Socialism vs. Liberalism

[Patroclus]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:

[norwegen]

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:If you're more inclined to support a liberal agenda than a conservative agenda, why couldn't people associate you with liberalism? At least in some measure?

[Patroclus]

Of course they can do so, but it is lazy and leaves me open to misrepresentation should they decide to enter into a discussion with me. It's about as foolish as assuming that just because a person hasbrownish skin and speaks Spanish that he or she is Mexican.

:pat:

[BillyBob]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:

Commie.

[norwegen]

Personally, I don't know why private industry and free enterprise are so bad. For the most part, government interference can only hinder commerce. Any time any machinery is interfered with, it runs less efficiently. All that's necessary for a machine to run smoothly is some manipulation at power-up and a little adjustment or lubrication here and there afterwards.

[Patroclus]

Personally, I don't know why private industry and free enterprise are so bad.

They aren't really all that bad. What they promote, however, is a system of fitness based upon financial means. I am against that.


For the most part, government interference can only hinder commerce. Any time any machinery is interfered with, it runs less efficiently. All that's necessary for a machine to run smoothly is some manipulation at power-up and a little adjustment or lubrication here and there afterwards.

Seriously, efficiency is such a fetish of our culture.

:pat:

[norwegen]

They aren't really all that bad. What they promote, however, is a system of fitness based upon financial means. I am against that.How fit would a society be without financial means? And if everyone somehow magically started with equal financial means, do you not think that most people would squander it?

More often than some people would like to admit, financial means are hard-won, often borrowed. If I'm not mistaken, heirs don't comprise the bulk of corporate management and ownership in the West.

What I'm against is the idea that equality must mean a leveling of the economic playing field. That is absolutely unfair, and it makes for a poorer country, as it diminishes initiative. Even poor people live better in capitalist countries than they do in socialist countries.

Capitalism allows both labor and management a voice in the labor market, making the supply-and-demand equilibrium more natural. It allows for personal drive and expression, extending to individuals the qualities of life they work for.
Seriously, efficiency is such a fetish of our culture.

:pat:Perhaps. The question is, Is something wrong with being efficient? I think liberalism is similar in ways to socialism. Both advocate significant government interference.

[Ryokan]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:
As an econ major, you'd have been better of leaving me to think you were a liberal. Socialists.... bleh! Is their any ideology that has caused so much harm with so little to show for it?

[Ryokan]

They aren't really all that bad. What they promote, however, is a system of fitness based upon financial means. I am against that. To have a wealthy society, it makes sense to reward people based on their ability to create wealth.




Seriously, efficiency is such a fetish of our culture.

:pat:
Efficiency and productivity are the things that makes us different from Malawi. There are the stuff that wealth is made us. And wealth is one of the principle ingredients of happiness and prosperity.

[Patroclus]

As an econ major, you'd have been better of leaving me to think you were a liberal. Socialists.... bleh! Is their any ideology that has caused so much harm with so little to show for it?

You aren't just an econ major. You are an econ major and a libertarian. I am sure that my positions suits an ample number of economists just fine.

Honestly, I am not really bothered by what some power-hungry maniacs made of socialism. I do not think that we need a working model before we decide if the theory is good and worth implementing. Obviously, though, you have decided otherwise.

:pat:

[Patroclus]

How fit would a society be without financial means? And if everyone somehow magically started with equal financial means, do you not think that most people would squander it?

I am not advocating that we strip society of financial means. I am saying that individual financial means should not be the determining factor if we have to choose who gets basica necessities, like medical care.


More often than some people would like to admit, financial means are hard-won, often borrowed. If I'm not mistaken, heirs don't comprise the bulk of corporate management and ownership in the West.

I don't dispute that.


What I'm against is the idea that equality must mean a leveling of the economic playing field. That is absolutely unfair, and it makes for a poorer country, as it diminishes initiative. Even poor people live better in capitalist countries than they do in socialist countries.

I am okay with being unfair to five percent of the population after that five percent has been unfair to the other 95% for the rest of history.


Capitalism allows both labor and management a voice in the labor market, making the supply-and-demand equilibrium more natural. It allows for personal drive and expression, extending to individuals the qualities of life they work for.Perhaps. The question is, Is something wrong with being efficient? I think liberalism is similar in ways to socialism. Both advocate significant government interference.

If efficiency means that forty million people cannot receive medical care because it is more important that everybody else gets their pain meds a day earlier, then I say that efficiency is not reason enough to do something.

:pat:

[Rubia Warren]

Honestly, I don't know how anyone with our current system can argue in support of capitalism as though we have free markets already. We don't. And we don't just have entitlement programs for the poor, begun by bleeding heart liberals that are ruining everything.

We have corporate welfare, too, and we have goofy subsidizations of the rich as well. Even at local levels when companies are going around shopping for tax abatements in order to decide where to plant themselves temporarily until the next locality gives them a better deal..... we have a system where we have socialism to an extent that in many cases favors the rich to the working middle class' expense.
This is not a free market vs. socialism. It's better to just be honest and argue about which economic class deserves the government bennies.

The Pro-business usually paints the poor, or liberals as people who believe the government owes them something. But hardly anyone looks at business that way when they do it. It's okay if business is propped up by government via subsidies or abatements, or certain tax breaks...... not okay if poorer people are-- gotta have reform for those freeloaders. Nobody has the right to a roof over their heads or insurance funded by taxpayers...... but certain rich people believe they have a right to operate a business, even if it means that the taxpayer funds part of it. And we think that is okay.

Forsome reason we have it in our heads that a wealthy person is more hard-working, more intelligent, and I'd dare even say more moral. We can let them slide though admitting that welfare for the rich should be revised or ended. But pick out an example of a poorer person getting stuff based on his low income? ohhhhh, he's devoured fool. The rich are the only ones who work hard and make wise choices. That is the perception I have of what many people believe.

[Ryokan]

You aren't just an econ major. You are an econ major and a libertarian. I am sure that my positions suits an ample number of economists just fine. Not really. Socialism just isn't popular any more. Welfares states, sure, but I can't think of many economist at all who want to put the means of production in the hands of the state anymore.


Honestly, I am not really bothered by what some power-hungry maniacs made of socialism. I do not think that we need a working model before we decide if the theory is good and worth implementing. Obviously, though, you have decided otherwise.

:pat:

I just don't know what working model there is. Europe did it smilie, The East did it communist, India did it third world.... it doesn't work. Not the way people would like it to anyway.

[Ryokan]

Honestly, I don't know how anyone with our current system can argue in support of capitalism as though we have free markets already. Honestly, I don't think many people want a truly free market either. We don't want to be ruled by corporations. Blade Runner is a good movie but I wouldn't want to live there.
We don't. And we don't just have entitlement programs for the poor, begun by bleeding heart liberals that are ruining everything. Still, most of the means of production are owned privately, and determined more or less by market forces. That is pretty free.

:love: Roobz, you are saying what I want to hear here! Yes, all that junk is stupid. [QUOTE] we have a system where we have socialism to an extent that in many cases favors the rich to the working middle class' expense. Socialism is a strong word and the truth is, in the short run the end of corporate welfare and tax abatements would hurt the lower middle class as business shifted to the new realities.

This is not a free market vs. socialism. It's better to just be honest and argue about which economic class deserves the government bennies. I would argue its not class warfare either, but our governments failure to prepare part of the populace for a shift in the market. Inexcusable, since its been happening for almost 40 years now.


The Pro-business usually paints the poor, or liberals as people who believe the government owes them something. But hardly anyone looks at business that way when they do it. It's okay if business is propped up by government via subsidies or abatements, or certain tax breaks...... not okay if poorer people are-- gotta have reform for those freeloaders. Nobody has the right to a roof over their heads or insurance funded by taxpayers...... but certain rich people believe they have a right to operate a business, even if it means that the taxpayer funds part of it. And we think that is okay. The biggest myth in America is businesses are pro-free market. They aren't. They want a hand out like everyone else.


Forsome reason we have it in our heads that a wealthy person is more hard-working, more intelligent, and I'd dare even say more moral. We can let them slide though admitting that welfare for the rich should be revised or ended. But pick out an example of a poorer person getting stuff based on his low income? ohhhhh, he's devoured fool. The rich are the only ones who work hard and make wise choices. That is the perception I have of what many people believe.I am sorry you are feeling so down lately Roobz :hug: Good post. I agree with most of it.

[Ryokan]

I am not advocating that we strip society of financial means. I am saying that individual financial means should not be the determining factor if we have to choose who gets basica necessities, like medical care.



I don't dispute that.



I am okay with being unfair to five percent of the population after that five percent has been unfair to the other 95% for the rest of history.



If efficiency means that forty million people cannot receive medical care because it is more important that everybody else gets their pain meds a day earlier, then I say that efficiency is not reason enough to do something.

:pat:Question: Do you support the government owning factories, having a say in what in produced every year, and having significant control over distribution? If you do you are a socialist. Do you simply support a large welfare state to level the playing field? If you do that, that's liberalism. The way you are talking, you seem more liberal to me.

[BillyBob]

Liberalism=socilaism=communism=progressive=enlightened=democrat=nazi

They are just different words describing the same ideology.

[Darth Executor]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

No, but when you have two dominating political parties nobody really cares about your deviant beliefs.


What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal. I have somewhat similar beliefs, except my ideal system has one addition yours does not have: a "Spartan" government (most, if not all government personel is trained from birth to do a specific job). Without this element your socialist state would eventually collapse. Talented people who want to become rich will decide to leave for a country that doesn't take all their hard earned money and give it to lazy bums. Eventually you'll be left with a country of incompetent retards that will lag behind all others, foreigners will decide to start avoiding you (and if you need exports, that's bad). Eventually someone will rebel and mount your head on a pike.


However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.
I too await this moment. Once America becomes socialist and subsequently collapses, someone will need to fill in the void, which is where my empire comes in.

[themuzicman]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:

With the amount of suffering that liberalism has caused, I'm suprised you'd say this.

Michael

[Patroclus]

Question: Do you support the government owning factories, having a say in what in produced every year, and having significant control over distribution? If you do you are a socialist.

Yes, but I am okay with this being accomplished through liberalism for the time being if it means averting an all-out revolution. The most important aspect is that the people are cared for. That must come first. Once that is taken care of, then I would like to see a full scale socialist state.

:pat:

[themuzicman]

You don't think people in the US are cared for?

[Ryokan]

Yes, but I am okay with this being accomplished through liberalism for the time being if it means averting an all-out revolution. The most important aspect is that the people are cared for. That must come first. Once that is taken care of, then I would like to see a full scale socialist state.

:pat:
So you are a pragmatic socialist of sorts.

[norwegen]

The most important aspect is that the people are cared for.Capitalism is best suited to that end.

[Xavier]

Capitalism is best suited to that end.
I tend to think that the Church is best suited to that end... Screw the State. It's just the tool of human depravity.

[Ryokan]

I tend to think that the Church is best suited to that end... Screw the State. It's just the tool of human depravity.

Tool of human depravity or not, I bet twenty bucks if I dumped you in Northern Somalia you'd miss the state pretty fast.

[Xavier]

Tool of human depravity or not, I bet twenty bucks if I dumped you in Northern Somalia you'd miss the state pretty fast.
You mean there's a State that fulfills its primary obligations?

[Ryokan]

You mean there's a State that fulfills its primary obligations?

If you mean provide security and arbitrate disputes? Yeah, lots of em. Some do more and some don't do it well, but many many states fit that bill and thank God for it.

[Xavier]

If you mean provide security and arbitrate disputes? Yeah, lots of em. Some do more and some don't do it well, but many many states fit that bill and thank God for it.
Colour me surprised.

Anyway, my point was that welfare (and especially the Christian calling to that welfare) is best served through private organizations with the proper manpower and knowledge to dispense aid efficiently. I tend to think that Gov't should look after their primary obligations first.

[norwegen]

I tend to think that the Church is best suited to that end... Screw the State. It's just the tool of human depravity.The Christian Church is arguably the most charitable institution on earth. However, it is not an economic system, which is what my post addressed.

