US is now more socialist than capitalist

Spam ? Troll?

That original post made no sense, you are either very young and immature or spamming us. No offense meant but you need to do some reading if you are being serious. I hope this is not an indicator of education today.

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/thought.htm

recent bush policy
http://www.counterpunch.com/morici04032008.html

good piece on European so called socialism
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf010507.htm

Taming the Savage Market
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=108

What do you know - Nassim Nicholas Taleb
http://www.poptech.org/popcasts/PopCasts.aspx?viewcastid=51

see here too
http://www.fullpolitics.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6
 
Where to start?

The US - and forgive me for trying to tell you about your own country, I don't mean it to sound like that, you're welcome to critique mine any time you wish (but usually people can't be bothered) - has a capitalist economy.

The government programmes that Bill refers to are insurance.

If they weren't there, cushioning the effect of capitalism on the individual (not the corporations or the elites) then the people would revolt because frankly they would have nothing to lose. That would be disastrous.

As for socialism in government. There is nothing socialist about the US, well as far as I can see anyway. The closest you get is the socialisation of the effect of corporate losses. The taxpayer is currently propping up a failed economic system. The taxpayer may well save it this time but it's yet another example of why capitalism is close to collapse as a viable economic system.

The way ahead is market socialism.

Capitalism has been a dynamic force and has given humanity much benefit but you can see now that the constant cycles of boom and bust must be removed. The cycles seem to be stretching in their effect, the booms are greater and hence the busts deeper. As well, capitalism is eating the planet's resources. Look at the stupidity of growing food for use in combustion engines. We're taking one of the most basic human needs and using it to move our fat arses from A to B. When they're looking at us in a hundred years time they'll know exactly what the famous internet acronym WTF? really means.

While I don't support command economies (I've been in countries that were in the Soviet bloc when the Stalinists were in charge and trust me it's a horrible sight) because they don't work I do believe - as BAC has cogently pointed out - that a mix of socialist and capitalist approaches, usually called market socialism, will work. Laissez-faire capitalism is dying at its own hand. I would dearly like to hold the gun for it while it pulls the trigger, but I'll vote to keep it on life support while we're making transitional arrangements.
 
You know, at the beginning of America, for the first 30 years or so, it was like Utopia. Social mobility was crazy, and people of low birth were just as likely to go to the top at the end of things as anyone else. Now it seems we've settled into this decadence and aristocracy - well, it has seemed that way for about 150 years.
 
socialism is for those who can't do for themselves. Rags to riches is more like 8 in 100, not 1 in 1,000.
 
PresidentialScholar said:
I made this argument days ago, that America, for all of the capitalist rhetoric everyone spews off, has become more socialist than capitalist. There is no true capitalism in America, there are, however, surmounting traits of socialism. This is not bad, as socialism is seen as synonomous with communism, which is synonomous with bad and terrible things.

It means more that, in every aspect of American life, the government plays a role. Even as much as we pretend business exercises their free enterprise, they're still required to adhere to employment laws--providing unemployment compensation for firing workers indiscriminantly, or in some cases discriminantly, or adhering to fair labor standards.

Corporations are prevented from monopolizing--which would also be an exercise in free enterprise.

I agree that many of these advances are good for the country. And I think it helps to show the good that can come from utilizing certain socialist programs, but I'm curious to see if anyone disagrees and will suggest that we are indeed, more capitalist.


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This has got to be about the most ignorant post by one of the most clueless writers I've ever read.....though to be honest, you're not as clueless as little willie.

First, what fucking objective measure of the quantity of capitalism vs socialism have you used? None. Just your uninformed opinion.

Second, you make an assumption based of a value judgement that capitalism is good and socialism is bad with little consideration of the good points and negative points of either.

To that point. Socialism plays a huge positive roll in our society and not in the way you probably think. The second largest socialist institution in our nation is one the right wingnuts and lazzies-faire capitalist practically worship at their alter of, that is the US military. Our largest socialist institution is our public education system. Both have incalculable positive benefits to our nation, particularly the later.

Conversely, unregulated, lazzies-faire capitalism is a economic system every bit as evil and vile as communism and fascism or maybe you think that company towns, child labor and unsafe working conditions are "A" OK?

Do we have true Capitalism in this country? Hell no! Do we want true Capitalism in our country? Hell NO! Do we have true socialism in our country? Hell NO! Do we want true socialism in our country? Hell NO!
 
Topspin said:
socialism is for those who can't do for themselves. Rags to riches is more like 8 in 100, not 1 in 1,000.
Click to expand...

Bullshit Topper. Socialism is all around you. You got to where you are, in capitalism, in large part to socialist institutions or are you going to try and deny to me that LSU is a socialist institution?

Both institutions have the good and bad points. It's when someone tries to take either to the ideological extreme that we suffer from the worst aspects of either of these human institutions.
 
