News America's aversion to socialism ?

[TheCool]

America's aversion to "socialism"?

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I'm thinking about the Republican presidential debate the other night. Some of the tea partiers in the audience applauded after the moderator asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question on letting an uninsured 30 year old die. Clearly, the right wing is skilled at convincing poor and working class whites that the government is their enemy.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

 

[WhoWee]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I'm thinking about the Republican presidential debate the other night. Some of the baggers in the audience applauded after the moderator asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question on letting an uninsured 30 year old die. Clearly, the right wing is skilled at convincing poor and working class whites that the government is their enemy.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

I heard the recording - they concluded 2 people responded in that manner - in response the TEA Party spokesperson denounced the behavior. This post seems to be a troll.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

[IMO this is a potentially touchy topic; let's try to keep discourse as cool as possible.]

My belief, unsubstantiated and anecdotal as it is, is that this is a recent phenomenon. If we hark back to the 1930's, we see a Socialist Party that had measurable public support, Americans volunteering to fight for the rather left-leaning Spanish Republicans (as in "anti-monarchist," not similar to US party of same name) during the Spanish Civil War, and a handful of US emigrants to the USSR out of interest in the experiment. Even Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" has some hints of a socialist outlook.

I think that support has diminished (a) among the thinking due to the massive failure of the socialist (as in communist) experiments, and (b) among the genpop due to the many years of anti-socialist rhetoric during the Cold War.

Unfortunately, socialism is conflated with communism (and I even use them interchangeably above), and it didn't help that many formerly communist countries were self-named "socialist republic." Oversimplifying perhaps, I'd differentiate the two mainly in terms of attitudes regarding private ownership of enterprise, with communism virulently against it and socialism not. (Another key area is with regard to the "blank slate" position, which sees society as corrupting otherwise noble savages, who therefore require re-indoctrination, and the less ideological view of individuals and society as a mixed bag, requiring only open debate.)

As an aside, it is interesting to note that healthy capitalism requires not just creation of wealth, but its destruction as well. Allow failing businesses and industries to fail allocates resources efficiently, and recycling personal wealth in the form of progressive tax rates and inheritance taxes removes in part the tendency toward oligopoly, which stifles innovation. In the US today, we certainly have strong lobbies for "business as usual" that both muddy the political debate and thwart adaptation, such as in the case of the oil industry.

In Marketing 101, one is often taught that buggy manufacturers failed to understand they were in the transportation business and so failed to move into the nascent automotive industry. Unfortunately, that lesson is currently lost on oil companies who really ought to understand themselves as being in the energy (& chemical) business.

 

[Borek]

Sad thing is that words "socialism" and "socialistic" are used - at least from my observations - completely out of context and without understanding of their meaning. They are not used but abused, to name "social security related things we don't like".

Few years ago during discussion of Obama health care reform one of Polish TV reporters asked someone from the protesting crowd why they are against. The answer was "we don't want socialism in US, you are from a post communist country, you should understand us well". Sigh. Social security and socialism have about as much in common as opposition and opossum.

 

[WhoWee]

In Marketing 101, one is often taught that buggy manufacturers failed to understand they were in the transportation business and so failed to move into the nascent automotive industry. Unfortunately, that lesson is currently lost on oil companies who really ought to understand themselves as being in the energy (& chemical) business.

The oil companies are certainly aware of potential changes - but until the reserves are depleted I wouldn't expect them to walk away from their core business.

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=8050
http://www.examiner.com/environment...ar-biofuel-and-coal-gasification-technologies

 

[WhoWee]

Sad thing is that words "socialism" and "socialistic" are used - at least from my observations - completely out of context and without understanding of their meaning. They are not used but abused, to name "social security related things we don't like".

Few years ago during discussion of Obama health care reform one of Polish TV reporters asked someone from the protesting crowd why they are against. The answer was "we don't want socialism in US, you are from a post communist country, you should understand us well". Sigh. Social security and socialism have about as much in common as opposition and opossum.