[Xavier]

The Christian Church is arguably the most charitable institution on earth. However, it is not an economic system, which is what my post addressed.
Why are we looking to an economic system to fulfill the duty that we as God's people were set on the this Earth to accomplish?

[Darth Executor]

Because the wealth necessary to help other people doesn't grow on trees. Unless you own an orchard.

[Xavier]

Because the wealth necessary to help other people doesn't grow on trees. Unless you own an orchard.
That's the point of an economic system... To provide wealth.

My question remains as to why we are looking to that same system to provide welfare.

[themuzicman]

It takes money to give away money.

[Xavier]

It takes money to give away money.
That's exactly what DE said.

[themuzicman]

But that's the point. If you're dirt poor, starving and have nothing, engaging in welfare is impossible. A certain degree of wealth is necessary for church to have the ability to help anyone.

Michael

[Xavier]

But that's the point. If you're dirt poor, starving and have nothing, engaging in welfare is impossible. A certain degree of wealth is necessary for church to have the ability to help anyone.

Michael

We seem to be having a slight disconnect here. I have stated that welfare should not be under the purview of an economic system for two reasons:
1) Secular: The State is usually pretty bad at it.
2) Spiritual: WE being the people of God are called to provide welfare.

I have agreed that the primary goal of any viable economic system is the provide wealth.

My question remains: WHY are we looking to an economic system to provide welfare?

[themuzicman]

The State is NOT the economic system.

[Xavier]

The State is NOT the economic system.
True, but that matters little. Under discussion is the notion of Liberalism (an economic system) wherein the State is providing welfare.

[Patroclus]

True, but that matters little. Under discussion is the notion of Liberalism (an economic system) wherein the State is providing welfare.

I thought that the issues under discussion is socialism.

:pat:

[Patroclus]

You don't think people in the US are cared for?

No, I think that people are cared for, but I do not think that everybody is cared for.

:pat:

[themuzicman]

No, I think that people are cared for, but I do not think that everybody is cared for.

:pat:

What people in the US do not have a guaranteed minimum standard of living with regards to food, shelter, and medical care?

Michael

[Xavier]

I thought that the issues under discussion is socialism.

:pat:
They both are as far as I can tell.

When you made this comment earlier:

Yes, but I am okay with this being accomplished through liberalism for the time being if it means averting an all-out revolution. The most important aspect is that the people are cared for. That must come first. Once that is taken care of, then I would like to see a full scale socialist state.

"This" being "that the people are cared for" if I am reading correctly. You provided the impetus for my argument.

[Patroclus]

They both are as far as I can tell.

When you made this comment earlier:


"This" being "that the people are cared for" if I am reading correctly. You provided the impetus for my argument.

You're right. Sorry. Carry on.

:pat:

[Patroclus]

What people in the US do not have a guaranteed minimum standard of living with regards to food, shelter, and medical care?

Michael

First of all, the guaranteed standard of shelteris not remotely adequate. That we provide food is a good thing, however the current guarantee of medical care does not mean that people can receive medical care without incurring significant pecuniary reprocussions. Everyone is guaranteed to receive care, but everyone is expected to pay for it or face a ruined credit history.

For people who already suffer from poverty, the added expense of a medical bill is completely untenable. Yet, without paying for it, their chances of upward mobility are completely destroyed. They cannot purchase a home. They cannot move to a better neighborhood, they may not be able to purchase acar, which could limit their potential for work.

Furthermore, if people had access even to free, yearly checkups, many of the significant medical expenses could be avoided. However, because even a yearly check-up will cost money that 40 million Americans cannot pay, they will have to wait until the inevitable medical disaster.

:pat:

[Captain Ochre]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd.

Well at least you didn't mention me by name, Patroclus, but this report of yours is inaccurate if you're referring to the thread we recently shared.
I simply said that I had seen your argument in the past from the left.
After that, you made a logical leap, unless your sentence above refers to a different exchange.


One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

(and that view is shared by many Democrats, not many Republicans)


What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

The Democratic Party flirted very directly with the American socialist party in the early 20th century.
In 1932, the impact of the Great Depression resulted in revived support for the Socialist Party, and 896,000 votes were cast for the Party's Presidential candidate, Norman Thomas. But, by 1936, the left-liberal policies of the New Deal took a severe toll. In that year, David Dubinsky and other socialist union leaders in New York called on their membership to vote for Roosevelt, and formed the Social Democratic Federation to promote socialism within the ranks of the liberal/labor wing of the Democratic Party.
http://sp-usa.org/about/history/early-years.html


A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Some of us recognize that if a secular state is designated as the entity that needs to recognize the need, then the state will compete with religion to provide social services.
The Christian socialist, if he achieves the goal as described by Patroclus, will make the church obsolete as the agent of community in society.


Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:

It doesn't seem to matter how badly socialism works historically. Socialists are eager to try it again and again, confident that they'll get it right next time.

[themuzicman]

First of all, the guaranteed standard of shelteris not remotely adequate. That we provide food is a good thing, however the current guarantee of medical care does not mean that people can receive medical care without incurring significant pecuniary reprocussions. Everyone is guaranteed to receive care, but everyone is expected to pay for it or face a ruined credit history.

But not forever.


For people who already suffer from poverty, the added expense of a medical bill is completely untenable. Yet, without paying for it, their chances of upward mobility are completely destroyed. They cannot purchase a home. They cannot move to a better neighborhood, they may not be able to purchase acar, which could limit their potential for work.

For people in poverty, there is medicare.

Furthermore, "upward mobility" is not found in buying a house in a better neighborhood. "Upward mobility" is found in gaining the experience and education to improve one's marketable skills and increase one's income. Something that happens more frequently in the US than in any other nation on earth.

If memory serves, over an 8 year span (in the 1980s), 80 percent of people who were in the lowest 2/9s of income at the begining had moved upward by at least two levels by the end of the study. Capitalism doesn't just provide wealth, it provides the kind of mobility you're speaking of.


Furthermore, if people had access even to free, yearly checkups, many of the significant medical expenses could be avoided. However, because even a yearly check-up will cost money that 40 million Americans cannot pay, they will have to wait until the inevitable medical disaster.


OK, that 40 million number is bogus. That's the number of people who don't have health insurance for any period of time during a given year. That number is far from static, and the majority that are without health insurance can afford to pay for a doctor visit. They simply choose not to do so.

Remember, those 40 million are living well enough to not qualify for Medicare.

Believe me, I've been without health insurance as a married family man. No, it's not easy. However, with time, I was able to increase my marketability, increase my income, pay off my debts, and repair my credit within the span of a couple of years. It's not as though a damaged credit report remains that way forever. Even a bankruptcy only stays for 7 years.

So, I think you're being led into believing that there is a huge problem, here, when there isn't.

Does this mean we can't do better? No. Our health insurance system is driving up the cost of health care by removing cost as a consideration for the majority of consumers in the market. However, republicans (yes, the GOP) have introduced health care savings accounts, which will begin to reintroduce market force into the health care market by making the balance of that account something of concern for all who have them, and in turn, those consumers will begin to choose health care that is both appropriate and cost conscious, rather than taking all the unnecessary tests and the most luxurious accommodations.

Michael

[norwegen]

Under discussion is the notion of Liberalism (an economic system) wherein the State is providing welfare.I agree; we should not be looking to an economic system to provide welfare. And liberalism/socialism would demand that we do.

That's a great thing about capitalism. We acquire wealth, and then give freely.

[Xavier]

I agree; we should not be looking to an economic system to provide welfare. And liberalism/socialism would demand that we do.

That's a great thing about capitalism. We acquire wealth, and then give freely.

Then we are on the same page... :thumb:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Honestly, I don't know how anyone with our current system can argue in support of capitalism as though we have free markets already. We don't. And we don't just have entitlement programs for the poor, begun by bleeding heart liberals that are ruining everything.

We have corporate welfare, too, and we have goofy subsidizations of the rich as well. Even at local levels when companies are going around shopping for tax abatements in order to decide where to plant themselves temporarily until the next locality gives them a better deal..... we have a system where we have socialism to an extent that in many cases favors the rich to the working middle class' expense.
This is not a free market vs. socialism. It's better to just be honest and argue about which economic class deserves the government bennies.

The Pro-business usually paints the poor, or liberals as people who believe the government owes them something. But hardly anyone looks at business that way when they do it. It's okay if business is propped up by government via subsidies or abatements, or certain tax breaks...... not okay if poorer people are-- gotta have reform for those freeloaders. Nobody has the right to a roof over their heads or insurance funded by taxpayers...... but certain rich people believe they have a right to operate a business, even if it means that the taxpayer funds part of it. And we think that is okay.

Forsome reason we have it in our heads that a wealthy person is more hard-working, more intelligent, and I'd dare even say more moral. We can let them slide though admitting that welfare for the rich should be revised or ended. But pick out an example of a poorer person getting stuff based on his low income? ohhhhh, he's devoured fool. The rich are the only ones who work hard and make wise choices. That is the perception I have of what many people believe.

Awesome post. It can't be stated too often that as our economic system stands, we don't live in a truly free market. The current paradigm is interventionalism and the only argument is over which end the government should be throwing money at.

This reminds me of a quote by Milton Freidman:The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…

The argument has always been made that the trouble with capitalism is that it’s materialistic, while collectivism can afford to pay attention to the nonmaterial. But the experience has been the opposite. There are no societies that have emphasized the purely material requisites of well-being as much as the collectivist…it is in the free societies that there has been a far greater development of the nonmaterial, spiritual, artistic aspects of well-being.

[Captain Ochre]

First of all, the guaranteed standard of shelteris not remotely adequate. That we provide food is a good thing, however the current guarantee of medical care does not mean that people can receive medical care without incurring significant pecuniary reprocussions. Everyone is guaranteed to receive care, but everyone is expected to pay for it or face a ruined credit history.

There are many programs already in existence that reimburse hospitals for unpaid emergency care. You're spreading disinformation, Patroclus.
In many or most cases (I can' t say for certain which is more accurate), the hospital bills the patient far below the actual cost of care.

Moreover, each person is eligible (in a free society) to depend on his community and family for voluntary assistance with hospital bills. Churches frequently fill that role.


For people who already suffer from poverty, the added expense of a medical bill is completely untenable.

Poverty doesn't mean the same thing in the US that it means in most of the world.


Yet, without paying for it, their chances of upward mobility are completely destroyed. They cannot purchase a home. They cannot move to a better neighborhood, they may not be able to purchase acar, which could limit their potential for work.

On the other hand, they could be dead.


Furthermore, if people had access even to free, yearly checkups, many of the significant medical expenses could be avoided.

Like what?


However, because even a yearly check-up will cost money that 40 million Americans cannot pay, they will have to wait until the inevitable medical disaster.


People can afford to pay for medical checkups (ususally in the neighborhood of $50). If they can't afford a medical checkup then they can't afford name-brand tennis shoes.

Typical liberal bromides, Patroclus. :wink:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

What people in the US do not have a guaranteed minimum standard of living with regards to food, shelter, and medical care?

Michael

I'm having difficulty finding anything in the Consitution that guarantees any of those things.

[norwegen]

I'm having difficulty finding anything in the Consitution that guarantees any of those things.Americans don't have a right to any of those things (hence the disparities). However, in the 1900s, America had completed its economic "power-up" and become wealthy. Now, Americans' rights to access food, shelter, and medical care matter little; they can pretty much be sure that they won't be deprived. The country's success is their guarantee.

[Patroclus]

Well at least you didn't mention me by name, Patroclus, but this report of yours is inaccurate if you're referring to the thread we recently shared.
I simply said that I had seen your argument in the past from the left.
After that, you made a logical leap, unless your sentence above refers to a different exchange.

I was trying to be gracious. I am sorry that I misunderstood you in the first place. Nonetheless, it is something that I get al the time.


(and that view is shared by many Democrats, not many Republicans)

Oh no? I am quite willing to say that it is a view shard equally by members of both parties. It appears to be the view shared by Norwegen, and I know it is the view shared among the people at the private schools where I was a student and where I taught. Most of them were Republicans.


