To be truthful, socialism is a beautiful thing.
Because when you think about it, the institution of socialism combines many of the things we are taught growing up and even some of the fundamental nuances of numerous religions.
Sharing--What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours!...Right? Wrong! How greedy of you to think such a thing! Instead, I will make my money, you make yours. I will buy my boat, you buy yours. I will take my vacation, you take yours. When all is said and done we will share what we have accumulated. Harmonious living will be the rhapsody of society as you and I enjoy our boats together. Did I mention that my boat is remote-controlled? It's all I could afford, so I hope you don't mind me bringing it on your yacht? Also, be sure to clear your schedule for that shared vacation this summer! I will pay for the week in beautiful Peru, Nebraska, and you go ahead and book that cruise for us! Sharing is caring...my sarcasm is blaring.
Equality--Rags to Riches? To heck with the American Dream! Why would you need to go from rags to riches when you could go from government rationed rags, to more government rationed rags? Besides, it works great in public education. As long as we are treating every student as the same learner, we may as well be treating every worker as the same earner. Additionally, social equality makes for a much steadier economic market. By knowing what each industry will produce and how much will be consumed, we can eliminate that silly thing capitalism calls "consumer confidence". Aggregate demand will be a thing of the past, and at last we won't have to worry about what to do with our earnings--Thanks Socialism! By accepting market predictability, we will only be losing innovation, faster technological development, productivity incentives, and ultimately, sustained economic growth. All of which are just minor opportunity costs. Like they say "If it ain't broke, don't make it more efficient!"
Don't worry though, America. We are so close to socialism, you can almost feel it in your bones, nerves,and surgeries(as a result of the soon-to-be government-run health care)?
***Please note***
The above post is meant to be funny. If you find this not to be true, please (1) forgive my poor communication skills, and (2) know that socialism is not cool.
Forever.
(As an additional clause, it may seem strange that the son of a mailman would be unhappy with socialism as a subtle form of it contributed to my family's livelihood. However, I would like to note that my father was not a fan of his job as he once rated it as a 3/10 in satisfaction...besides, privatized mail is going to run USPS off the map eventually anyways.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All this coming from the mailman's kid?
ReplyDeleteHow many years did your dad work for a "socialist" institution of our governments.
How dare we have affordable communication for all.
I think we should cut all government spending on such a wasteful and non-profitable program
Or not
Eric
ps I quite like the blog and will be periodically checking up on you - the price of a couple drinks at a certain social event
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of Eric's comments, and would add that while your dad may not have liked his job, that is not in and of itself an indictment of a government run institution. Take a survey of any privately run business, in virtually any field, and the results you find will almost certainly be similar to some degree. Furthermore, privately operated postal services are not going to bury the usps so much as the internet has marginalized it's main function, delivering small postage.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with your argument is that you assume absolutes and extremes will rule the day. Rest easy, I'd bet my year's salary that there isn't a single member of the national electorate that is even as socialist as I am, let alone a majority. And that's good.
The reason that our country was able to thrive economically for so long throughout the latter half of the twentieth century is that we weren't operating under an absolutely capitalist or absolutely socialist system. We've had capitalist fundamentals kept in check by socialist regulations. Our government has the freedom to borrow from all systems in appropriate doses.
Of course, it's extremely complicated and subjective to say what size those doses should be. That is why we have a two party, two house system. It is important to note that the times that we've gotten ourselves into trouble financially, were times in which regulation was stripped down. The industries that have the most egregious histories of abuse and explotation of labor are the ones that have traditionally had the least amount of oversight. These kinds of regulations and oversights are demonized as socialist big government institutions by the right, but in truth they keep our economy from running itself off the tracks, which a free market will do if left unchecked, both morally and fiscally.
The idea that socialist concepts are childlike in nature may be well founded. But there is a reason that we teach our children those concepts. There IS a moral imperitive that a government should look after the least of it's citizens. I've always found it ironic that the supposedly pious right has always rejected this position, while the supposedly godless left embraces it.
All of which is by way of saying, socialism isn't all that bad when practiced in controlled doses, same as capitalism. The end result of socialism left unchecked is gulags and Berlin walls and government controlling every aspect of your life. Of course it is. You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. The end result of capitalism left unchecked is corporate sponsorship of war and an ascended upper class that can afford to ignore the needs and rights of the lower class. Which end of the spectrum are we closer to at this point? I think there is something to be said for finding the middle ground.
