Why not Socialism?

[Danks81]

In Microsoft's case, the government would have physically taken control of the software industry and done things to make the market level again. .

And while the governement physically controls the software industry, how will they manage it? Where does the government gain the technical expertise and structure to not only "level" the market, but do it in such a manner that does not paralyze innovation?

[Mel Brennan]

The life and brutal death of Sister Dorothy (http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=611216&host=3&dir=70) (Bold is mine)

Sister Dorothy Stang lived among those who wanted her dead. When they finally came for her she read passages from the Bible to her killers. They listened for a moment, then fired. Her body was found face down in the mud, blood staining the back of her white blouse.

The town of Anapu, on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, is most notable for the dust that clogs its streets and for the number of shops selling chain-saws. It is also the place that Sister Dorothy called home for more than 30 years and where she organised her efforts to try to protect the rainforest and its people from disastrous and often illegal exploitation by logging firms and ranchers. Now Anapu will be known as the place where Sister Dorothy is buried.

The 74-year-old activist was laid to rest yesterday morning after being assassinated by two gunmen on Saturday at a remote encampment in the jungle about 30 miles from the town. Sister Dorothy - the most prominent activist to be murdered in the Amazon since Chico Mendez in 1988 - was shot six times in the head, throat and body at close range. "She was on a list of people marked for death. And little by little they're ticking those names off the list," said Nilde Sousa, an official with a local women's group who worked with the nun.

As with the death of Mr Mendez, a rubber tapper, the murder of Sister Dorothy has triggered waves of outrage among environmental and human rights activists who say she dedicated her life to helping the area's poor, landless peasants and confronting the businesses that see the rainforest only as a resource to be plundered and which have already destroyed 20 per cent of its 1.6 million square miles.

It has also highlighted the problem for the Brazilian government of balancing a desire to protect the rainforest with pressure to open tracts of forest to support strong economic growth as demanded by the International Monetary Fund, which loaned Brazil billions of dollars following a recession in 2002...

IMF/World Bank mother********ers.

[ratdog]

Gee, where did Matt In The Hat go? I'm still waiting for him to answer my question. I guess he's still searching Ann Coulter's columns for talking points about global economic growth.

[Nanbawan]

the French will do what they do regardless of what we want them to do -

Yeah ! We are grown ups. Let us do our own blunders alone. At least, they're ours... ;)

[Mel Brennan]

...Anarchy is another story, since that implies no government at all.

As does communism, actually; communism is "a withering away of the state" because it is no longer needed, due to the evolution through systems to the point that humans no longer require systems but exist communally to do the good for each other and for themselves.

Of course, as each generation is born, they must, by this model, experience the process for themselves, so this sh!t, imv, was never practical because the lessons had to be re-experienced every t to be believed (at least to be believed to such an extent that a natural withering away of state control occurs), and that re-casting would have to be global in nature.

That has nothing to do, as many have stated, with totalitarianism/authoritarianism, which usually defined the USSR (and usually defines the PRC), but because these govt's like to claim that they are communist (because they are in fact claiming to the people that they are on the way to that glorious state of statelessness), and because most of those who post ignorantly on this issue were probably taught about the issue by the Nighly News during the Cold War, we get the tripe found throught the thread.

None of which has anything to do with socialism.

Why doesn't someone take on the best social democratic model on earth, and refute aspects of them that make them compelling. For example, take a look at what Finland says to others (http://www.finland.or.jp/doc/en/finfo/welfare.html) about itself:

The Finnish welfare state has represented the tradition of Nordic welfare state model. The equality between men and women has been emphasized in all Nordic countries and for that the welfare system has been in a crucial role. In practice the state shares with all families both the expenses and the workload of having children. The development of the day care system for young children has enabled women to take widely part in working life, and about 70% of mothers of small children do it. All children under school age (7 years) have the right to municipal day care.

The basic elements in the Finnish social protection system are preventive social and health policy, social and healthcare services, and social insurance. The main aim is to safeguard people's income by prividing a comprehensive system of basic security and income-related benefits. The purpose is to guarantee a reasonable level of consumption in different risk situations. An important element in the Finnish social protection system is the comprehensive social health services it provides, as the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health emphasizes.

Now take a look at what the USA says about Finland (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html): Pathetically, plenty of mentions of the "a highly industrialized, largely free-market economy" of the nation, with ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of the welfare system that Finland itself touts as a key to not only lovingly promoting the welfare of the people, but also of providing that safety net (and thus, managing that other side of capital wealth production) when folks number among the masses who lose at capitalism as opposed to the few who win.