The Democratic Party flirted very directly with the American socialist party in the early 20th century.
In 1932, the impact of the Great Depression resulted in revived support for the Socialist Party, and 896,000 votes were cast for the Party's Presidential candidate, Norman Thomas. But, by 1936, the left-liberal policies of the New Deal took a severe toll. In that year, David Dubinsky and other socialist union leaders in New York called on their membership to vote for Roosevelt, and formed the Social Democratic Federation to promote socialism within the ranks of the liberal/labor wing of the Democratic Party.
http://sp-usa.org/about/history/early-years.html

That may very well be, and I do not deny that there are some key similarities, but the fact is that there are some important differences between liberalism and socialism.


Some of us recognize that if a secular state is designated as the entity that needs to recognize the need, then the state will compete with religion to provide social services.

Bravo to you for recognizing that, Captain.


The Christian socialist, if he achieves the goal as described by Patroclus, will make the church obsolete as the agent of community in society.

And bravo for your slippery slope argument. Next time, you might bother to ask what place I believe an individual is supposed to have in a socialist society.


It doesn't seem to matter how badly socialism works historically. Socialists are eager to try it again and again, confident that they'll get it right next time.

If something is good, aren't we obliged to go after it?

:pat:

[Patroclus]

There are many programs already in existence that reimburse hospitals for unpaid emergency care. You're spreading disinformation, Patroclus.
In many or most cases (I can' t say for certain which is more accurate), the hospital bills the patient far below the actual cost of care.

Yet the burden of re-payment is still on the individual.


Moreover, each person is eligible (in a free society) to depend on his community and family for voluntary assistance with hospital bills. Churches frequently fill that role.

A burden that, it seems to me, is unnecessary.


Poverty doesn't mean the same thing in the US that it means in most of the world.

No it doesn't. What's the point? I am talking about America.


On the other hand, they could be dead.

How very crass of you. Financial woescan lead to all kinds of domestic instabilities. It's pathetic that some people have to choose between paying for a tripple by-pass and paying to send their kids to college.


Like what?

Vascular and pulminary disease, hospice care for people with terminal cancer (perhaps if they have their yearly check-ups, the cancer might not be terminal), etc.


People can afford to pay for medical checkups (ususally in the neighborhood of $50). If they can't afford a medical checkup then they can't afford name-brand tennis shoes.

Also crass. Pardon me, but where do you get off assuming that people who cannot afford a $50 doctor's appointment are blowing their money on frivolity. No doubt, many do, but not all, and maybe not even most.


Typical liberal bromides, Patroclus. :wink:

Of course.

[Captain Ochre]

I was trying to be gracious. I am sorry that I misunderstood you in the first place. Nonetheless, it is something that I get al the time.

Just be careful not to quack like a duck.
:wink:


Oh no? I am quite willing to say that it is a view shard equally by members of both parties. It appears to be the view shared by Norwegen, and I know it is the view shared among the people at the private schools where I was a student and where I taught. Most of them were Republicans.

I referred to the last portion "I do not believe in the American form of democracy," so I apologize if it seemed as though I was focused on what preceded.
Republicans overwhelmingly believe in the American form of democracy.


That may very well be, and I do not deny that there are some key similarities, but the fact is that there are some important differences between liberalism and socialism.

Socialism seems to capture more of the bad things about liberalism ...
:smile:


Bravo to you for recognizing that, Captain.

And bravo for your slippery slope argument.

Been to Europe lately?


Next time, you might bother to ask what place I believe an individual is supposed to have in a socialist society.

I'd especially be interested in hearing how you would guarantee your view of the individual in society is enforced in the new order.


If something is good, aren't we obliged to go after it?



"When Eve saw that the tree was good for food ..."

Not really.

[Captain Ochre]

Yet the burden of re-payment is still on the individual.

No acknowledgment that your earlier version was misleading?


A burden that, it seems to me, is unnecessary.

It is a burden that is desirable. It ties the individual to the community with bonds of responsibility, if they are not obliged to assist him regardless of his place in society.

Sweden is learning all about it. They're in the midst of market-driven reforms.


No it doesn't. What's the point? I am talking about America.

The point is that being "in poverty" in America doesn't mean that people cannot afford healthcare.


How very crass of you. Financial woescan lead to all kinds of domestic instabilities. It's pathetic that some people have to choose between paying for a tripple by-pass and paying to send their kids to college.

Betcha that situation is rare indeed, and if somebody really can't afford a triple-bypass then their kids are going to eligible for Pell grants (and student loans).
Plus the student who is personally invested in his education is less likely to pursue a worthless degree.


Vascular and pulminary disease,

How does an annual checkup prevent those illnesses?


hospice care for people with terminal cancer (perhaps if they have their yearly check-ups, the cancer might not be terminal), etc.

Okay, here's the dirty little secret about healthcare that President Bush failed to figure out (and socialists* always seem to forget).

Let's say you fix a hip at 60.
Let's say you fix a heart at 70.
Let's say you fix a knee at 75.
Let's say you treat cancer at 80.
Let's say you treat cancer again at 85.
Let's say you remove a gall bladder at 90.
Let's say that you begin treating diabetes and thyroid at 95.
Let's say that you treat cancer again at 100.

Assign dollar figures for those treatments however you wish. The dirty little secret is that every time you successfully treat somebody and prolong their life, there is another opportunity for them to get sick and require more treatment. Prevention is cost-effective for productive workers (and that may include retirees); other than that it is a drain on the economy.
Patroclus would take that decision out of the hands of the ones with direct interest (family members) and make it an entitlement (crimps the economy, leads to joblessness, hunger, other bad things).

If the person above dies of a heart attack at 70, he saves nationalized healthcare a huge amount of money.

This does end up balancing out, however. Nationalized healthcare tends to result in delayed treatments, so the system will at times encourage death that might have been prevented by free market treatment.


Also crass. Pardon me, but where do you get off assuming that people who cannot afford a $50 doctor's appointment are blowing their money on frivolity.

I made no assumption. You can see it every day if you know where to look. I'm not making a generalization, simply an observation.


No doubt, many do, but not all, and maybe not even most.

Maybe most, eh?

[Patroclus]

First of all, allow me to apologize, please, for getting irritated. I am sorry.

More after I get home.

:pat:

[Zeluvia]

We have a very interesting situation here in Texas. It's called the Helotes Mulch Fire.

I think it is interesting because it is a practical problem for many areas...including capitalism and the "rights" of various entities.

Once upon a time, a man owned a piece of property. He decided to let developers that were clear cutting brush to build new houses use it to dump that brush. He got approval from the state.
The brush dumping started. It went way over what he was "allowed" to have by the state, but a state fire inspector declared that the pile was "not apparently made up of flammatory materials".
He was not fined for being "over his limit" by a few thousand tons.

It caught fire, right before Christmas.

The town, Helotes, could not afford to put it out. The county could not deal with it. The owner of the land, while liable, could not afford to put it out. Political wrangling went back and forth till the State had to step in and hire a contractor.

Meanwhile, schools were closeing, and kids being moved to other schools because of the smoke.

The contractor started working on taking the brush pile apart, to put it out. Despite precautioins like digging a clay reservoir, the run off from the fire quelling efforts showed up in the Aquifer, causeing the city to cut off the water supply to the fire fighting effort because it was now not only causing air problems, but also getting into the water supply of 14 million people.

1. Do you have the right to do ANYTHING you want with your land?

2. Are common goods such as air and water commodities? Or should they be under government and hence socialistic economic rules?

3. Do the devolopers that cut the brush and used this "cheaper" dump site instead of a county run controlled site have any liability in this fire? They are the ones that directly profited from creating this enviromental hazard, yet it appears that legally, they are not responsible. Are they ethically or morally responsible even if not legally?

4. The cost of the fire will be in the millions, who pays? Right now it is the Texas people paying through property and sales taxes.

5. What is the liablity of the State, since a state inspector said the site was "not a fire hazard" just weeks before it caught fire?

How does this fit into your ideas of capitalism and socialism and liberalism and assigning responsiblity to various entities for the common good of all the people?

[Ryokan]

We have a very interesting situation here in Texas. It's called the Helotes Mulch Fire.

I think it is interesting because it is a practical problem for many areas...including capitalism and the "rights" of various entities.

Once upon a time, a man owned a piece of property. He decided to let developers that were clear cutting brush to build new houses use it to dump that brush. He got approval from the state.
The brush dumping started. It went way over what he was "allowed" to have by the state, but a state fire inspector declared that the pile was "not apparently made up of flammatory materials".
He was not fined for being "over his limit" by a few thousand tons. Mmmmm, small town poltiical corruption and bueracratic stupidity.


It caught fire, right before Christmas.

The town, Helotes, could not afford to put it out. The county could not deal with it. The owner of the land, while liable, could not afford to put it out. Political wrangling went back and forth till the State had to step in and hire a contractor.

Meanwhile, schools were closeing, and kids being moved to other schools because of the smoke.

The contractor started working on taking the brush pile apart, to put it out. Despite precautioins like digging a clay reservoir, the run off from the fire quelling efforts showed up in the Aquifer, causeing the city to cut off the water supply to the fire fighting effort because it was now not only causing air problems, but also getting into the water supply of 14 million people.Crazy.


1. Do you have the right to do ANYTHING you want with your land? obviously not.


2. Are common goods such as air and water commodities? Or should they be under government and hence socialistic economic rules? Common goods subject to regulation.


3. Do the devolopers that cut the brush and used this "cheaper" dump site instead of a county run controlled site have any liability in this fire? They are the ones that directly profited from creating this enviromental hazard, yet it appears that legally, they are not responsible. Are they ethically or morally responsible even if not legally?

4. The cost of the fire will be in the millions, who pays? Right now it is the Texas people paying through property and sales taxes.

5. What is the liablity of the State, since a state inspector said the site was "not a fire hazard" just weeks before it caught fire? Everyone, including the public for not electing better officials, is a bit responsible, though the fire chief, the company, and guy are most responsible.


How does this fit into your ideas of capitalism and socialism and liberalism and assigning responsiblity to various entities for the common good of all the people?
Markets are bad with externalities and common goods (or bads) That is why we have governments. To regulate or delegate where they exist.

[Captain Ochre]

1. Do you have the right to do ANYTHING you want with your land?

No.


2. Are common goods such as air and water commodities? Or should they be under government and hence socialistic economic rules?

Air and water are commodities.
And there is a legitimate government interest in requlating air and water quality--but it is ridiculous to equate all government regulation with socialism. Otherwise we could just use the term "socialism" where we refer to government. :smile:


3. Do the devolopers that cut the brush and used this "cheaper" dump site instead of a county run controlled site have any liability in this fire? They are the ones that directly profited from creating this enviromental hazard, yet it appears that legally, they are not responsible.

Can we use "lowered expenses" instead of "profit"?
There's no guarantee their businesses did well financially, after all.

1) No, they don't have any liability, unless they dumped something illegally (like an incendiary bomb intended to start the fire).
2) You're right. They're not responsible. And why should they be? If you want to make someone responsible, consider the government that declared the materials safe.


Are they ethically or morally responsible even if not legally?

They somehow suspected that dumping at the site would cause a big fire?
Are you serious?


4. The cost of the fire will be in the millions, who pays? Right now it is the Texas people paying through property and sales taxes.

That's appropriate. It's like a Florida peat bog fire.


5. What is the liablity of the State, since a state inspector said the site was "not a fire hazard" just weeks before it caught fire?

Maybe the state should sue themselves?


How does this fit into your ideas of capitalism and socialism and liberalism and assigning responsiblity to various entities for the common good of all the people?

Accidents happen, and where accidents are not the result of breaking a law it's silly to talk about liability. The city okayed the dump site, that makes it their responsibility as much as if they owned it, barring some unknown act of incompetence by the landowner.