One of the greatest problems with the health care "reform" legislation was the political process used to push the legislation through Congress. The final Bill included over 2,000 pages and even though it will take years to implement (and the legislation impacts the entire economy) - they couldn't wait long enough for everyone to read the (final) document before votes were cast. When you consider the Democrats had complete control over both the Congress and the Executive branch - what was the rush and what happened to "transparency"?

 

[daveb]

Sad thing is that words "socialism" and "socialistic" are used - at least from my observations - completely out of context and without understanding of their meaning.

Those are basically the two reasons. So many people think socialism is a political system, associating it with the likes of the former Soviet Union, but it's more of an economic system that can incorporate democracy (or not). I can understand if someone is against socialist-like policies because they are pure free-market capitalists, but pure capitalism and pure socialism (IMO) are both bad policy - a mixture of both is what is necessary. I just tend to disagree with many on where that line dividing the two should be drawn.

Of course, a pure Constitutionalist would say that since the Constitution doesn't grant government the authority to adopt socialist policy unless it is a policy expressly allowed by the Constitution (such as anti-trust laws, etc. that are supported by the Commerce Clause, and there are some who probably argue that Anti-trust laws are unconstitutional), then the government shouldn't.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I can understand if someone is against socialist-like policies because they are pure free-market capitalists, but pure capitalism and pure socialism (IMO) are both bad policy - a mixture of both is what is necessary. I just tend to disagree with many on where that line dividing the two should be drawn.

I think most conservatives are nervous at the speed we are swinging to the other direction.

 

[WhoWee]

I think most conservatives are nervous at the speed we are swinging to the other direction.

When I see initiatives such as President Obama's American Jobs Act that includes new anti-discrimination legislation - against employers that don't hire an unemployed person(?) it makes me wonder who this benefits (other than attorneys)?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...llegal-to-discriminate-against-the-unemployed

"The proposed language is found in a section of the bill titled "Prohibition of Discrimination in Employment on the Basis of an Individual's Status as Unemployed." That section would also make it illegal for employers to request that employment agencies take into account a person's unemployed status.

It would also allow aggrieved job-seekers to seek damages if they have been discriminated against. This provision in particular prompted Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) to argue that Obama's proposal is aimed at creating a new, special class of people who can sue companies.

"So if you're unemployed, and you go to apply for a job and you're not hired for that job, see a lawyer," Gohmert said on the House floor. "You might be able to file a claim because you got discriminated against because you're unemployed."

He said this provision would only discourage companies from interviewing unemployed candidates, and would "help trial lawyers who are not having enough work," since there are about 14 million unemployed Americans."

As an employer, I would be very nervous about interviewing anyone that wasn't referred/recommended to me personally for an open position. While this isn't "socialism" - it's a move that gives the Government even greater control over the private sector - and might actually produce the exact opposite results the Bill intends (to encourage the creation of jobs/hiring).

 

[mheslep]

...Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies...

Maximum business tax rates:
Canada (federal): 16.5%, provincial 16%
France: 33.3%
UK: 20-26%
US (federal): 35%, states: 12%

 

[mheslep]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.
...

The US federal government was created only after many checks were imposed on its power in perpetuity by a constitution that was purposely made difficult to change. Early citizens had good cause to be wary about large and remote governments, and after attempts to avoid any federal system at all, were grudgingly assured in carefully reasoned debates (federalist http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm" The current federal government bears little resemblance to that creation.

The current wariness is a prudent reaction, and it is not new:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

[Evo]

I heard the recording - they concluded 2 people responded in that manner - in response the TEA Party spokesperson denounced the behavior. This post seems to be a troll.

Here's the recording.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

 

[WhoWee]

Here's the recording.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...e-cheers-leaving-uninsured-die-163216817.html

Again, there were 2 voices that cheered - as the TEA Party spokesperson discussed with the CNN staff yesterday afternoon on John King.