I would like to comment on this statement "There is a moral imperative that a government should look after the least of its citizens." However, no one disagrees with this statement; the government should look after the least of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe key is identifying which citizens truly constitute the least of our citizens. For example, a working single mother who just can't seem to make ends meet is probably someone worth helping.
In contrast, consider the following, a husband and wife struggle to make their mortgage payments. Each year, the couple takes a European vacation. The couple feels that they are entitled to both the home and the trip and are unwilling to give either up. Ultimately, the couple defaults on their mortgage and looks to the government for support. Our laws tend not to differentiate between the worthy and unworthy.
Meanwhile, I choose not to take a trip and am able to regularly make my mortgage payment. When the couple seeks government assistance, my tax dollars help this couple out of their self-induced financial disaster. And this is the kicker, the couple, they feel entitled to the government assistance.
Just a thought.
My wife is making me post a comment to this discussion, so here are a few (thoughtful?) ramblings:
ReplyDelete1. When engaged in a discourse concerning public events and policies, we ought to follow Ben Franklin's advice to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention: each of us must question our own infallibility. In other words, allow yourself to be persuaded, or at least persuadable. Also keep in mind Abraham Lincoln's assertion that we are all ignorant, just on different subjects.
2. That being said, conerning the difference of opinion between Sam and Andy in regard to the USPS - there is no reason why you both can't be wrong. You are conflating two different issues: (1) capitalism v. socialism and (2) government agency v. private enterprise. The USPS is not and has never been a socialist institution (assuming we concur on the definition of socialism to mean a redistributive economic model). The USPS is a state-capitalist institution. Although the organization is owned and operated by the USG, the function of the organization is a fee-for-service model. Until recent deficits (which Andy rightfully attributes to the rise of email), the USPS was a self-sufficient organization. The sale of mail services (i.e., stamps) funded the operation. Zero tax dollars were allocated to its operation. State Capitalism is becoming more well-known because of developments in China, but make no mistake, the USPS set the standard. Moreover, while it is correct to note the "moral imperative" for the USPS (in a free, democratic society, all members of the populations must be able to communicate with one another; John Adams declared that every citizen should own a printing press; intersting aside on this point: note the rise of email, and the ability of any young kid to establish a blog...), preceding generations did not mandate that citizens do anything or purchase anything, nor did they prohibit private enterprises from offering services (see current healthcare debate for a contrast to these principles). Instead, they allowed the USG to enter the fray of the market, offer a needed service, and compete. The obsolesence of the USPS is not a reflection of failure but rather a reflection of its success in filling a key gap, free of tax dollar commitments, until such time as the environment (e.g., private enterprise) caught up.
3. Regarding the larger issue of Cap v. Soc, each is merely a derivative of the larger issue, individual liberty. You cannot have markets without liberty and you cannot have liberty without markets. The reason why political democracies evolve from property rights is because property rights provide the substantive guarantee for "political" rights. If citizens do not possess the ability to control resources (i.e., property rights) than their "political rights" are offered at the discretion of the state. It should be noted that until the early twentieth century (and fairly ignorant legal opinions from Oliver Wendell Holmes), the distinction between "property rights" and "political rights," as subsets of civil rights, was seen as clearly artificial (because of the point noted above). In fact, if one was to draw such a distinction in front of learned men who had vigorously studied the relationship of state and citizens, such as the Founding Fathers, Jemmy Madison would have laughed at you, Hamilton would have mocked you, and Adams may have punched you.
to be continued . . .
continued . . .
ReplyDelete4. Anonymous: the distinction you draw between worthy and unworthy recipients of state aid touches on a larger issue - the distinction between "efficiacious social investments" (which is a new favorite phrase of mine) and government expenditures that lend themselves to fraud and waste. Regardless of whether one advocates increasing or decreasing the tax rate for one or more economic classes, we can all agree that the government ought to be a responsible steward of tax dollars, to include reducing/eliminating fraud and waste
5. Andy - the reason why the US has experienced 50+ years of economic growth since WWII has nothing to do with mix and match of Cap and Soc. It is the product of (1) perhaps the greatest efficacious social investment in the history of human civilization (the Eisonhower Interstate System) and (2) the complete and utter lack of comparable competition by the rest of the world (note: prior to WWII, the primary competitors to the US economy were the economies of Europe, and the events of WWII crippled these economies for several decades).