Now let's go socialist. The landowner doesn't own the land, so there's no competition for waste services. The whole community pays the higher rate, with no guarantee of avoiding the fire that inspired Zeluvia to post in the first place. Now the residents get stuck not only with the cleanup bill but with the higher costs of waste disposal--assuming they don't luck out and avoid the fire.

Just check out the polluted wasteland that is Siberia to see how great socialism is for the environment.
There's simply no solid evidence that socialism does a better job there than capitalism.
It's not the system, it's the people.

[norwegen]

1. Do you have the right to do ANYTHING you want with your land?No
2. Are common goods such as air and water commodities? Or should they be under government and hence socialistic economic rules?Air is not a commodity; it's not a scarce resource, and therefore not necessary to regulate (not its distribution, anyway). Water is a scarce resource essential to survival; its use and distribution, therefore, ought to be regulated.
3. Do the devolopers that cut the brush and used this "cheaper" dump site instead of a county run controlled site have any liability in this fire? They are the ones that directly profited from creating this enviromental hazard, yet it appears that legally, they are not responsible. Are they ethically or morally responsible even if not legally?I think they're morally responsible, as is the state, who allowed the behavior.
4. The cost of the fire will be in the millions, who pays? Right now it is the Texas people paying through property and sales taxes.Yup, those developers are skinning a boatload of Texans, fer sher.
5. What is the liablity of the State, since a state inspector said the site was "not a fire hazard" just weeks before it caught fire?It should be partly to blame, yes.
How does this fit into your ideas of capitalism and socialism and liberalism and assigning responsiblity to various entities for the common good of all the people?In the United States, government's first responsibility, I'm pretty sure, is to protect property. One of its other responsibilities is the welfare of its citizens otherwise as well. People ought to be able to manage their land as they please, until their management of it infringes on other peoples' property (which includes public tracts of land).

[Rubia Warren]

However, republicans (yes, the GOP) have introduced health care savings accounts, which will begin to reintroduce market force into the health care market by making the balance of that account something of concern for all who have them, and in turn, those consumers will begin to choose health care that is both appropriate and cost conscious, rather than taking all the unnecessary tests and the most luxurious accommodations.

Michael

Psst hey Muz have you heard about the plan my governor is proposing? Almost the same thing I brought up a while back. Giving poor people a form of an HSA and letting them use it to pay for physicals, etc. instead of a medicaid type plan which just pays the bills. Whatever they have leftover at the end of the year in the account is theirs. I have to find out the details still, but I'm real excited about it for many reasons.

Now back to yoour regularly scheduled thread.

[norwegen]

Now back to yoour regularly scheduled thread.Rats.

Now I forgot where we were.

[Rubia Warren]

Rats.

Now I forgot where we were.
You know, when we finally get socialism, the first thing that has to go is your Whopper value meal.


:haha:

[norwegen]

You know, when we finally get socialism, the first thing that has to go is your Whopper value meal.


:haha:Okay, I looked at yer profile, Rubia. Yea, yer cute an' all, but now I'm a gonna edjumacate ya.'

See, the first thing I'll do when we become socialist is buy a Whopper combo meal (biggie-sized, of course) at everyone else's expense.

I figure if I quit my job - maybe fake some disability or something - I could eat free for life, and believe me, with all the scrumptious vegetables that Burger King slaps on their triple whoppers, I'll live a good long time.

You better have a good job.

:teeth:

[Rubia Warren]

You see that's why I'm a full-on commie.
Because when it finally goes my way, all you will have in your monthly ration is a bag of pita pockets and some bean sprouts.



P.S. Don't be fooled by my profile. That pic is about 5 years old or so. I've since hit 30, and look more like my avatar than anything.

[Darth Executor]

You see that's why I'm a full-on commie.
Because when it finally goes my way, all you will have in your monthly ration is a bag of pita pockets and some bean sprouts.

I hope you're not really a commie. If you think you have it bad now, wait until you have to wait in line all night to buy a loaf of bread because your fearless chairman decided to industrialize your country completely and forgot to harvest the crops.

[Rubia Warren]

I'm not a commie, I was just trying to find a way to force norwegen to eat a pita pocket. :nsm:

[apostoli]

Hi Patroclus,


Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.I live in Australia, so all I know about USA politics is what I am told. But I thought I'd share with you how things work here. Here the "Liberals" are our conservative party. Our Labor party is what you guys probably call liberals (?). Our conservative party is increasingly adopting USA policy and attitudes, with the effect that over the last ten years the standard of living has dropped considerably for a significant part of the population. The debate here is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

I see a huge danger in my country heading down the American path. An example: The company I worked for was taken over by another Ozzie company. Thats business. However, that company formed a "staff resource" company in partnership with a USA based company, into which it "transitioned" its staff. Neither owner has any financial liability in terms of the resource company. Hence there is no incentive for either company to take care of staff. The duty of care is with the resource company. Interestingly, the setup was/is illegal in South Africa. Admittedly, I see business sense in the arrangement. Good workers in theory are rewarded, bad workers are allowed to rust or encouraged (read forced) to leave. This is how the company works worldwide. In many places staff turn over is particularly high in a bouyant labor market, and moderate the rest of the time. This doesn't effect the company. being global, and where possible it just moves the jobs to another shore. All good business.

However, because most corporations these days have equity partnerships, shareholders etc there is a gloal danger to the security of workers. For example: The CEO of the USA company mentioned above received US$54million as a bonus. Which threw that company into financial chaos. Solution sack that CEO and bring in a new one. Result 20% of the global workforce was summarily dismissed.

The moral of the story: vote for a return to feudalism (the conservatives) or for liberty.

[Sheepdog]

well, one thing is right here. if "liberal" is taken to emphasize liberty (as in the classical sense) then Pat is not a liberal, but neither are most American leftists from what i can tell. socialism reduces the liberty to pursue prosperity, by punishing people taking a risk and being successful.

[Captain Ochre]

Hi Patroclus,

I live in Australia, so all I know about USA politics is what I am told. But I thought I'd share with you how things work here. Here the "Liberals" are our conservative party. Our Labor party is what you guys probably call liberals (?). Our conservative party is increasingly adopting USA policy and attitudes, with the effect that over the last ten years the standard of living has dropped considerably for a significant part of the population.

Over the past decade, Australia has shown itself to have one of the strongest economies in the world. A combination of effective economic management, a skilled, flexible workforce and a competitive and dynamic private sector has enabled Australia to demonstrate great resilience in a time of huge global economic slowdown.

At the same time, Australia has been able to maintain a low inflation rate, which also means low interest rates. Productivity growth rates over the same period have often outperformed those of the G7 economies, including the United States. Australia’s government net debt is also significantly lower than that in Europe, Japan and the United States and is among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/otd/publishing.nsf/Content/work-Standard-of-living

Australia has suffered from the low growth and high unemployment characterizing the OECD countries in the early 1990s, but the economy has expanded at reasonably steady rates in recent years. Canberra's emphasis on reforms is a key factor behind the economy's resilience to the regional crisis and its stronger than expected growth rate that reached 4.5% last year.
http://www.escapeartist.com/efam12/Evaluation_Of_Australia.html

Economies are dynamic. There are always losers (simply meaning those whose prospects decline) in any economy.
Shrink that Australian economy without the market reforms and you probably have more losers worse off than otherwise.


The debate here is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

That's pretty much the socialist line.
Since there are always losers in a dynamic economy, they can always make the complaint and get somebody to listen to it.


I see a huge danger in my country heading down the American path.

Indeed. The rich could get richer.
The poor will get richer, too, but socialists will ignore that because of the "income gap" (which is supposedly just wrong).
On an interesting note, it's actually very common for the very rich to return to the pack after failed investments and the like..


An example: The company I worked for was taken over by another Ozzie company. Thats business. However, that company formed a "staff resource" company in partnership with a USA based company, into which it "transitioned" its staff. Neither owner has any financial liability in terms of the resource company. Hence there is no incentive for either company to take care of staff. The duty of care is with the resource company. Interestingly, the setup was/is illegal in South Africa. Admittedly, I see business sense in the arrangement. Good workers in theory are rewarded, bad workers are allowed to rust or encouraged (read forced) to leave. This is how the company works worldwide. In many places staff turn over is particularly high in a bouyant labor market, and moderate the rest of the time. This doesn't effect the company. being global, and where possible it just moves the jobs to another shore. All good business.

Potentially, anyway, but productivity, taxes and other costs will figure in.


However, because most corporations these days have equity partnerships, shareholders etc there is a glo[b]al danger to the security of workers. For example: The CEO of the USA company mentioned above received US$54million as a bonus. Which threw that company into financial chaos. Solution sack that CEO and bring in a new one. Result 20% of the global workforce was summarily dismissed.

The relationship between hiring a new CEO and dismissing 20% of the workforce is not clear in your description.
It seems possible in theory that a new CEO may be hired without dismissing 20% of the workforce, IOW.


The moral of the story: vote for a return to feudalism (the conservatives) or for liberty.

Or, put another way, if you're tired of Australia being ranked high #3 in economic freedom, vote for the labor party and drop the nation down the list some.
Cuba's got some awesome socialism going on at #156. Jealous?
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=Australia
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

[apostoli]

Hi Captain Ochre,


Over the past decade, Australia has shown itself to have one of the strongest economies in the world. A combination of effective economic management, a skilled, flexible workforce and a competitive and dynamic private sector has enabled Australia to demonstrate great resilience in a time of huge global economic slowdown.

At the same time, Australia has been able to maintain a low inflation rate, which also means low interest rates. Productivity growth rates over the same period have often outperformed those of the G7 economies, including the United States. Australia’s government net debt is also significantly lower than that in Europe, Japan and the United States and is among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/otd/publishing.nsf/Content/work-Standard-of-living

Australia has suffered from the low growth and high unemployment characterizing the OECD countries in the early 1990s, but the economy has expanded at reasonably steady rates in recent years. Canberra's emphasis on reforms is a key factor behind the economy's resilience to the regional crisis and its stronger than expected growth rate that reached 4.5% last year.
http://www.escapeartist.com/efam12/Evaluation_Of_Australia.html

Economies are dynamic. There are always losers (simply meaning those whose prospects decline) in any economy. Shrink that Australian economy without the market reforms and you probably have more losers worse off than otherwise.]/QUOTE]Pointedly, all major economic reforms in Australia, deregulation, globalisation etc were instigated by Labor governments. We live in a resource cycle. Chifley (labor) in the 1940s instigated a war recovery program that carried the Menzies government (conservative) through the 1950s/60s. The same thing has happened with the current government. Howard was an ex (failed) treasurer of the conservatives who has been living off Keatings (Labor) reforms. All I have seen from the conservatives is fascist tactic (dogs and armed gaurds on the warves - which needed reform butnot that way and if was a failed tactic).


That's pretty much the socialist line. Since there are always losers in a dynamic economy, they can always make the complaint and get somebody to listen to it.Actually, its a christian line. Christianity is about social organisation. There are abuses in our system, but at least it is better than I observed in Asia and Europe. We do have street people, but most have some social problem or are tourists who won't go home :-) Unlike europe and asia you won't find beggers from economic neccessity. The govt has schemes for the long term unemployed, such as subsidies for training and even setting people up in business. Mind you, refugees get priority which is an issue with the ordinary Australian.


Indeed. The rich could get richer.The poor will get richer, tooThat definitely is not true in the USA and most of Europe. The poor are getting poorer in all the developed and developing world (except maybe China). The cost of housing is a prime example. And here (because of the drought) there is real concern regarding adequate nutition (cost fruit and vegetables being outside of the average families means).


but socialists will ignore that because of the "income gap" (which is supposedly just wrong).I was in the top tax bracket (51%). I studied at night and at the same time raised a family to get where I got. Yep! I believe in social equality but reward according to merit. Imo: Most Harvard graduates should be automatically jailed because they do not give a duty of care to workers and their focus is profits at any cost. That is generally called barbarism.