 

[russ_watters]

The basic answer to the OP's question is pretty simple: The founding principle of the US is personal freedom from government intervention and while belief in that has waned somewhat, it still exists.

 

[jtbell]

My belief, unsubstantiated and anecdotal as it is, is that this is a recent phenomenon.

No, I think it has its roots in the expanding-frontier era of the 1800s through the early 1900s. Most of the continental USA was wilderness 200 years ago, and parts of the "wild West" still existed in the early 20th century. People in newly-settled areas had to be self-reliant, with help from their families as necessary, and occasionally from the local community. Federal and even state government had little impact on day-to-day life. People tended to be suspicious of bankers "back East" in New York, politicians in Washington, etc., and resented "intrusion" or "interference" from them.

If we hark back to the 1930's, we see a Socialist Party that had measurable public support, Americans volunteering to fight for the rather left-leaning Spanish Republicans (as in "anti-monarchist," not similar to US party of same name) during the Spanish Civil War, and a handful of US emigrants to the USSR out of interest in the experiment. Even Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" has some hints of a socialist outlook.

Those were relatively new things since the late 1800s, sparked by increased industrialization and urbanization in the East and Midwest (the rise of the steel and heavy-manufacturing industries), a large population of relatively recent immigrants from Europe to fill the new jobs in steel mills etc., and the Great Depression.

I think that support has diminished (a) among the thinking due to the massive failure of the socialist (as in communist) experiments, and (b) among the genpop due to the many years of anti-socialist rhetoric during the Cold War.

And overall increasing prosperity after World War II, in the 1950s and 1960s especially, even among the lower classes. The 1970s were rather stagnant, but prosperity returned in the 1980s and 1990s, except among the poor and many working-class people, for whom good-paying industrial jobs had started to disappear.

 

[Evo]

Again, there were 2 voices that cheered - as the TEA Party spokesperson discussed with the CNN staff yesterday afternoon on John King.

The question to the broad applause had to do with the scenario that they guy went into a hospital and was in a coma. The shout outs, in response to letting the guy die, I counted 3-4 then laughter from the crowd.

 

[klimatos]

The US federal government was created only after many checks were imposed on its power in perpetuity by a constitution that was purposely made difficult to change. Early citizens had good cause to be wary about large and remote governments, and after attempts to avoid any federal system at all, were grudgingly assured in carefully reasoned debates that the proposed federal government would defend the borders, settle disputes between the states, and otherwise remain insignificant relevant to the state governments and private enterprise. This was largely the case for the first ~130 years of the union. The current federal government bears little resemblance to that creation.

I consider your post to be well-reasoned and well-written--although I fear we are on opposite sides on many issues. I believe that the federal government of today bears little resemblance to the federal government of the late 1700's primarily because the world of today bears little resemblance to the world of that earlier time.

Do you really believe that state militias could have defeated the Axis powers in WWII? Do we really want the right of women (or blacks) to vote to be up to individual states?

At the time of our founding fathers, ripples from local events rarely crossed state lines. Today, a bad decision by a farmer in Iowa can poison people from one corner of the country to the other. Individual states simply do not have the resources to deal with threats that are world-wide in scope. And individual citizens are even more powerless.

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

Questions of how large and having what specific powers are always relevant and useful. But let's not just argue about size. If you want a smaller government, then specify the programs you want cut: farm subsidies?, aid to education?, defense?, interstate highways?, and so on. Then, we can argue the merits of those specific programs

 

[WhoWee]

The question to the broad applause had to do with the scenario that they guy went into a hospital and was in a coma. The shout outs, in response to letting the guy die, I counted 3-4 then laughter from the crowd.