The reason the USA never documents the successful integration of the two in examples like Finland? They don't want any US citizen who can't afford to travel and experience places like Finland and Sweden and Denmark and the Netherlands and the UK and France for themselves (to name a few) to get any ideas...they want to control what you know so that you think the limited choices in front of you are ALL the choices. Also shows me that they know that as widespread as it is among some demos, the internet still is nothing compared to the ears and eyeballs captured by mainstream television and radio.

But its not that simple either; we choose, in this day and age, to retreat into the ignorant limitations of what we know, and fail to go out there and get unsettled, uncomfortable with new information. Hell, we've got Canada to the north of us, and many Americans couldn't tell you the first damn thing about it, really; what are they gonna know about processes of possibility going on in nations between them and which there are entire OCEANS?

[BenReilly]

The USSR was right-wing.

At the extremes, these labels lose any meaning. Within the Western political context, the Soviets received 1000 times more support from the Left. To describe them as "right-wing" is deliberately misleading and completely revisionist with the conext of our culture.

[ratdog]

Here's my question for Matt In The Hat again: Why is it that those areas on whom the Washington Consensus "free market" model you espouse has been imposed (Russia, Central America, much of Africa, etc.) have all failed to reap the promised benefits while those countries that have done virtually the opposite (Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, China, etc.) have been the only areas to enjoy superior economic growth as long as they were allowed to keep up their government-led programs?

Matt?


Matt?

OK, I'm getting worried. Maybe we need to send out a search party.

[Danks81]

Their slanty eyes give them a sharper economic vision.

[ratdog]

Their slanty eyes give them a sharper economic vision.

Did you really just post "slanty eyes"? Sweet merciful Lao Tse on a stick!

[quentinc]

At the extremes, these labels lose any meaning. Within the Western political context, the Soviets received 1000 times more support from the Left. To describe them as "right-wing" is deliberately misleading and completely revisionist with the conext of our culture.
Even though they were billed as a "communist" government, they were anything but. They were ruled by a ruthless dictator, which goes against the teachings of communism.

I don't know who brought up communism, but hopefully this will be the post that ends the discussion.

[Blitzz Boy]

Here's my question for Matt In The Hat again: Why is it that those areas on whom the Washington Consensus "free market" model you espouse has been imposed (Russia, Central America, much of Africa, etc.) have all failed to reap the promised benefits while those countries that have done virtually the opposite (Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, China, etc.) have been the only areas to enjoy superior economic growth as long as they were allowed to keep up their government-led programs?

.

The only thing that Singapore & Denmark have in common. Besides lots of rain. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg1781.cfm#pgfId-1130170)

Heritage says that Singapore beats us at economic freedom. So does Denmark!

I was going to post that This Is Not Your Father's Taiwan and that they do not have the degree of government ownership in the economy that they used to. But maybe I just have anecdotal information from my job & Ang Lee movies. They did not make Heritage's Top Ten list.

Remember:

-If it's government spending I don't like, it's Socialism.

-If it's government spending that I like, it's Prudent Investment.

[ratdog]

Heritage says that Singapore beats us at economic freedom. So does Denmark!

Hilarious!

I love right-wingers who point to Singapore as a bastion of free market success, thereby proving that they know nothing about the city-state's history. Of course, the same goes for Hong Kong andTaiwan.

Remember:

-If it's government spending I don't like, it's Socialism.

-If it's government spending that I like, it's Prudent Investment.

Well, for most right-wingers it's "If it's ANYTHING I don't like, it's Communism!" because most of them have no idea what socialism or communism even are much less why they might be good and/or bad.

Oh, and I love the chart on the Heritage site that directly contradicts Art Laffers' (and therefore by extension Karl Keller-ote's) assertion that the US is a capital magnet and that therefore Bush's huge borrow-and-spend deficits are a sign of strength and an all-around Good Thing.

[Matt in the Hat]

Now, you answer me a question: Why is it that those areas on whom the Washington Consensus "free market" model you espouse has been imposed (Russia, Central America, much of Africa, etc.) have all failed to reap the promised benefits while those countries that have done virtually the opposite (Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, China, etc.) have been the only areas to enjoy superior economic growth as long as they were allowed to keep up their government-led programs?

Really, MITH, you need to read about economics so you can stop repeating the same old refuted talking points and begin to think for yourself.