Watermark said:
You know, at the beginning of America, for the first 30 years or so, it was like Utopia. Social mobility was crazy, and people of low birth were just as likely to go to the top at the end of things as anyone else. Now it seems we've settled into this decadence and aristocracy - well, it has seemed that way for about 150 years.
Click to expand...

That just simply not true. The beginning of our nation we were a people of largely ignorant and illiterate immigrants governed by a handful of wealthy gentry and aristocrats and that did not change much after the American Revolution. After the revolution and for a long time after, we hardly even had a middle class in this nation.

The greatest era of social upward mobility was during WWII and the post war years when literally millions of people leapt out of poverty and into the middle class.

Upward mobility is doing quite well even now, though in a more troubling manner, as more persons have moved up into the upper classes then at any time in our history, balanced by the fact that more people have fallen out of the middle class and into the working poor.
 
Diuretic said:
We are tired of living to make corporations wealthy. Spread the word.
Click to expand...

You touch upon a theme that affects many people. The unbridled greed of corporations. Now I don't mean that as a criticism of corporations. That is their job and what they are designed to do. To paraphrase Adam Smith, the only real ethical concern of a corporation is to maximize profits.

Problem is, for the individual affected by corporations, that cup never gets full.
 
Diuretic said:
Where to start?

The US - and forgive me for trying to tell you about your own country, I don't mean it to sound like that, you're welcome to critique mine any time you wish (but usually people can't be bothered) - has a capitalist economy.

The government programmes that Bill refers to are insurance.

If they weren't there, cushioning the effect of capitalism on the individual (not the corporations or the elites) then the people would revolt because frankly they would have nothing to lose. That would be disastrous.

As for socialism in government. There is nothing socialist about the US, well as far as I can see anyway. The closest you get is the socialisation of the effect of corporate losses. The taxpayer is currently propping up a failed economic system. The taxpayer may well save it this time but it's yet another example of why capitalism is close to collapse as a viable economic system.

The way ahead is market socialism.

Capitalism has been a dynamic force and has given humanity much benefit but you can see now that the constant cycles of boom and bust must be removed. The cycles seem to be stretching in their effect, the booms are greater and hence the busts deeper. As well, capitalism is eating the planet's resources. Look at the stupidity of growing food for use in combustion engines. We're taking one of the most basic human needs and using it to move our fat arses from A to B. When they're looking at us in a hundred years time they'll know exactly what the famous internet acronym WTF? really means.

While I don't support command economies (I've been in countries that were in the Soviet bloc when the Stalinists were in charge and trust me it's a horrible sight) because they don't work I do believe - as BAC has cogently pointed out - that a mix of socialist and capitalist approaches, usually called market socialism, will work. Laissez-faire capitalism is dying at its own hand. I would dearly like to hold the gun for it while it pulls the trigger, but I'll vote to keep it on life support while we're making transitional arrangements.
Click to expand...

Market Socialism? Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)
 
PresidentialScholar said:
Unrestrained, unregulated capitalism is capitalism.

monopoly laws, copyright laws, anti-monopoly and trust laws, socialist actions in our capitalist country. Markets and institutions that are free of government control, which are no more, makes us more capitalist than socialist. That isn't the case.




Bill
Click to expand...

Even Adam Smith, somewhat the godfather of Capitalism was against Monopolies and supported Anti Trust. Anarchy is not Capitalism. Smith spoke of the need for Copyright laws. He also supported regulation of 3rd party affects. You need to do more research on what Capitalism is.

"Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management."

The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter XI Part I


"The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commo-dities much above the natural price."

The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VII

"According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to ... first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain..."

The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
 
"The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commo-dities much above the natural price."
Click to expand...

Why we're not allowed to drill in anwar.
 
mottley you are one of the weak. U went to ohio slow university. Corporatins are evil. Lofl are you 21
 
Topspin said:
mottley you are one of the weak. U went to ohio slow university. Corporatins are evil. Lofl are you 21
Click to expand...

Mottley's post was right on; it deserves better than a juvenile response. He's not saying corporations are "evil"; very few who are accused of that ever are. However, corporations are driven by one thing & one thing only: profit. That is not evil either, but it is amoral (not IMmoral, tops...amoral).

Corporations won't "do the right thing" when left to their own devices on a wide variety of issues; it's simply not in their interest much of the time.
 
Mottleydude said:
That just simply not true. The beginning of our nation we were a people of largely ignorant and illiterate immigrants governed by a handful of wealthy gentry and aristocrats and that did not change much after the American Revolution. After the revolution and for a long time after, we hardly even had a middle class in this nation.

The greatest era of social upward mobility was during WWII and the post war years when literally millions of people leapt out of poverty and into the middle class.

Upward mobility is doing quite well even now, though in a more troubling manner, as more persons have moved up into the upper classes then at any time in our history, balanced by the fact that more people have fallen out of the middle class and into the working poor.
Click to expand...

This is stupid.
 
Mottleydude said:
This has got to be about the most ignorant post by one of the most clueless writers I've ever read.....though to be honest, you're not as clueless as little willie.

