoly over an economy that there ever was.

Socialism is also defined by state or collective ownership and the authority of administration over those charges, and under this umbrella falls most of the other components of socialism, broadly described as "welfare".

The constitution grants no authority to the Federal Government to govern such charges, outside of the "general welfare" of the people ... and that is a description which was quite well covered by our founding fathers who were explicit in their contentions that this did not provide authority for specific programs of wealth redistribution.

SundaySilence wrote:

Government stepping in where there are market inefficiencies is basic Keynesian economics.

Which is why we are in our current sorry state of affairs.
The Efficient-Market hypothesis is, as far as i am concerned, a bunk conclusion. The only thing markets are more efficient than are planned economies, and yet even that is good enough for me. However one need only to look to what has been happening on Wall Street the past few months to see that markets are certainly not rightly heralded as "models of efficiency", and this inglorious defect only invites persistent and unending intervention by government -- per Keynesian ideology, and only if we allow said intervention.

Further, when the government intervenes to redistribute unprecedented sums of wealth, predicated on the claim that it is for "the common good", this reeks plainly of socialism, not simply the (misguided) notion of Keynesian economics.

SundaySilence wrote:

Keynesian economics brought us out of the great depression and is the foundation of every successful economy since.

The unimagined inflationary implications of [the still incubating ideas of] Keynesian economics is very arguably the one greatest cause of the Great Depression.

To his credit however, at least Keynes understood that the "rational" response to a depression at the end of an inflationary bubble was NOT to lower the money supply (as the Fed did with disastorous consequence during those years) but rather to lower interest rates and INCREASE the availability of credit. That being said, i fear that the entire system of logic is flawed, and that Keynesian economics may also -- as only history will tell -- quite possibly be the tragic downfall of every successful economy that has blindly subscribed to this dogma.

Here are two relatively light pieces of reading on Keynes.
First is an article written just after the death of Milton Friedman, which describes in simpleton summary the deficiencies of Keynesian theory.

The second is a paper by Milton Friedman himself, which gives us this nice little quote:

Friedman wrote:

I believe that Keynes's theory is the right kind of theory in its simplicity, its concentration on a few key magnitudes, its potential fruitfulness. I have been led to reject it, not on these grounds, but because I believe that it has been contradicted by evidence: its predictions have not been confirmed by experience.

SundaySilence wrote:

I saw this quote over the weekend by FDR's fed chairman, Marriner S. Eccles, describing what led to the great depression. Under Reagan and the Bushes we have seen income inequality increase dramatically. Under Clinton it decreased slightly. We have now reached levels not seen since 1929.

"...a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips are concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."

-Eccles

sounds familiar, huh?

It sounds familiar, and it sounds entirely humorous to me, given that what Eccles appears to be describing, "a giant suction pump", is his own goddamn Federal Reserve. And his poker analogy is laughable in that EVERYONE had to borrow, EXCEPT FOR THE HOUSE, which was making the chips, backed by nothing but the burden of an enslaved public (debt to treasury bonds). The Federal Reserve is THE mechanism that allows for the chips to be "concentrated into fewer and fewer hands", and I can't believe the naivete of Mr. Eccles to proclaim such a statement unwary of its implications.

And the last line is nearly prophetic. "When the credit ran out the game stopped." Shit, one only need look around to see the implications of this statement, when viewed in the context of central banking and credit issuance.

going out on a limb - i would say america's problems have one main root cause: GREED ... plus the willingness of gov't to allow corporations to maximize that greed without consequence ...

Sorry, but I just don't think a tax increase of a few percetage points for a few people and improved social services moves us from being a democratic, capitalist country to being a socialist one.

And I don't think anyone in their right mind really thinks it does either. It's just another Republican scare tactic.

In regards to Obama being a "socialist", and being criticized for his tax policies, I read some really interesting, evocative quotes from an article by Timothy Noah today.

"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

as well as...

Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows.

These statements were uttered approximately one hundred years ago by a 'socialist' named Teddy Roosevelt, proclaimed hero of one John McCain. Just some food for thought.

JFK was labeled a Socialist before he was elected President.

MattyJoe wrote:

Socialism has been tried numerous times in our history. In every circumstance it causes lack of work ethic and incentive, causing lack of innovation, economic growth, and quality of product. It's generally agreed upon that although Socialism attempts to make everyone economically equal, more people ultimately benefit from regulated Capitalism than Socialism. The former is important. Personally, I do not support totally pure capitalism because that can be just as harmful. Regulation is important.