Law enforcement.
And Jesus, you are the worst kind of stalker. I know I'm beautiful and everthing, but lay off a little.

[argentine soccer fan]

Here's my question for Matt In The Hat again: Why is it that those areas on whom the Washington Consensus "free market" model you espouse has been imposed (Russia, Central America, much of Africa, etc.) have all failed to reap the promised benefits while those countries that have done virtually the opposite (Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, China, etc.) have been the only areas to enjoy superior economic growth as long as they were allowed to keep up their government-led programs?



I don't know about every country that you mentioned, but in general terms, from what I have experienced I can offer the following, which may be part of the answer to your question.

In some places the free market wasn't really free. I will give you Argentina as an example, based on my own experience. If you tried to start a small business in Argentina, immediately you were acosted by police, local officials and others who demanded a piece of the pie. They would call it 'protection', 'voluntary donation', whatever. You add to this the manipulation of the financial markets by speculators and insiders, for their own benefit, and you can begin to imagine the seas in which a small business raft must navigate. In this environment the entrepeneurial class has all but dissapeared. What I am now doing in the US, I could have done in Argentina. It was my intention, but for the reasons stated above, I didn't have the freedom to do so. In fact, I later helped a relative set up a similar business in Argentina. But he failed, in large part for the reasons stated above. Does this sound like a free market?

On the other hand, some places which you mentioned in the Far East, are precisely the opposite. China, for example, where I do business. While the Chinese keep the socialist ideology as a pretense to keep political power, they do give incentives to entrepeneurs to start businesses in a relatively free environment. I am a partner with a Korean friend in a small business in northern China, because the local government facilitated it. They gave me an opportunity in a relatively free environment, much freer than the Argentine experience. They gave me incentives which facilitated our growth. For example, we got five years tax free status. Now we provide jobs to hundreds of people there. Not high paying jobs, but desirable jobs from a local perspective, and better than what government employment has to offer. This story is multiplied thousandsfold accross China, with both Chinese and foreign entrepeneurs creating jobs and helping the economy grow. Does it sound like socialism?

This superior economic growth which you mention has nothing to do with ideology. It is a pro-business environment which enables job creation and economic growth.

[argentine soccer fan]

What would be wrong with adopting a Socialist economic policy in the U.S.? I fail to see what the problem would be with having a national health care system, higher education paid for etc. I realize that the U.S. has been historically conservative (in economic terms), but what would be wrong with a socialist economy?

What is wrong with a socialist economy in America is that America is a democracy in which people choose their leaders, and most Americans do not want a socialist system.

Personally, my problem with socialism is that it gives the government too much power, and it creates a huge bureocracy which controls huge amounts of money. Given human nature, it is likely to succumb to corruption.

My thinking is that the more we limit government, the less we allow it to intrude in our personal life and finances, the better off we will be.

I think the USA is just too big and powerful to attempt socialism. Take a look at how bloated and corrupted our government already is, even though the American people seem to be always trying to find ways to limit its power, and even though they tend to vote for politicians who promise to limit its power. If we implemented socialist programs, we would be taking a monster which is already out of control, and we would be making it bigger, stronger and more powerful than ever.

Perhaps some form of socialism might be workable at the local level, if the agencies which control the financial aspects are kept small and are overseen by the local people. Localized socialism is an intriguing prospect, but even of that I am wary. Anyone who has had to deal with city-hall knows that city and small town bosses and bureocrats can be as corruptable and power-hungry as top government officials.

[argentine soccer fan]

Oh, and I love the chart on the Heritage site that directly contradicts Art Laffers' (and therefore by extension Karl Keller-ote's) assertion that the US is a capital magnet and that therefore Bush's huge borrow-and-spend deficits are a sign of strength and an all-around Good Thing.

Are you saying that the Heritage chart which shows decline in foreign capital invested in the USA is a contradiction of Arthur Laffer's curve? I don't see how it contradicts it. Arthur Laffer's curve is a mathematical fact. The only question we can debate is at what point it begins to turn. If you see a contradiction, please explain.

(And make sure to account for mitigating factors. Consider, for example, how much of the investment in less developed countries is due to the fact that many other countries around the world are less developed than the United States and therefore they provide greater opportunities for capitalists to invest in the developing infrastructure which they so badly need. Or, make sure to take into account the number of immigrants and visitors who come to America, take advantage of the opportunities available here to create wealth, and then turn around and invest in their own countries. Or, those who observe the US, learn about its infrastructure, and take capital to attempt to duplicate what they see here in their own country. Or, those who take American ideas and apply it in their own countries or in places where it is less expensive to do business. These are the reasons why the capital is going to other countries, bringing benefits to those that need it, and to humanity as a whole. That is why capital goes to other countries rather than the US. It does not result from a contradiction of Arthur Laffer's ideas.)