I'm not sure about 3 to 4 shouting out it seemed there was 1 very loud/obnoxious fellow that shouted twice. Accordingly, CNN points to one person and the TEA Party spokesperson on John King's CNN show yesterday said there were 2 individuals that shouted. She went on to say that TEA Party leaders in the crowd were critical of the individuals and they (TEA Party) clearly denounced the behavior.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/ron-paul-on-debates-healthcare-moment/?hpt=po_bn2

"Rep. Ron Paul was at the center of one of the most memorable moments of Monday night's "CNN-Tea Party Republican Debate" when a member of the audience shouted "Yeah!" in response to a question asking whether a critically ill person without health insurance should be left to die.

In an interview Wednesday the Texas congressman, who was being asked the question when the outburst happened, responded to critics who said his response lacked compassion.

"You know, it's so overly simplified to explain a full philosophy on how you care for people in 30 or 60 seconds," Paul said Wednesday on CNN Newsroom.

Paul continued, "The freer the system, the better the health care. For somebody to turn around and say there's one individual who didn't have this care, you know, all of a sudden you hate people and you're going to let them die? I spent a lifetime in medicine. To turn that around like that is foolish.""

 

[mheslep]

... I believe that the federal government of today bears little resemblance to the federal government of the late 1700's primarily because the world of today bears little resemblance to the world of that earlier time. ...

The salient points made by the founders in the Federalists papers and more famously in the Declaration of Independence are not dependent on the existence of iPhones, airplanes, or nuclear weapons, hince the brilliance of the creation of the US republic. With regards to those points and the nature or people and governments, I don't see much change at all. More importantly, the nature of the federal government shouldn't be subject to whether or not the Supreme Court or even elected officials think the world has changed. That should only be done by changing the Constitution, as it has been a dozen times or so to fix grievous flaws.

Do you really believe that state militias could have defeated the Axis powers in WWII? Do we really want the right of women (or blacks) to vote to be up to individual states?

You've lost me here. Did you want to discuss my post

... proposed federal government would defend the borders ...

or a strawman?

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

For counter evidence see prior US history and much of the rest of the world.

Questions of how large and having what specific powers are always relevant and useful. But let's not just argue about size. If you want a smaller government, then specify the programs you want cut:

That topic is better held in other threads, but immediately I'd return spending to 2008 levels across the board. And eventually:

farm subsidies?

Yes, cut.

aid to education?

Abolish federal portion (~10% of total)

defense?

Cap at ~$500-600B/year.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I consider your post to be well-reasoned and well-written--although I fear we are on opposite sides on many issues. I believe that the federal government of today bears little resemblance to the federal government of the late 1700's primarily because the world of today bears little resemblance to the world of that earlier time.

Do you really believe that state militias could have defeated the Axis powers in WWII? Do we really want the right of women (or blacks) to vote to be up to individual states?

At the time of our founding fathers, ripples from local events rarely crossed state lines. Today, a bad decision by a farmer in Iowa can poison people from one corner of the country to the other. Individual states simply do not have the resources to deal with threats that are world-wide in scope. And individual citizens are even more powerless.

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

Questions of how large and having what specific powers are always relevant and useful. But let's not just argue about size. If you want a smaller government, then specify the programs you want cut: farm subsidies?, aid to education?, defense?, interstate highways?, and so on. Then, we can argue the merits of those specific programs

Basically the argument I would have posted if not beaten by (a) time and (b) greater eloquence. I'd only add that, say, in contrast to Europe's difficulties in unifying its labor market (legal, cultural, language probs), the US's unified labor market makes the economy a lot more flexible. And a unified labor market begs unified health and SS policies, else mobility suffers.

 

[Evo]

I consider your post to be well-reasoned and well-written--although I fear we are on opposite sides on many issues. I believe that the federal government of today bears little resemblance to the federal government of the late 1700's primarily because the world of today bears little resemblance to the world of that earlier time.

Do you really believe that state militias could have defeated the Axis powers in WWII? Do we really want the right of women (or blacks) to vote to be up to individual states?