On an interesting note, it's actually very common for the very rich to return to the pack after failed investments and the like.Maybe I'm in that boat. I'm a self funded early retirie - not from choice but by ageism and the fact my jo is now done in Malaysia. I could go back to work but why do I want to be a slave to some young kid who couldn't care if I lived or died. (PS: one of the reasons I got retrenched was I took six weeks leave when my son died - mind you I hadn't had a holiday in nearly 10 years).


Potentially, anyway, but productivity, taxes and other costs will figure in.I just can't justify paying a bonus of US$53million to anyone for anything. These types of super bonus' are common here and the USA and I fail to see how it can be justified at either a corporate or national level.


The relationship between hiring a new CEO and dismissing 20% of the workforce is not clear in your description.It seems possible in theory that a new CEO may be hired without dismissing 20% of the workforce, IOW.Not in case cited. And many others I am aware of. In the case cited the actual retrenchment was between 20-40 thousand people worldwide. Of course some of that was replaced by jo creation elsewhere.

QUOTE=Captain Ochre]Or, put another way, if you're tired of Australia being ranked high #3 in economic freedom, vote for the labor party and drop the nation down the list some.
Cuba's got some awesome socialism going on at #156. Jealous?
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=Australia
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfmThere is more to income growth. Our infrastructure has been underfunded for over ten years. The PM has just announced a Aus$10billion plan for the savalation of the major inland rivers, but as yet there seems to be no plan just election year gas. Meanwhile, there is no plan for the cities (admittedly a state government responsibility).

We have an accute shortage in trade labor (plumbers, welders etc) all crucial to our economic prosperity. Our conservative govt has been in power for 10years, and it is they who have removed/reduced funding for training, research and so on. The only thing it has been good at is selling off the farm and the feedstock!

[Captain Ochre]

Hi Captain Ochre,
Actually, its a christian line. Christianity is about social organisation. There are abuses in our system, but at least it is better than I observed in Asia and Europe. We do have street people, but most have some social problem or are tourists who won't go home :-) Unlike europe and asia you won't find beggers from economic neccessity. The govt has schemes for the long term unemployed, such as subsidies for training and even setting people up in business. Mind you, refugees get priority which is an issue with the ordinary Australian.

A-ha.
So Jesus didn't say we would always have the poor among us, he said that they would get poorer while the rich would get richer.
Seriously, where is it the "Christian" line other than some Christians say it occasionally?


That definitely is not true in the USA and most of Europe. The poor are getting poorer in all the developed and developing world (except maybe China).

Baloney, at least in the US (it may well be true in a nation like France where the labor market is under socialistic controls). The "poor" who are able to work have the roomiest dwellings and the fanciest toys of pretty much any poor on earth.
The poor who are mentally unable to function in society do not have much because the liberals decided to give them freedom that they could not handle (Reagan participated in this as gov. of California).


The cost of housing is a prime example. And here (because of the drought) there is real concern regarding adequate nutition (cost fruit and vegetables being outside of the average families means).

In the United States it's hard to go without food except in extremely unusual circumstances (too proud to ask, or you live in a car that was covered in an avalanche).


I was in the top tax bracket (51%). I studied at night and at the same time raised a family to get where I got. Yep!

Good for you (sincerely).


I believe in social equality but reward according to merit.

Those two things do not reconcile without some effort.
There's chocolate in your peanut butter.


Imo: Most Harvard graduates should be automatically jailed because they do not give a duty of care to workers and their focus is profits at any cost. That is generally called barbarism.

And then you complain when they go abroad to hire!
:)
Here's a little secret for you: The profit is always going to be reflected in the final price (except in obvious cases where the company is having to take a loss, like when it's going out of business).
You pay the employees like kings, and you'll have to pass along the cost to the customer. If the customer can't afford it, you' have to lay off your kings and queens.
Then what will they do?


There is more to income growth.

Indeed. You could pass a law to give every Aussie citizen a million dollars and income growth would clearly increase (though of course there's a huge problem with the plan).

But of course I was on the topic of economic freedom, not income growth.


Our infrastructure has been underfunded for over ten years. The PM has just announced a Aus$10billion plan for the savalation of the major inland rivers, but as yet there seems to be no plan just election year gas.

Is it legal in Australia for a private firm to build a highway (and is that the type of infrastructure you're talking about)?


Meanwhile, there is no plan for the cities (admittedly a state government responsibility).

Well, you could always nationalize the cities ...


We have an accute shortage in trade labor (plumbers, welders etc) all crucial to our economic prosperity.

How did that happen? Are they all unionized or something?

http://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0215b.htm
Oops. Looks like they are.
You know, if they weren't unionized you'd probably have enough plumbers.


Our conservative govt has been in power for 10years, and it is they who have removed/reduced funding for training, research and so on.

You can't get a government grant to go to plumber school or welder school?
Something's wrong with that picture, but I don't think we'd agree as to what it is.


The only thing it has been good at is selling off the farm and the feedstock!

Metaphor, lest I ask how the government came to own the farms?

[Duder]

Once again, it was suggested that I am with the "liberal" crowd. One reason why it is so irritating to me to discuss American politics, these days, is that so many people tend to believe that there are two types of people in this world, "liberals" and "conservatives." I agree with Chesterton that the political distinction does a great injustice to those two words which could just as easily mean "generous" and "thrifty," two important virtues. Nevertheless, I think that it is important for Americans to realize that even in a post-Cold War era, the political spectrum is not simply two-dimensional.

Speaking from the two-dimensional plane of American political discussion, I am a moderate. I favor higher taxes to improve infrastructure, etc., yet I believe that people in all sectors of life should be free to express their religious views. However, really, I am a socialist, and I do not believe in the American form of democracy.

What does it mean when I say that I am a socialist? It means that I believe that, ultimately, goods and services should be the domain of the state. I do not believe in private industry, and I do not believe in free enterprise. This view is not liberal.

A truly liberal American values the basics of capitolism, yet believes that the revenues from a capitolistic society should be made available to pay for public needs, and that these funds should be made available when the state identifies the need, not when market forces determine that the need will be met.

Now, will I be mroe inclined to support a liberal agenda than I will a conservative agenda? Sure, though I am torn. Part of me believes that if the conservatives win, we might actually see capitolism for the crime that it really is and change things (but then aren't I giving into the market forces? :sigh:). However, for the time being, there are suffering people, and if the liberals can manage to alleviate that suffereing, I will stand by them until such time as we are actually ready for a real change.

:pat:

Greetings Pat and all -

I'm mostly out of the loop these days, so I haven't read this whole thread. But you OP caught my attention and I have a few thoughts about it.

In your understanding of socialism, "goods and services should be the domain of the state". You've put your finger on what it is that makes me uncomfortable about socialism by emphasizing state control. It raises fears about a society in which the collective has too much power over the lives of individuals.

A good measure of self-determination is essential to human happiness, don't you agree? So how, in your vision of the ideal socialist society, is self-determination preserved?

________________

Karl Marx said that the workers should own the means of production. I think that is a very good and noble idea. I understand that the Harley Davidson motorcycle company is owned and operated by its employees. It is the staff of Harley Davidson, and not the state, that run things. If we can organize an economy along these lines, where workers own the means of production without getting the state too much involved, maybe we can have something close to the spirit of communism without the potential horrors of an all-powerful big-brother state.

_________________

I agree wholeheartedly that capitolism in America today has become a crime. We are rapidly moving back toward the situation that existed in England in the time of Charles Dickens, or the robber-barons of early 20th century America. But worse, the robber-barons of today do not have to deal with the objections of the religious faithful. Rather, they have managed to get the religious faithful on their side.

I fear that ultimately America will be ruled by a religious-fascist state where the corporations set national policy and the state enforces religious laws. This is essentially what theonomists and dominionists want. They have been organized for decades, and they are growing in power and in numbers. In their society, the poor do not need economic opportunity, health care or education. All they need is to get right with Jesus, who will, presumably, personally see to all of their needs once they get right with Him. So all society has to do is make sure that everyone gets right with Jesus. There is no need to administer social justice, health care or education.

Like you, I am not a liberal - but like you, I stand firmly with the liberals against this monsterous, anti-Christian vision.

[apostoli]

Hi Captain Ochre,

Firstly, I like to correct a misnomer...

Unionism. What else do you call a Chamber of Commerce, the guild of lawyers, CPAs , political parties etc.

Here orgs like the builders labourers and dock workers have been a problem in the past - corruption etc. But the same problem has been found with many capitalist bucaneers who ripped off shareholders, investors, creditors and employees (eg: Alan Bond, the guy that funded us winning the America Cup is one back in the news).

The principal of unionism (at least here) is to defend not attack. We don't intentionally bite the hand that feeds us. But with our Irish heritage we don't allow the feeder to indiscrimately screw anyone! It is one of the reasons that Oz has been successful. To a very large extent our unions co-operate with business (there have been exceptions). Especially in the last 40-50 years.

I've always been in management so haven't been a member of a union. I've always been part of usiness cartels (professional affiliations). If you only saw what goes on in the inside of business (the boardroom).


So Jesus didn't say we would always have the poor among us, he said that they would get poorer while the rich would get richer. Seriously, where is it the "Christian" line other than some Christians say it occasionally?Well. There was this rich guy who told Jesus how good he was and Jesus told him to sell all his goods and to follow him. So in JCs opinion the rich have a problem in being rich. It is easy to be righteous when you know where your next meal is coming from. Spend a day in Naples. If you don't get robed or at least ripped off in a con then you are a statistic. Walk the back streets of Rome. The queues you see aren't tourists, they are line ups for soup kitchens. Christianity is caring about others not ourselves. Remember the story of Lazarus and the rich man. It wasn't the self centered guy that resided in Abrahams bossom.


Baloney, at least in the US (it may well be true in a nation like France where the labor market is under socialistic controls). The "poor" who are able to work have the roomiest dwellings and the fanciest toys of pretty much any poor on earth.Not what I've seen on CBS & NBC. There are homeless with full time white collar employment living on the streets because they can't afford to rent on the money they are paid.

Think ack to the Atlanta Olympics. Pure economic piracy of the many for the short term profit of a few.


The poor who are mentally unable to function in society do not have much because the liberals decided to give them freedom that they could not handle (Reagan participated in this as gov. of California)..I can't comment on that. Though I thought Regan was a conservative. From what I've seen on TV there are states over there, even some run by conservative govts that run successful employment programs. Work for the dole type concepts.


In the United States it's hard to go without food except in extremely unusual circumstances (too proud to ask, or you live in a car that was covered in an avalanche).
Heh food is always available. People can always eat grass. My point was nutrition. The USA has a reputation for obesity=bad diet. Which is going to cost you heaps in medical fees.

Don't know if it is happened over there, but Maccas is now serving healthy meals here. Yep! Its a big shock to us too! Commentary has been its a ploy to sell more hamburgers, but on the positive side it does show what social preasure (from the left) can cause.


There's chocolate in your peanut butter.I agree. I came from a "poor" family. I started work at 13. I'm not rich but I've never been poor and if I don't want to, I don't need to work for 30 years (or more depending on future rates of return) but that projection is based on a suurban standard of living. I don't need a flash car or a penthouse in Manhatten to e a man!


And then you complain when they go abroad to hire!In Oz we haven't got a lot of choice. The conservatives (in business and government) provide so little funding for training that we have to import skilled workers. And Oz orn skilled workers are so screwed (tax etc) they tend to go overseas. Nursing is a funny one. We pay more to an import than we do to our own. But that is all to do with economies of scale. Screw the local worker (say 80% of the population) and treat the imports according to global market conditions.


Here's a little secret for you: The profit is always going to be reflected in the final price (except in obvious cases where the company is having to take a loss, like when it's going out of business).Heres a true case study for you - Japan. The Japanese are prepared to forgo profits for years to get market share (I personally know of one case where a jap co here experienced 20yrs of loss, just to get a foot in our door). Any accountant will tell you volume is the key factor in profit. Often it is better to make 1c in profit on 100 items than $1 on 1 item. Of course this depnds on economies of scale. Sometimes it is etter not to participate in a market at all. There is an island nation in the Pacific that is now a whole in the ground. It did have a short term resource boom. In their case they should have managed their resources on a scarcity principal and limited production. Businesses go bust via bad management and economic incompetence (greed), not simply from lack of profit!