First, what fucking objective measure of the quantity of capitalism vs socialism have you used? None. Just your uninformed opinion.

Second, you make an assumption based of a value judgement that capitalism is good and socialism is bad with little consideration of the good points and negative points of either.

To that point. Socialism plays a huge positive roll in our society and not in the way you probably think. The second largest socialist institution in our nation is one the right wingnuts and lazzies-faire capitalist practically worship at their alter of, that is the US military. Our largest socialist institution is our public education system. Both have incalculable positive benefits to our nation, particularly the later.

Conversely, unregulated, lazzies-faire capitalism is a economic system every bit as evil and vile as communism and fascism or maybe you think that company towns, child labor and unsafe working conditions are "A" OK?

Do we have true Capitalism in this country? Hell no! Do we want true Capitalism in our country? Hell NO! Do we have true socialism in our country? Hell NO! Do we want true socialism in our country? Hell NO!
Click to expand...

It seems you have a ridiculously broad definition of the word "socialism", one that encompasses all possible government functions.
 
PresidentialScholar said:
Unrestrained, unregulated capitalism is capitalism. I'm not saying America is operating a socialist country. Nor am I saying it's capitalist. I'm saying it's more socialist than capitalist.

I prefer to use concrete examples:

Capitalism purports private ownership of the means of production, whereas socialism is control of those means by the community or the government. Name me one institution in this country in which the government does not have a hand in regulating and legislating? I fail to see one.

Sure the money is still in the hands of the people, that would completely take us out of capitalism--that's not my point. My point is that the government is so large in America that we have superseded our capitalist tendencies with our socialist protections.

Welfare, social security, unemployment, disability, monopoly laws, copyright laws, drug laws, cigarette tax, gas tax, taxes in general, Taft-Hartley, nationalization of markets (later deemed unconstitutional), medicare, medicaid, economic regulations, environmental regulations, food stamps, anti-monopoly and trust laws, corporate tax, labor standards, motor vehicle laws, emission control, pollution standards, media standards are all socialist actions in our capitalist country. Markets and institutions that are free of government control, which are no more, makes us more capitalist than socialist. That isn't the case.

Unfettered capitalism is capitalism--the right of man to earn his/her profit without interference from the government. The crem de la crem, Horatio Alger and rags to riches, the basis for capitalist ideology. That is no more--the government has leveled the playing field.

And they've done so in all respects, by adopting socialist ideals to preserve fairness and order, which have taken precedence over loyalty to our capitalist foundations.


Bill
Click to expand...
You mistake regulation for control. Regulation simply places boundaries on what a business can and cannot do. Most regulations are reasonable, such as making certain that a chemical plant does not poison the environment. Minimum wage laws are a laughable boondoggle of liberals. The vast majority of jobs pay above minimum wage. Where I live the going rate for unskilled jobs (ie: fast food and the like) are already significantly higher than the still-to-come minimum wage increase, and have been so for several years. Market has determined wages and are ignoring minimum wage laws.

Meanwhile, within the boundaries set by regulation a business is free to do whatever it wants to assure maximum return on investment. Businesses compete with each other for clients and/or consumers. In a socialist or semi-socialist economy the government/people would have far more say in the operation of businesses than simply how much they pay in wages, or if they can perform dangerous activities.

As for the truly socialist aspects of our current society, they are always in trouble. Social Security and Medicare are high profile political issues because both liberals and conservatives have come to realize that they are unsustainable over the long term. Part of this is due to the significant increase in expected life span since the programs were instigated. Part is because the government has typically mismanaged the funds. If a corporation were to do with it pension funds what the government has done with SS funds, the CEO and CFO would be tossed in the pokey for a long, long time.

Similarly, safety net programs, often referred to as welfare, are often underfunded, over used, misused, defrauded, and grossly mismanaged. But that is the bane of socialism. The very concept of socialism demands a large, bloated bureaucracy run by government. Unfortunately people in government are rarely there from pure altruistic motivations. So asking them to run an altruistically conceived program results in a program filled with people whose primary concern is what they can glean out of it for themselves.

In most cases unemployment does not even meet the definition of socialist since it is in the form of free-enterprise insurance, paid for by the employer. The only socialist aspect is the government requirement that it be provided by employers. Where socialism steps in is when unemployment insurance benefits run out. At that point the government has the option of funding additional benefits. Some states do, some don't.

As for using various forms of taxation as a definition of socialism, that is simply incorrect. ALL governments need money to operate. That money comes from the public. What determines socialism or not is how the revenue is used, not the fact that the revenue is gathered.

Unfettered capitalism is, indeed, capitalism. But it is only one form of capitalism, not, as you imply, the only definition of capitalism. Regulated capitalism (as long as those regulations are reasonable, and do not perform the duty of distribution of wealth) is also capitalism. To date, the degree to which regulations and taxes result in wealth redistribution are relatively minimal. As such, we are still by far primarily a capitalist economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top