Why not Socialism?

[ratdog]

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.

My point is that the Washington consensus neo-liberal "free market" economic platitudes don't work. I can't think of a country that ever became a developed economy by following "free market" ideology. Not Britain, not the US, not Japan, Singapore or Hong Kong. The Chinese learned from the disaster in Russia and are now going out of their way to avoid following the "free market" dogma. All countries that developed did so based on various combinations of government-led economic programs, military colonialism, and what we now as "mercantilism".

In fact, the dirty not-so-secret (at least, it's no secret outside America) of "free market" ideology is that it's not even designed to foster economic developement. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The current neo-liberal model is purposely designed to lock LDCs into neo-colonial economic relations from which they cannot escape. And if they try, first the currency traders and then, if that doesn't work, the "first world" governments (primarily the US) bring in the IMF to smack them down.

Of course, folks who know nothing of economics try to explain this economic phenomenon by saying that it is caused by "law enforcement" or some other nonsense. Whatever. They've proven themselves to be lightweights who are now easily ignored.

PS. China's economic policies are hardly flawless and I still would not want to live there, but they are doing some things right, apparently:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=509&e=31&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_bi_ge/us_china_consumption

The implications of their growing domestic market might not be good for America as it would reduce the importance of US markets for their goods.

[argentine soccer fan]

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

Ok, fair enough. I guess my missunderstanding comes from the fact that you were talking about Arthur Laffer's personal opinions, and I was thinking you were talking about his theory as presented in economic textbooks.

[Danks81]

Do you follow me, pal?
I follow you just fine. But do you know what the difference is between theory and fact?

[argentine soccer fan]

I follow you just fine. But do you know what the difference is between theory and fact?

I don't follow you. What is it, as it relates to our discussion?

[Blitzz Boy]

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.

.

That's precisely Heritage's point.......Singapore, Taiwan and to a lesser extent; Hong Kong had a history of government intervention in the economy.

But in 2004, Singapore & Hong Kong had reformed (or regressed, depending on your viewpoint) and decreased government involvement in their economy. I thought Taiwan had, too. But Heritage says no.

Heritage says that Denmark and former State Capitalist Soviet Colony Estonia have also freed their economies.

So all of these countries should be heading into a Hobbesian Lord Of The Flies quagmire now that they don't have a kindly benevolent goverment to prevent evil capitalists from exploiting them, right?

Heritage's bottom line is that the USA should reject Bush's socialist intervention in the economy and we should return to the days when presidents increased prosperity by doing things like signing free trade agreements, reforming welfare, abolishing government agencies and deregulating industries.

[Blitzz Boy]

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.

I don't think that those Hippie communes during the 60's worked too well. Maybe they would have if the people running them kept away from the acid & the peyote?

Back in the 19th century, the people whose descendents would become the most Republican people in the country practiced socialism for a time. It didn't work either.

If you are really, really bored; I can post some links.

[Bob Morocco]

I don't think that those Hippie communes during the 60's worked too well. Maybe they would have if the people running them kept away from the acid & the peyote?

Back in the 19th century, the people whose descendents would become the most Republican people in the country practiced socialism for a time. It didn't work either.

If you are really, really bored; I can post some links.

What about in Israel?

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.

If Government doesn't control the huge amounts of money than who does? Large corporations who have a vested interest in staying large corporations and in getting even larger. There must be a balance because if the government doesn't have enough power then Large corporations will exploit people, form monopolies, and crush inovation.

[dj43]

If Government doesn't control the huge amounts of money than who does? Large corporations who have a vested interest in staying large corporations and in getting even larger. There must be a balance because if the government doesn't have enough power then Large corporations will exploit people, form monopolies, and crush inovation.

This is a silly statement. We have the most innovative country in the world even though people thought 50 years ago that "everything that could be invented, had been invented."

At present the government has more than enough power to control corporate policy and growth with anti-monopoly laws. Just look at what they did to Microsoft. Look at all the hoops they have made phone companies and banks jump through as they have attempted mergers. There are plenty of controls if Congress chooses to use them.

Corporations are only required to show a profit. That's right. It is REQUIRED by law. They are not forced to grow. They grow only if they can justify their growth to the BOD and the stockholders. Corporations that fail to do that, go out of business.

[Blitzz Boy]

What about in Israel?


.

Good point!

Does Kappa still post here?

[Bob Morocco]

This is a silly statement. We have the most innovative country in the world even though people thought 50 years ago that "everything that could be invented, had been invented."

At present the government has more than enough power to control corporate policy and growth with anti-monopoly laws. Just look at what they did to Microsoft. Look at all the hoops they have made phone companies and banks jump through as they have attempted mergers. There are plenty of controls if Congress chooses to use them.

Corporations are only required to show a profit. That's right. It is REQUIRED by law. They are not forced to grow. They grow only if they can justify their growth to the BOD and the stockholders. Corporations that fail to do that, go out of business.

It's not silly, it's how the US has stayed innovative, we have generally had a balance. Your response is silly because it in no way addresses my point that an over concentration of power away from government will be just about as bad as an over concentration of power in a government. Your stock response is to ignore my point and fellate big business because as we all know Corporatism is a cornerstone of Fascism.