You pay the employees like kings, and you'll have to pass along the cost to the customer. If the customer can't afford it, you' have to lay off your kings and queens.
Then what will they do?That is simplistic. You pay a worker a living wage. Enough to house feed, clothe, educate and get him to work in a healthy state. It is in a business' own interest. Staff turnover costs money - you have to retrain etc etc


Indeed. You could pass a law to give every Aussie citizen a million dollars and income growth would clearly increase (though of course there's a huge problem with the plan).I don't know about the USA but we are pretty well educated here. Give us each a million dollars we'd go buy up bits of the world. Income would grow, ut we'd have to be careful of accelerator effects. So we'd have pass a law to make all Ozzies their time travelling the world, so we can keep the costs down in Oz. After all our America servants will need to eat ;-)


But of course I was on the topic of economic freedom, not income growth.Unless income growth at least matches inflation there is no economic freedom. The problem here is those who are getting richer are driving inflation. The accelerator effects kick in. Those getting richer, do so via borrowing, driving interest rates up. Thus indirect costs to business increase. The simple business solution is to reduce direct costs = labor costs.


Is it legal in Australia for a private firm to build a highway (and is that the type of infrastructure you're talking about)?Actually yeh! Here in Sydney most of the motorways are privately owned or in partnership with the government.

The type of infrastructure I'm talking aout is economic infrastructure: ports, roads, education and medical. We only have 18+million people. Most of the place is semi-desert. Our economic prosperity has been based on non-renewable resources. Yet per-capita I've read we have been leaders in technological, medical and agricultural research which has gone OS for the lack of funding. Apparently, we are getting smarter. Instead of selling ideas we now licence them.


Well, you could always nationalize the citiesActually, the conservatives want to nationalise the states. They aren't big on democracy. The Federated Oz is our ig secret. Think ECC and progress 105years.


How did that happen? Are they all unionized or something?Nothing to do with unionisation but sterotyping of the trades. This is a yuppie country. If you haven't got a uni degree your a nobody. The conservatives undefunded the technical colleges which had a compound effect. There solution has been to rename the techs. Sydney Tech is now called UTS.


You can't get a government grant to go to plumber school or welder school? Something's wrong with that picture, but I don't think we'd agree as to what it is.Big prob here is "the socialists" in the 70s made Uni free. Thus usiness didn't need to provide cadetships, traineeships etc. These days students can get HECS which is a loan system. That is great, but until recently the incentives for a plumber to take on an apprentice have been non existence (the conservatives removed them and are now reintroducing them). No experience = no qualification. Catch 22. I had a plumer around last month and we discussed this. His response is the customer won't pay for two people when one can do the job. Fair comment I thought, so the solution seems to be to subsidise employers to get more plumbers into the system to increase competition and reduce price. This was laors view of things. The conservatives prefer to work in a supply/demand management cycle to increase the profits of the few to the detriment of most.


Metaphor, lest I ask how the government came to own the farms?Yep. A metaphor. Here, the government owns everything in the ground and over your head. If someone discovers gold under your house, and the govt says dig it up. You are homeless. Of course you do get a royalty. Ask any aborigine, they go through it all the time. And I'm sure you saw the bad press during the Sydney Olympics,

[jgarden]

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing, or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq.

RANK / NATION

1 Norway

2 Iceland

3 Australia

4 Ireland

5 Sweden

6 Canada

7 Japan

8 United States

9 Switzerland

9 Netherlands

9 Finland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compared to the US, every other modern democracy in the world could be considered "socialist."

2. Why does the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world and the bastion of "capitalism" rank only 8th on the HDI ?

3. Why do other countries with fewer financial resources rank above the USA in the following areas

life expectancy
child welfare
literacy
education

[Ryokan]

1. Compared to the US, every other modern democracy in the world could be considered "socialist."[/QUOTE} Except Norway, Singapore, Ireland, the special administrative area in and around Hong Kong....
[QUOTE]
2. Why does the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world and the bastion of "capitalism" rank only 8th on the HDI ?[QUOTE] Well, Ireland and Norway are more capitalist than the US, and the rest have either small or largely heterogenous populations with a different set of social and economic circumstances. They also experience a defence dividend because of the US's large defence expenditure. It is telling that the truly socialist European economies, like France, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. rank below the US.
[QUOTE]
3. Why do other countries with fewer financial resources rank above the USA in the following areas

life expectancy
child welfare
literacy
educationAgain, see above. Also, the problem is the US sometimes confuses socialism with social programs.

[jgarden]

quote]LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COUNTRY - 2006

RANK / COUNTRY / LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (YEARS)

1 Andorra 83.51
2 Macau 82.19 .
3 San Marino 81.71
4 Singapore 81.71
5 Hong Kong 81.59
6 Japan 81.25
7 Sweden 80.51
8 Switzerland 80.51
9 Australia 80.5
10 Guernsey 80.42
11 Iceland 80.31
12 Canada 80.22
13 Cayman Islands 80.07
14 Italy 79.81 .
15 Gibraltar 79.8
16 France 79.73
17 Monaco 79.69
18 Liechtenstein 79.68
19 Spain 79.65
20 Norway 79.54
21 Israel 79.46
22 Jersey 79.38
23 Faroe Islands 79.35
24 Aruba 79.28
25 Greece 79.24
26 Austria 79.07
27 Virgin Islands 79.05 .
28 Malta 79.01
29 Netherlands 78.96
30 Luxembourg 78.89
31 Montserrat 78.85
32 New Zealand 78.81
33 Germany 78.8
34 Belgium 78.77
35 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.61
36 Guam 78.58
37 United Kingdom 78.54
38 Finland 78.5
39 Isle of Man 78.49
40 Jordan 78.4
41 Puerto Rico 78.4
42 European Union 78.3
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78
44 Bermuda 77.96
45 Saint Helena 77.93
46 United States 77.85[/quote]

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/imr-ri.nsf/en/gr-05318e.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does a country who spends the largest %GDP on health and has the most modern, technically advanced facilities ihe world only rank 46th in terms of life expectancy ?

[Tickle Me Mercury]

LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COUNTRY - 2006

RANK / COUNTRY / LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (YEARS)

1 Andorra 83.51
2 Macau 82.19 .
3 San Marino 81.71
4 Singapore 81.71
5 Hong Kong 81.59
6 Japan 81.25
7 Sweden 80.51
8 Switzerland 80.51
9 Australia 80.5
10 Guernsey 80.42
11 Iceland 80.31
12 Canada 80.22
13 Cayman Islands 80.07
14 Italy 79.81 .
15 Gibraltar 79.8
16 France 79.73
17 Monaco 79.69
18 Liechtenstein 79.68
19 Spain 79.65
20 Norway 79.54
21 Israel 79.46
22 Jersey 79.38
23 Faroe Islands 79.35
24 Aruba 79.28
25 Greece 79.24
26 Austria 79.07
27 Virgin Islands 79.05 .
28 Malta 79.01
29 Netherlands 78.96
30 Luxembourg 78.89
31 Montserrat 78.85
32 New Zealand 78.81
33 Germany 78.8
34 Belgium 78.77
35 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.61
36 Guam 78.58
37 United Kingdom 78.54
38 Finland 78.5
39 Isle of Man 78.49
40 Jordan 78.4
41 Puerto Rico 78.4
42 European Union 78.3
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78
44 Bermuda 77.96
45 Saint Helena 77.93
46 United States 77.85

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/imr-ri.nsf/en/gr-05318e.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does a country who spends the largest %GDP on health and has the most modern, technically advanced facilities ihe world only rank 46th in terms of life expectancy ?

What counts as "health" expentetures? There is a lot of crap on sale at pharmacies with dubious at best results, but might be considered health expenses.

[decoski]

quote]LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COUNTRY - 2006

RANK / COUNTRY / LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (YEARS)

1 Andorra 83.51
2 Macau 82.19 .
3 San Marino 81.71
4 Singapore 81.71
5 Hong Kong 81.59
6 Japan 81.25
7 Sweden 80.51
8 Switzerland 80.51
9 Australia 80.5
10 Guernsey 80.42
11 Iceland 80.31
12 Canada 80.22
13 Cayman Islands 80.07
14 Italy 79.81 .
15 Gibraltar 79.8
16 France 79.73
17 Monaco 79.69
18 Liechtenstein 79.68
19 Spain 79.65
20 Norway 79.54
21 Israel 79.46
22 Jersey 79.38
23 Faroe Islands 79.35
24 Aruba 79.28
25 Greece 79.24
26 Austria 79.07
27 Virgin Islands 79.05 .
28 Malta 79.01
29 Netherlands 78.96
30 Luxembourg 78.89
31 Montserrat 78.85
32 New Zealand 78.81
33 Germany 78.8
34 Belgium 78.77
35 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.61
36 Guam 78.58
37 United Kingdom 78.54
38 Finland 78.5
39 Isle of Man 78.49
40 Jordan 78.4
41 Puerto Rico 78.4
42 European Union 78.3
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78
44 Bermuda 77.96
45 Saint Helena 77.93
46 United States 77.85

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/imr-ri.nsf/en/gr-05318e.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does a country who spends the largest %GDP on health and has the most modern, technically advanced facilities ihe world only rank 46th in terms of life expectancy ?[/QUOTE]

Because too many Americans are fat and lazy

[Ryokan]

quote]LIFE EXPECTANCY BY COUNTRY - 2006

RANK / COUNTRY / LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH (YEARS)

1 Andorra 83.51
2 Macau 82.19 .
3 San Marino 81.71
4 Singapore 81.71
5 Hong Kong 81.59
6 Japan 81.25
7 Sweden 80.51
8 Switzerland 80.51
9 Australia 80.5
10 Guernsey 80.42
11 Iceland 80.31
12 Canada 80.22
13 Cayman Islands 80.07
14 Italy 79.81 .
15 Gibraltar 79.8
16 France 79.73
17 Monaco 79.69
18 Liechtenstein 79.68
19 Spain 79.65
20 Norway 79.54
21 Israel 79.46
22 Jersey 79.38
23 Faroe Islands 79.35
24 Aruba 79.28
25 Greece 79.24
26 Austria 79.07
27 Virgin Islands 79.05 .
28 Malta 79.01
29 Netherlands 78.96
30 Luxembourg 78.89
31 Montserrat 78.85
32 New Zealand 78.81
33 Germany 78.8
34 Belgium 78.77
35 Saint Pierre and Miquelon 78.61
36 Guam 78.58
37 United Kingdom 78.54
38 Finland 78.5
39 Isle of Man 78.49
40 Jordan 78.4
41 Puerto Rico 78.4
42 European Union 78.3
43 Bosnia and Herzegovina 78
44 Bermuda 77.96
45 Saint Helena 77.93
46 United States 77.85

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/imr-ri.nsf/en/gr-05318e.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does a country who spends the largest %GDP on health and has the most modern, technically advanced facilities ihe world only rank 46th in terms of life expectancy ?[/QUOTE]
Are health care system allows for greater choice, which isn't good on a mass scale, is inefficient, and has coverage gaps. Genetics, lifestyle choices, diet, cultural factors etc. also play a role. Supporting a nationaluized healthcare system and singing the merits of socialism in general are very different. And remember, life expectancyis not theonlyfactorin quality oflife.

[Raptor]

Because too many Americans are fat and lazy

:yeah:

and the percentages of obesity have skyrocketed in the last 20yrs.

[jgarden]

Conservatism is treatable if detected early !!!

[Turgonian]

Conservatism is treatable if detected early !!!

A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.

I am 17 and turned conservative last year. Either it's a case of early maturity or it's plain heartlessness.

By the way, does anybody know who said the following?

We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!