Socialism's ultimate goal is to make everyone equal economically. In every case, it has never worked, simply because people can never be equal. People always take advantage of the system. For instance, the government always becomes aristocratic and elitist in a Socialism because the government is what controls the wealth. The rest of the people are at a low level while the government has all the wealth and power, because obviously someone has to be in charge somewhere along the line. Socialism allows an aristocratic class to develop which then takes advantage of its power and oppresses the people. Also, people are not content to be equal to someone else who may not work as hard as they do. Human nature itself prevents equality. The only way Socialism would ever work is if everyone thought the same way. And at that point we're talking about 1984-type tactics, conditioning people to believe the exact same thing and have not even an inkling that any alternative exists.

Regulated Capitalism in the long run benefits more people than Socialism. People can control their economic futures, choose to work hard or not work at all and face the consequences associated with that choice. It's always unfortunate that people have to be poor, and by no means do I think we should not be charitable and help them out whenever possible, as well as work to eliminate any discrimination which may be adding to the problem.

Our government and economy were developed as hybrids of all different types of government/economic systems. James Madison himself went around to all different countries observing their governments to find out what works and what doesn't work, and what potential problems our country would have to deal with. He studied all the major governments of civilizations gone by as well. He collected all this information and used it to create the government we have now. One of the most important tenants of our government is the idea that there must be distribution of power within the government. That's why we have branches and levels and checks and balances and all of that. It's the concept that there should never be too much power in one set of hands. That's what causes the violation of people's rights.

Socialism puts WAY too much power into the hands of the government, setting up the temptation for those in power to use it oppressively and wrongly, violating the rights of the individual. And history has shown us that wherever there's a temptation, people jump on it. You cannot base a government meant to secure the basic rights of individuals on the hope that no one will take advantage of that power. You have to prevent the possibility in the first place, which is what the Founding Fathers did through our Constitution and our organization of government.

I don't entirely disagree, but there are a few things I'd like to comment on.

First of all, regulated capitalism or not, it's fucked either way because it has become capitalism without morals. Capitalism should be based on morals. Right now, it has brought us greed and an addiction to things; materialism, while on the other side it screws people and nations over because it is not about the people, it's about the almighty dollar.

This addiction, greeds stands in the way of something fundamental to society, imo: 'socialism'. I don't think socialism should be forced onto anyone, I think it should be in the hearts of people and I think it is... it just gets drowned out from early on.

I'm speaking in broad terms here, but I don't think I'm exaggerating if I say this is a trend. People tell their children from early on they can be anything they want if they work hard enough. They can be number one, just work hard.

I'm not saying this is wrong, but are they teaching their children it's perfectly normal and ok to be number two or even number 65? Do they teach their children it's not about which position you'll have later on in life but whether or not you are happy and a good person?

When I was a child and I saw a homeless person on the street, I felt so bad... I still do. But people walk on, they don't even look. That made a huge impact on me and I always try to give, especially food.

Now, if people instilled more charitable behaviour in their children rather than the obsession with succes, wouldn't socialism become a natural thing.

Now children grow up with a twisted view on reality; you can be succesful if you work hard enough. True, to some extent but rather flawed. I know at least four homeless guys who probably worked harder than Obama and McCain together. Life isn't fair and that is an important lesson. If children grow up thinking this man is where he is because he chose not to work hard... they're less likely to be charitable, if they know it could have to anyone (even to YOU ), they might see the street isn't a very comfortable place to sleep, especially when it's freezing outside.

Secondly, don't tell me you think your government is clean. It's one huge gigantic cesspool. The immoral, greedy corporate world and the power hungry fucks are one. As you said, people always abuse their power. It's not different in the US.

I have to go now.

in those UN best countries to live lists ... most of the countries at the top have a "socialistic" system ... why is that?

harrymanback wrote:

the issue here is that we have been spreading the wealth for a very long time. for example, locally, if your house is assessed at a higher value than your neighbors, you pay more in taxes to receive the same services they do. you do not get your garbage picked up any better, you do not get to drive on special roads, the fire department does not rush to your house any faster, and the police will answer your calls just like they do your neighbors.

theoretically

blondieblue227 wrote:

JFK was labeled a Socialist before he was elected President.

I uploaded this for another thread, but didn't get around to it.
You might like it.

Why JFK Was Murdered

I was just about to post something along those lines, reds.

polaris, the best countries to live in aren't socialist, but rather capitalist with a strong welfare state. Norway and Sweden, which usually rank high, both have very open economies. So the successes are regulated capitalism with strong social programs. A more accurate term would be social democracy.

And there are a gazillion different interpretations of socialism. But including, say, Obama, as a socialist, is an insult both to him and to socialists. He would be a centre-left liberal capitalist. And Europe is largely not socialist, but have strong elements of the above mentioned social democracy. Usually embodied by Labour parties.

Peace
Dan