[Metroweenie]

It's not silly, it's how the US has stayed innovative, we have generally had a balance. Your response is silly because it in no way addresses my point that an over concentration of power away from government will be just about as bad as an over concentration of power in a government. Your stock response is to ignore my point and fellate big business because as we all know Corporatism is a cornerstone of Fascism.

He wasn't arguing for change. He was arguing against making the US more socialist. He wants to keep the balance that you acknowledge has kept the US innovative.

[dj43]

...my point that an over concentration of power away from government will be just about as bad as an over concentration of power in a government.

OK. What do you define as an over-concentration of power?

Which way do you see it at the present time?

[Bob Morocco]

He wasn't arguing for change. He was arguing against making the US more socialist. He wants to keep the balance that you acknowledge has kept the US innovative.

He totally ignored my statement and called it silly and then he goes for a reach around on the current system I described and reinforces my original point. He just had to get in an insult first.

[dj43]

Bob,

Sorry. I should have addressed my "silly" comment in a more specific fashion.

The part I felt was silly, or let's say, "unfounded," is the part about the government's need to control large amounts of money. I would argue that the government already has too much control over too much money. Ironically, however, the government does not control well what they have.

Congress, who should control the funds, wimps out on the control side everytime. Cut them back and maybe we will see more responsible fiscal policy.

[dfb547490]

I think you guys are looking for this thread. (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=158260)

[Bob Morocco]

OK. What do you define as an over-concentration of power?

Which way do you see it at the present time?

Where one side is so powerful it doesn't have to respond to the other. I prefer that the government be at least a little more powerful than Big Business, as long as it is a democracy, because their is no ieconomic incentive in protecting people from pollution and exploitation and a democratic government should reflect the public will.

The way I see it in the US is that the government is more powerful than Big Business but Big Business has bought its way into the halls of power and the government is reflecting the will of Big Business. The US government has the power to make businesses do what it wants but it is choosing to do what businesses want.

[dj43]

Where one side is so powerful it doesn't have to respond to the other. I prefer that the government be at least a little more powerful than Big Business, as long as it is a democracy, because their is no ieconomic incentive in protecting people from pollution and exploitation and a democratic government should reflect the public will.

The way I see it in the US is that the government is more powerful than Big Business but Big Business has bought its way into the halls of power and the government is reflecting the will of Big Business. The US government has the power to make businesses do what it wants but it is choosing to do what businesses want.

We are in agreement on the balance principle.

I guess I see it a good bit different than you because I live in a state where a socialist-leaning state government has been so restrictive on business that we have lost many of those businesses, and many jobs along with them, to neighboring states where the business environment is much friendlier. Arizona and Nevada have thrived with the businesses that have left The People's Republic of California.

[Bob Morocco]

Bob,

Sorry. I should have addressed my "silly" comment in a more specific fashion.

The part I felt was silly, or let's say, "unfounded," is the part about the government's need to control large amounts of money. I would argue that the government already has too much control over too much money. Ironically, however, the government does not control well what they have.

Congress, who should control the funds, wimps out on the control side everytime. Cut them back and maybe we will see more responsible fiscal policy.

Did you assume I meant that government must control MORE money to protect people because I go on to state that there must be a balance? Where we differ is in what constitutes "too much money". Currently I would be ok if taxes had to be raised to deal with Social Security and health care. The problem about government is that it IS inefficient in providing the services it does. The problem is generally not that it provides services. Do you believe that if Corporations were twice as powerfull as the government that their would be no consequences? Unfounded? Butte, Montana circa 1890 the Anaconda Mining company was hanging Union organizers from bridges in the middle of town.

[dj43]

Did you assume I meant that government must control MORE money to protect people because I go on to state that there must be a balance? Where we differ is in what constitutes "too much money". Currently I would be ok if taxes had to be raised to deal with Social Security and health care. The problem about government is that it IS inefficient in providing the services it does. The problem is generally not that it provides services. Do you believe that if Corporations were twice as powerfull as the government that their would be no consequences? Unfounded? Butte, Montana circa 1890 the Anaconda Mining company was hanging Union organizers from bridges in the middle of town.

I don't have a magic ratio in mind. What I know is that if I disagree with what a business is doing, or if I don't like the price/value ratio, I can choose not to purchase that product.

But if I don't like what the government is doing, I still have to send them my money.

Hence, I am definitely on the side of less government being better than more.

BTW, Idaho mining interests were still doing the same thing in the 1940s.

[Bob Morocco]

I don't have a magic ratio in mind. What I know is that if I disagree with what a business is doing, or if I don't like the price/value ratio, I can choose not to purchase that product.

But if I don't like what the government is doing, I still have to send them my money.

Hence, I am definitely on the side of less government being better than more.

BTW, Idaho mining interests were still doing the same thing in the 1940s.

You vote against the people in power if you don't like them or you do a recall election or a voter initiative. If Microsoft becomes the only software maker what happens if you don't like their product?