[Arnold]

Imagine if America did not have to be the wold's policeman, spending trillions on security for the world while the rest of western nations add a pitance to that security. Imagine if Americans didn't supply the world with the medical breakthroughs that lead the world. Imagine if America didn't spend hundreds of billions in support to other countries. Imagine what Americans could do with the trillions of dollars they would otherwise have in their pockets? It is hardly a level playing field. America carries a heavier burden of the world's concerns than all other countries put together. List for me the burdens of the world that Norway and Iceland carry, and then we can talk...

[Tickle Me Mercury]

A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.

I am 17 and turned conservative last year. Either it's a case of early maturity or it's plain heartlessness.

By the way, does anybody know who said the following?

We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!

How does one "turn conservative?" Where did you come from?

The quote? Wasn't that Hitler?

[Turgonian]

Tickle Me Mercury: Correct! It was Hitler. And before I saw the light, I was instinctively a Liberal.

[jgarden]

No, but when you have two dominating political parties nobody really cares about your deviant beliefs.

I have somewhat similar beliefs, except my ideal system has one addition yours does not have: a "Spartan" government (most, if not all government personel is trained from birth to do a specific job). Without this element your socialist state would eventually collapse. Talented people who want to become rich will decide to leave for a country that doesn't take all their hard earned money and give it to lazy bums. Eventually you'll be left with a country of incompetent retards that will lag behind all others, foreigners will decide to start avoiding you (and if you need exports, that's bad). Eventually someone will rebel and mount your head on a pike.

I too await this moment. Once America becomes socialist and subsequently collapses, someone will need to fill in the void, which is where my empire comes in.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2006

The Human Development Index (HDI), published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is based on 2004 figures.

“Most Livable” Countries, 2006
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Japan
8. United States
9. Switzerland
10. Netherlands
The vast majority of the nations with the highest quality of life in the world are socialist by American standards.

If "socialism" will cause a nation to callapse, which of the 9 "socialist" on the list are in danger?

A system that views the the poor as being "lazy bums" and "incompetent retards" stands condemned by its own words.

Currently, 10% of Americans own 70% of the nation's wealth - does the other 90% of the population qualify as "losers. ?"

To what "capitalic paradise" are these "talented" Americans going to flee - Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada? :eek:



.

[Turgonian]

I live in the Netherlands; government wants to reduce spending.

As for Sweden (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/conversations-with-fjordman.html)...

In Fjordman’s opinion, Sweden is more of a basket case than any other European country. Caught in a self-destructive spiral of immigration, high taxation, welfare spending, and denial, it faces a looming catastrophe.

“Paul Weston (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-european-civil-war-inevitable-by.html) wrote (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-european-civil-war-inevitable-by.html) on your blog that Europe will face a civil war by the year 2025,” he said, “but I think he underestimates how soon it will be. Within five to ten years at the most Swedish society will collapse. It can’t be avoided; the Swedish welfare state is simply unsustainable.

“But the civil war won’t start in Sweden. Sweden is too far gone. I think the civil war will appear first in Britain, which has the second-worst conditions. But the British still have a spirit of resistance.”

[HeyItsMe]

Then how about you quit taking up space and allow some one else to reap the benefits of a capitalist and free enterprise society,and that will actually appreciate the freedoms it inflicts.

[joel]

individual financial means should not be the determining factor if we have to choose who gets basica necessities, like medical care.

You speak as if something like medical care is just floating out there (like air or water) waiting to be divided up among everyone.

But it's not something that is just out there. It's provided by people. We have two alternatives:
1) Allow people the freedom to provide or not provide medical care as they choose to whom they choose.
or
2) Enslave people. Force them (with physical force or the threat of it) to provide medical care how and to whom you choose.

The forced medical care requires not only this forced labor, but also material resources. These must be acquired either
1) by mutual agreement
or
2) by stealing them or enslaving other people into producing them

By "if we have to choose" I think you are referring to scarce resources (i.e., everyone can't get as much of the resource as they would want and use if it were unlimitedly abundant). But when resources are scarce, they can be used economically only insofar as people are not enslaved. Only insofar as we live under the principle of freedom and voluntary exchange.

[Messor Mortis]

I identify neither with conservatives nor liberals. I view both "factions" to be corrupt and ignorant. like the op i dont believe in capitalism or even money period but i dont believe in freedom of religion or right to choose or any of that other BS.

[joel]

I identify neither with conservatives nor liberals. I view both "factions" to be corrupt and ignorant. like the op i dont believe in capitalism or even money period but i dont believe in freedom of religion or right to choose or any of that other BS.

The term "liberalism" used to entail laissez-faire. Modern "liberals" have corrupted the word.

You don't believe in money? What do you mean? Money is just a tool--a medium of indirect exchange, as opposed to direct exchange (barter).

Also what do you mean by not believing in freedom of religion? You mean there should be an official religion, selected by the government, and anyone who varies from whatever the government has chosen (by, e.g., expressing an opinion or asking a profound question) should be thrown in jail or executed?

[geochron]

Then how about you quit taking up space and allow some one else to reap the benefits of a capitalist and free enterprise society,and that will actually appreciate the freedoms it inflicts.

I think the nationalisation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG (so far) shows the " capitalist and free enterprise society" in its true colors.

Who knew how receptive the Republicans were to the idea that state ownership is a superior solution!

[odis]

all this political conversation about who is more bad or evil than the others makes me laugh... a political system just decides how and who controls what. thats all a government does is control. the political system you set up just decides what. a socialistic society can be every bit as successful as an anarchy, democracy, republic, or any other system you can set up. the only difference in each of these situations are the people involved.

think of a hammer. you can use a hammer to build a building. place a nail where and it needs to be and nail it in. Voila, a house. however, if you say hit a person over the head with said item, death can be instantaneous.

this being said any political system can easily abuse its power and pillage its own people. the only difference between the different systems is who needs to decide who to attack, how to attack them, and how to deal with the reprisal. in the united state's system, three fourths of both houses of congress and the president along with at least one member of his staff needs to agree on attacking the public and its "game over" for the NY statue.

the proper way to defend your ideals is to watch whatever government you have in power. a smaller government means less to corrupt, and less to watch. a bigger government means more to watch and more to corrupt. take your pick. this is partially why we have the right to "bear arms". there is nothing worse than a frenzied mob, but there is also not much you can do against a full scale revolt.

[joel]

all this political conversation about who is more bad or evil than the others makes me laugh... a political system just decides how and who controls what. thats all a government does is control. the political system you set up just decides what. a socialistic society can be every bit as successful as an anarchy, democracy, republic, or any other system you can set up. the only difference in each of these situations are the people involved.

You are mistaken.
First of all, you are confusing the form of government with what the government does. The form of government is democracy, republic, monarchy, etc. What they do (e.g., what they control and how they control it) is a separate question. Any form of government could be a tyranny or govern a free country. Socialism is not a form of government. It is a system answering the second question (what is controlled), for socialism is simply the "collective" control of the means of production. A democracy, republic or monarchy each could implement socialism (or at least attempt to do so).

The question in this thread is not what form of government is best. The question we are addressing is what the government (whatever form it takes) ought to do (what ought it to control or not control and what means it ought to employ or refrain from employing).

Secondly, no, socialism cannot be successful. Economist Ludwig von Mises proved this logically nearly 100 years ago, by showing that economic calculation is impossible in a socialistic world.

[odis]

What they do (e.g., what they control and how they control it) is a separate question. Any form of government could be a tyranny or govern a free country.
no but what a government intends to do is made easier or harder by how it is set up.


Socialism is not a form of government. It is a system answering the second question (what is controlled), for socialism is simply the "collective" control of the means of production.
so i made a mistake and said socialism instead of communism... apparently god made you perfect?



The question in this thread is not what form of government is best. The question we are addressing is what the government (whatever form it takes) ought to do (what ought it to control or not control and what means it ought to employ or refrain from employing).

my mistake i thought i made it clear when i said that any government could strip you of all your rights and enslave you but let me rephrase it.... if your afraid your government is going to try and take everything away from you, then changing the form of government you have will not protect you.


Secondly, no, socialism cannot be successful. Economist Ludwig von Mises proved this logically nearly 100 years ago, by showing that economic calculation is impossible in a socialistic world.

define successful. can its citizens be happy? Germany was plenty happy right up until the $#!& hit the fan... even with communism. as long as the weight of the government isn't carried by just the rich, as long as the weight of the government is carried by everyone and there is no corruption, why can't it work?

EDIT: oh and one more thing... they have yet to prove how and why gravity works. they have theories but they still can't prove it. doesn't mean i will ever be afraid to fall into outer space.

[joel]

so i made a mistake and said socialism instead of communism... apparently god made you perfect?

Take it easy. I meant no offense. I make mistakes too. And it depends on what you mean by communism. Karl Marx used "socialism" and "communism" pretty much interchangeably. I'm not sure communism is a form of government.



my mistake i thought i made it clear when i said that any government could strip you of all your rights and enslave you but let me rephrase it.... if your afraid your government is going to try and take everything away from you, then changing the form of government you have will not protect you.
True. But my point was that if someone advocates switching to socialism (or libertarianism or whatever) they aren't necessarily advocating changing the form of government.



define successful.
A socialistic world cannot sustain a large complex structure of production. It will tend toward a primitive economy of mere sustenance.



can its citizens be happy? Germany was plenty happy right up until the $#!& hit the fan... even with communism.
Are you talking about East Germany which built the Berlin Wall to keep its citizens captive?



as long as the weight of the government isn't carried by just the rich, as long as the weight of the government is carried by everyone and there is no corruption, why can't it work?
It cannot work because there would be no means to do economic calculation to determine how to use resources. Without prices for the means of production there would be (literally) no way to compare apples and oranges. A complex structure of production requires complex economic calculation which would be impossible under socialism.



EDIT: oh and one more thing... they have yet to prove how and why gravity works. they have theories but they still can't prove it. doesn't mean i will ever be afraid to fall into outer space.I'm not saying "socialism hasn't been proven to work; therefore it can't work." That would indeed be a logical fallacy. Rather, I'm saying that it has been logically proven that socialism can't work.

[odis]

about the germany thing: during the war. after everything went to pieces, they were plenty unhappy.

i agree with you on everything except these 2 points:
1. if you cannot see a system working, then you lack the creative devices to construct a system to make it work. i cannot see a way to make it work either but then again i still can't figure out why light shines through glass (no i mean something deeper than what you learned in physics and physics 2).

2. the economy may end up extremely simplistic and unable to evolve at a reasonable pace, but again, we go back to defining successful and if this economy can be considered successful.

[joel]

1. if you cannot see a system working, then you lack the creative devices to construct a system to make it work. i cannot see a way to make it work either but then again i still can't figure out why light shines through glass (no i mean something deeper than what you learned in physics and physics 2).

Again, there is a difference between not knowing how something could work and knowing that it cannot. A square circle cannot be. It is not a matter of me lacking the creative devices to construct a square circle. It is is demonstrably logically impossible. We can prove conclusively that it can never be.



2. the economy may end up extremely simplistic and unable to evolve at a reasonable pace, but again, we go back to defining successful and if this economy can be considered successful.
It's not that it wouldn't be able to grow at a reosonable pace. It would not grow at all. It would regress to bare sustinence (in the process probably most of the population would die) and then stay there forever until there are capitalists again or until humans die out. Most likely society itself would disintigrate and then fractured individuals would reclaim ownership in means of production.

[odis]

i think we will have to simply agree to disagree.

[joel]

i think we will have to simply agree to disagree.
Why, do we not care to seek the truth? It is certain that at least one of us believes a falsehood (may be me). Are we willing to resign ourselves to accepting that as our fate?