I don't agree with the cited Heritage report either. Its conclusions are simplistic. The fact is, the dollar will decline and America will decline from its position of power regardless of what we do. There were unusual circumstances over the past two centuries which led America to become the most powerful economy in the world by far, but this is a fluid world, and such inbalance of power cannot last. Today, there are more opportunities for investment in the third world than in America, and that is where the capital will be headed regardless of what America does. And it is a good thing for the world. God knows that the poorer countries need the capital more than we do.

But, Ratdog, it has nothing to do with Arthur Laffer, unless you can convince me otherwise. Proceed.

[Danks81]

Arthur Laffer's curve is a mathematical fact. The only question we can debate is at what point it begins to turn. If you see a contradiction, please explain.

(And make sure to account for mitigating factors. Consider, for example, how much of the investment in less developed countries is due to the fact that many other countries around the world are less developed than the United States and therefore they provide greater opportunities for capitalists to invest in the developing infrastructure which they so badly need. Or, make sure to take into account the number of immigrants and visitors who come to America, take advantage of the opportunities available here to create wealth, and then turn around and invest in their own countries. Or, those who observe the US, learn about its infrastructure, and take capital to attempt to duplicate what they see here in their own country. Or, those who take American ideas and apply it in their own countries or in places where it is less expensive to do business. These are the reasons why the capital is going to other countries, bringing benefits to those that need it, and to humanity as a whole. That is why capital goes to other countries rather than the US. It does not result from a contradiction of Arthur Laffer's ideas.)

Sorry pal, but mathematical "facts" do not require a paragraph of qualifications.

[argentine soccer fan]

Sorry pal, but mathematical "facts" do not require a paragraph of qualifications.

What is your point? Economic theory is based on numbers. For example, In simple terms, the Laffer curve shows that there is a point at which an increase in taxes will produce a decrease in revenue. It is basically the same curve (or very similar) which pricing theory is based on. The one which tells me as a businessman that there is a point at which an increase in the price I charge will produce a decrease in my sales.

But ratdog was saying that the fact that investment is going to other countries instead of the USA somehow contradicts Laffer. I replied that it doesn't, because he is not allowing for certain obvious mitigating factors which have nothing to do with the theory itself.

Take pricing theory. It is also based on mathematics. Let's say I follow pricing theory when setting the prices of my products. Lets say I take the time to recognize that there are factors which may affect what price I can charge, and I can study those and also incorporate them them into how I set my price. But even if the theory is correct and I follow it to perfection, there can be other factors not related to pricing theory which may cause people not to buy my product. That doesn't mean that the fact that my product didn't sell is a contradiction of the economic theory of pricing.

So, likewise, when ratdog seemed to be saying that the fact that investment going to other countries rather than the USA contradicts Laffer, I reply that I don't think it does, because there are other obvious mitigating circumstances which are not related to Laffer's theories and which are causing the investments to go to other countries. That is why what you call 'a paragraph of qualifications' has nothing at all to do with the original theory, which is based on reducing human behavior to mathematical formulas.

In the real world there are many factors which can affect behavior and which cannot be explained within the equations involved in economic theory. The role of economic theory is to simplify behaviour into mathematical equations in order to come up with general principles. That is true not just of Laffer but of every economic theory, whether it is keynessian, monetarist or anything else. When we analize the behavior of markets at both the micro or macroeconomic level, we have to explain and account for a miriad of other factors which cannot be possibly accounted for in the general theory, and how they may affect the results. But these mitigating factors don't necesarily contradict the theory or make the theory invalid. They are just modifiers which we have to allow for when we attempt to explain why something is happening in the real world.

Do you follow me, pal?

[ratdog]

Law enforcement.

Dumbest answer ever outside a Keller-ote post.


And Jesus, you are the worst kind of stalker. I know I'm beautiful and everthing, but lay off a little.

Well, if you'd answer a simple question instead of cowering in fear of it for two days...

[ratdog]

But, Ratdog, it has nothing to do with Arthur Laffer, unless you can convince me otherwise. Proceed.

If you'd read Laffer's laughable burpings in a recent WSJ op-ed piece, you'd have known what the connection is.