6. Returning to the conflated issues of Soc v. Cap and Public v. Private. There is a need and a role for non-socialist state institutions. The brilliance of Alexander Hamilton, which truly launched the economic power of the nation in a way barely dreamed of by other Founding Fathers or leaders of other new nations past and present, resided in the ability to use the national government to align the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the common man. When the wealthy acted in their own interest, they also propelled the interests of the population at large. This is the true purpose of capitalism, which is astounding when it occurs well. The New Deal is a contrasting model because the N.D. programs produced an antagonistic relationship between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of the population at large. Both systems involve a prominent role for the state, but the Hamiltonian model is far more preferable, but the nation's preference since WWII has been in line with the N.D. model.
a response to the european vacation/mortgage default - the moral imperative is limited by beaureaucratic insufficiencies - we can't possibly employ enough people to sort through the b.s. Result is that we attempt to legislate and create criteria, and there are always loopholes.
ReplyDeleteThe onus is on the government to protect the least, and as they cannot always sift through all the b.s, which would explode size of governmetn and tax costs, then we put up with some freeloaders as we would rather do this than ignore people who need care.
USPS a fee for service -
ReplyDeletetrue, but the big difference is the cost of the service, which is more affordable due to its relation to the government instead of its relation with shareholders which would have exponentially increased the cost of the mail service in the name of profit to the brink of where someone would barely justify sending their mail. This is of course based on a more monopoly motivated system which is a system being moved away from in the advent of fedex, ups, and other for profit mail carriers which will become more and more affordable and efficient models.
Consider though that founding fathers considered this service so important as to create such an organization.
So, I'll drive the conversation the way that I want - how can we consider the health of our citizens of any less importance?
We speak of taking care of the least of us, moral imperatives, and founding priniciples. I know no reason why our health should not be included in this.
I am not for or against any 1 system, but an advocate of change of the health system that will decrease cost to taxpayers and the insured/uninsured. (I don't believe that a government plan inherently increases an individuals costs - increasing a tax to pay for such a plan will decrease costs in taxes in other areas that are used to pay for uninsured and welfare programs - a balance is out there for the finding.)
3 areas of cost must be managed
1. insurance/uninsured/welfare
2. cost of pharmaceuticals and their "intellectual property"
3. reimbursement of physicians - pay for results is necessary and restructure toward primary care vs. procedural intervention.
Anyway - not wanting to go into specifics - more illustrating a need along all these lines - cap v soc; govt v private; moral imperatives.
I think that our social programs/institutions such as education, police, welfare etc are such imperatives and feel there is no reason that we leave health costs up to private corporations under exemptions from anti-trust laws.
i am not socialist - because someone is still in charge and will take advantage. I am not capitalist - because I believe its our duty to bring up with us the lowest of society.
Call it responsibility of the able.
Dr Eric - If your goal is to increase the standard of living among the lowest in society (in any/all domains, e.g., mail delivery, healthcare, education, police, housing, etc), then you are capitalist. Hamiltonian capitalism has raised the standard of living of more human beings (in this country and throughout the world) more so than any other social endeavor in the entire course of human history. Moreover, those parts of the world which truly are the lowest in society are plagued by the LACK of capitalist institutions (e.g., banks, lending institutions, profit-seeking investors). The governments that exist in these parts of the world are begging for the development of such institutions and even more so for the profit-seeking investors. When poor countries cry out for "Trade-not-Aid," they are doing so because they recognize that profit-seeking capitalists are the greatest opportunity their country has for overcoming their economic plight (which often is the result of decades of well-intentioned, though abysmally deficient, redistributive aid programs).
ReplyDeleteFYI - I concur with most of your assessment of our Way Forward on healthcare, though I will assert that the problem is about healthcare delivery, NOT health insurance. Insurance has a role to play in the delivery of healthcare, though it ought not to be the most prominent factor. The current insurance paradigm is the product of illogical derivations from life insurance programs that developed during the Scottish Enlightment, which themselves were merely the small-scale social application of simple statistical relationships "discovered" by court mathematicians.
Essentially, insurance is about the redistribution of risk, NOT the redistribution of resources. Therefore, it only makes sense for those "healthcare events" for which we want to redistribute risk. Insurance only makes sense when two circumstances are saitisfied - when the health event is both (1) infrequent and (2) expensive.