[odis]

Why, do we not care to seek the truth? It is certain that at least one of us believes a falsehood (may be me). Are we willing to resign ourselves to accepting that as our fate?

agreed. but i have a rather large inability to explain myself. but here is my theory and please understand that i am talking in such a case that it is likely impossible to manage:

think of the way things are set up today only instead of as people being business owners, it is the government that owns everything. the government regulates nothing beyond what its CEOs regulate. the government has all the power. it no longer buys anything. instead it tells company A to make X parts and allow company B to ship them to company C. company A needs Y parts from company G and orders them. because all these companies are all owned by the government, no cash is transferred between the companies themselves.

its difficult to imagine it working but essentially what happens is group A (government and business) pays group B (the people) to do all the work. Group B then buys whatever it needs from Group A. if someone from group B wishes to start a business, they simply set one up just as they do now with the exception that they have to answer to someone who decides that their business works with acceptable practices and they are not the owner: they are the only CEO.

i am the first person to admit that anything like this would be an extremely shaky government (initially) and any government with this much power could easily crush an individual. however, if you could get and keep the right trust worthy people in the right places. it *could* work but will most likely fail (this is why i push harder for conservative values than for liberal ones).

the main ingredient in a government of this size working is this: it has to stop working as a government and start working as a business without becoming corrupt even though it has nearly 100% power. it has to allow its employees to make the same snap decisions that a company allows its employees to make. it must also hold these employees accountable for their mistakes.

[joel]

agreed. but i have a rather large inability to explain myself. but here is my theory and please understand that i am talking in such a case that it is likely impossible to manage:

think of the way things are set up today only instead of as people being business owners, it is the government that owns everything. the government regulates nothing beyond what its CEOs regulate. the government has all the power. it no longer buys anything. instead it tells company A to make X parts and allow company B to ship them to company C. company A needs Y parts from company G and orders them. because all these companies are all owned by the government, no cash is transferred between the companies themselves.

its difficult to imagine it working but essentially what happens is group A (government and business) pays group B (the people) to do all the work. Group B then buys whatever it needs from Group A. if someone from group B wishes to start a business, they simply set one up just as they do now with the exception that they have to answer to someone who decides that their business works with acceptable practices and they are not the owner: they are the only CEO.

i am the first person to admit that anything like this would be an extremely shaky government (initially) and any government with this much power could easily crush an individual. however, if you could get and keep the right trust worthy people in the right places. it *could* work but will most likely fail (this is why i push harder for conservative values than for liberal ones).

the main ingredient in a government of this size working is this: it has to stop working as a government and start working as a business without becoming corrupt even though it has nearly 100% power. it has to allow its employees to make the same snap decisions that a company allows its employees to make. it must also hold these employees accountable for their mistakes.
I understand you. Mises already addressed the scenario you are describing. He refuted the argument that it's just a matter of the government (or the "collective") being the shareholders. The problem is still that there would be no market prices for the means of production, and therefore no way to do the complex economic calculation necessary to economically allocate resources among companies B and G and the others and to decide between various technological alternatives. You say "company A needs Y parts from company G and orders them," but G has a finite number of parts. By definition we are talking about a scarce good and so G will expect to get "orders" for more parts than G has. How will it be decided whether A shall be given Y parts, rather than giving them to some other line of production? How will it be decided how many parts G should make? Should it consume resources making more parts, rather than using those resources to produce something else? How will it be decided what technelogical process to use to make the parts? All of these decisions require economic calculation, which is impossible because there are no market prices for any of these resources.

Mises also pointed out that this has nothing to do with the government being corrupt. Even if those attempting to manage productuction were entirely virtuous, the impossibility of economic calculation is fatal.

I highly recommend that you read Mises' Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

If you want a shorter summary, go here http://mises.org/resources/3250, and scroll down to "Chapter XXVI. The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism"

I would be glad to discuss any of this further.

[odis]

i understand the issue. the problem is not as big as it appears. while yes values cannot be applied to anything and so it is impossible to determine if something is worth while by use of calculations, it is not impossible to determine more storage space is required and then determine how best to suit that need. instead of the focus being on money, the focus is now on resources and using the smallest amount of precious goods possible while still achieving the desired outcome. additionally, if a company finds that it cannot keep up with demand, it must choose a way to expand its production on its own. choosing what to charge the people who wish to purchase the governments goods is the complicated part and i have no idea how that could be worked out.

[joel]

i understand the issue. the problem is not as big as it appears. while yes values cannot be applied to anything and so it is impossible to determine if something is worth while by use of calculations, it is not impossible to determine more storage space is required and then determine how best to suit that need.

Yes you can determine how much more storage space is required to achieve a particular goal. What you will be unable to do is determine whether achieving that goal will be at the expense of achieving some other higher-priority goal. That requires economic calculation.

You also will not be able to determine how best to achieve the storage-space goal, if you have more than one option. If method 1 uses x1 units of resource A and y1 units of resource B and method 2 usues y2 units of resource B and z2 units of resource C, then there is no way to determine which method is more economical--which one will avoid using resources at the expense of some higher-priority goal. This too requires economic calculation. Without prices you cannot compare units of A with units of C.



instead of the focus being on money, the focus is now on resources and using the smallest amount of precious goods possible while still achieving the desired outcome.
This would be true only if there were only one kind of resource. Without prices, you cannot compare heterogeneous resources. There is no way to determine which is a "smaller amount": 1 unit of resource A or 1 unit of resource B. You literally would not be able to compare apples and oranges. (As well as, again, not being able to determine whether achieving the desired outcome will be at the expense of a higher-priority desired outcome.)



additionally, if a company finds that it cannot keep up with demand, it must choose a way to expand its production on its own. choosing what to charge the people who wish to purchase the governments goods is the complicated part and i have no idea how that could be worked out.
Actually, choosing what to charge consumers would be the easy part. That they would be able to do. It might take a bit of trial and error, but they would not even have to adjust the quantity supplied. They could leave that fixed and simply raise prices if they are always selling out and lower prices if they always have surplus inventory.

But, without economic calculation, they cannot determine whether they ought to expand or reduce production. Perhaps expanding production would be uneconomical--would withdraw resources from some higher-priority line of production. On the other hand they might be producing too little. There would be no way to determine this. The company would always be able to adjust selling prices to change the quantity demanded to match the quantity supplied, whatever quantity that might be. But it has no way of determining whether that quantity is the economical one.

[odis]

You also will not be able to determine how best to achieve the storage-space goal, if you have more than one option. If method 1 uses x1 units of resource A and y1 units of resource B and method 2 usues y2 units of resource B and z2 units of resource C, then there is no way to determine which method is more economical--which one will avoid using resources at the expense of some higher-priority goal. This too requires economic calculation. Without prices you cannot compare units of A with units of C.

it is difficult to explain how this could work without using specifics so ill use some materials that are common in my field. when you do piping for a house, you can use copper or pex. currently copper is rather expensive and so pex is used. pex is rather cheap, quicker to set up, but is a byproduct of oil. depending on how well used this byproduct is gives it a different rating. for the moment we will use grades as ratings. not much can be faster than pex so for speed it has an A. pex is fairly cheep but it requires irreplaceable resources and is a byproduct of oil, just like many things in our lives. for price it gets an A or B, and depending on how much this byproduct of oil is in demand, it could be given a B through F for replenish-ability. if anything is highly sought after, it is given an F. there is little pollution made from the process and so it receives a B (A's are only given to things with no pollution). copper is simply copper with little additives and so the only pollution it gives off, is what is required to heat it. copper is also a highly sought after resource but it is recyclable unlike oil and so it gets a C. if the byproduct needed to make pex suddenly becomes in high demand, the oil company changes its letter grade or denies pex the product it requires after some notice and copper pipes once again come back into use.

the company that produces the oil determines the letter grade for the rarity of the resources from itself, and a health board can determine the letter grade for the pollution. so as i said, it can be done you just can't do things the same way we do them now: but they are all done in a similar fashion.


But, without economic calculation, they cannot determine whether they ought to expand or reduce production. Perhaps expanding production would be uneconomical--would withdraw resources from some higher-priority line of production. On the other hand they might be producing too little. There would be no way to determine this. The company would always be able to adjust selling prices to change the quantity demanded to match the quantity supplied, whatever quantity that might be. But it has no way of determining whether that quantity is the economical one.

to do this they would have to take a lot more into account than normal, but like i said, i can't figure everything out. i just know that it can be done.

[joel]

it is difficult to explain how this could work without using specifics so ill use some materials that are common in my field. when you do piping for a house, you can use copper or pex. currently copper is rather expensive and so pex is used. pex is rather cheap, quicker to set up, but is a byproduct of oil. depending on how well used this byproduct is gives it a different rating. for the moment we will use grades as ratings. not much can be faster than pex so for speed it has an A. pex is fairly cheep but it requires irreplaceable resources and is a byproduct of oil, just like many things in our lives. for price it gets an A or B, and depending on how much this byproduct of oil is in demand, it could be given a B through F for replenish-ability. if anything is highly sought after, it is given an F. there is little pollution made from the process and so it receives a B (A's are only given to things with no pollution). copper is simply copper with little additives and so the only pollution it gives off, is what is required to heat it. copper is also a highly sought after resource but it is recyclable unlike oil and so it gets a C. if the byproduct needed to make pex suddenly becomes in high demand, the oil company changes its letter grade or denies pex the product it requires after some notice and copper pipes once again come back into use.

the company that produces the oil determines the letter grade for the rarity of the resources from itself, and a health board can determine the letter grade for the pollution. so as i said, it can be done you just can't do things the same way we do them now: but they are all done in a similar fashion.

First of all, let me separate out of all of this the goals. The goal you have is:

- Producing goods that best please the consumers

On the other hand you have the costs:

- Scarce materials used (e.g., copper, oil)
- Labor used (you mention that pex requires less labor)
- polluting

You also mention price, but, of course, price is the problem. There isn't any price in the socialist world. Really what you are proposing is that the government invent crude "prices" in the form of letter grades based on heuristics and then calculation be done using them. But these would be arbitrary, and just guesses.

The oil and copper producers cannot come up with rational prices/grades that would equilibrate the supply and demand for oil and copper. "Highly sought after" cannot be used to determine anything because we are talking about virtually unlimited demand (the quintessential economic problem is scarce resources in the face of unlimited demand). Even if they could, other businesses that use these materials would not be able to calculate. Suppose copper is given a C grade, and pex is given a B grade. Suppose, then we have the following options, each of which produce 1 unit of the same good to the consumer:
5 units of oil (which has grade B), 2 units of labor, and 5 units of pollution
3 units of copper (which has grade C), 4 units of labor, and 2 units of pollutionWhich is more economical? It is impossible to know. Without prices, there is no way to compare oil against labor against pollution against copper, in order to determine which of these two options is more economical. We would be comparing apples and oranges and making wild guesses--arbitrary decisions. A modern complex industrial economy cannot be sustained by such wild guesses or arbitrary decisions. It requires the ability to reduce oil, copper, labor, etc. to a common unit representing equilibration of supply and demand with which calculation can be done.


I see that section 5 of the chapter from Human Action that I linked to in a previous post addresses some of your specific concerns. I recommend you read it here http://mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec5.asp if you haven't already. He addresses those who propose that all we have to do is replace the shareholders of businesses with the government.

"The cardinal fallacy implied in this and all kindred proposals is that they look at the economic problem from the perspective of the subaltern clerk whose intellectual horizon does not extend beyond subordinate tasks. They consider the structure of industrial production and the allocation of capital to the various branches and production aggregates as rigid, and do not take into account the necessity of altering this structure in order to adjust it to changes in conditions....The entrepreneurs and capitalists establish corporations and other firms, enlarge or reduce their size, dissolve them or merge them with other enterprises; they buy and sell the shares and bonds of already existing and of new corporations; they grant, withdraw, and recover credits; in short they perform all those acts the totality of which is called the capital and money market. It is these financial transactions of promoters and speculators that direct production into those channels in which it satisfies the most urgent wants of the consumers in the best possible way....Our problem does not refer to the managerial activities; it concerns the allocation of capital to the various branches of industry. The question is: In which branches should production be increased or restricted, in which branches should the objective of production be altered, what new branches should be inaugurated? With regard to these issues it is vain to cite the honest corporation manager and his well-tried efficiency. Those who confuse entrepreneurship and management close their eyes to the economic problem."
(My emphasis.)

[odis]

this is why the first thing i said was that the government had to stop working like a government and start working like a business. in a government, its employees are not helped to find more efficient processes amongst themselves and only asked to fill out paper work, which slows progress.