At the time of our founding fathers, ripples from local events rarely crossed state lines. Today, a bad decision by a farmer in Iowa can poison people from one corner of the country to the other. Individual states simply do not have the resources to deal with threats that are world-wide in scope. And individual citizens are even more powerless.

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

Questions of how large and having what specific powers are always relevant and useful. But let's not just argue about size. If you want a smaller government, then specify the programs you want cut: farm subsidies?, aid to education?, defense?, interstate highways?, and so on. Then, we can argue the merits of those specific programs

Excellent post.

 

[mheslep]

Sad thing is that words "socialism" and "socialistic" are used - at least from my observations - completely out of context and without understanding of their meaning. They are not used but abused, to name "social security related things we don't like".

Few years ago during discussion of Obama health care reform one of Polish TV reporters asked someone from the protesting crowd why they are against. The answer was "we don't want socialism in US, you are from a post communist country, you should understand us well". Sigh. Social security and socialism have about as much in common as opposition and opossum.

If the meaning of socialism was so clear then it should have been easy to actually define it rather than say what it is not? I like: the use of central planning for the public provision of non-public goods (K. Williamson). Instances of socialism do not require a Stasi or a KGB. In the US public education and Social Security are clearly instances of socialism even if the country at large is not socialist.

 

[Borek]

I like: the use of central planning for the public provision of non-public goods (K. Williamson).

Definitions I know (sorry, I have them in Polish only) put pressure on the fact that means of production are not privately owned. I don't think anyone plans to change that in US, and in this context speaking of socialism in US makes no sense to me.

 

[mheslep]

Definitions I know (sorry, I have them in Polish only) put pressure on the fact that means of production are not privately owned. I don't think anyone plans to change that in US, and in this context speaking of socialism in US makes no sense to me.

I think I understand your view. For modern states consider modifying "not privately owned" to "not privately owned or controlled", as the two can become one and the same, and then observe. But without going there one can easily see that at least in the cases of the US public education system and social security system are indeed owned by government.


Edit: beyond those two cases, see thathttp://www.usgovernmentspending.com..._a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_g_g", and that doesn't include costs imposed by regulation. So in that sense one can argue the US is almost 50% socialist today.

 

[apeiron]

If the meaning of socialism was so clear then it should have been easy to actually define it rather than say what it is not? I like: the use of central planning for the public provision of non-public goods (K. Williamson). Instances of socialism do not require a Stasi or a KGB. In the US public education and Social Security are clearly instances of socialism even if the country at large is not socialist.

There are a lot of false dichotomies in political analysis. The basic dynamic of any human social system is the natural need to balance competition and co-operation. Any system needs its global constraints (its mechanisms of co-operation), and also its local freedoms (its competitive and creative capacity for action).

So from this, we can see why it is generally right for states to be in charge of regulation, but not production. Yet also, why self-regulation is what you want (regulation being pushed down to the lowest scales practical) and equally why production can also have an appropriate scale that is state-sized (when for example a state is acting as an individual - as in conducting wars, or ensuring the health of its collective body, the wisdom of its collective mind).

This is why the military, health and education, as well as general regulation, lead to "socialised" production mechanisms.

So the left vs right, conservative vs liberal, dichotomies become phony debates as all social/political systems have to strike a balance of competition and co-operation. And they would be having to do this across all scales of a society.

As many note, the US seems trapped in some strange internal war against itself. Politics looks quite dysfunctional - perhaps losing an external enemy in communism has something to do with this? Perhaps it is the high levels of economic inequality (IMO of course).

In my country, New Zealand, we went through a period of neo-liberal extremism in the 1980s. As an experiment, it now looks a dismal failure.

But anyway, we have started to employ a more systems approach to our politics again - still in small ways, but at least testing the water.

And I see they gave out a Nobel to the US lady who is one of the inspirations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

 

[TheCool]

Maximum business tax rates:
Canada (federal): 16.5%, provincial 16%
France: 33.3%
UK: 20-26%
US (federal): 35%, states: 12%

Tax rates don't tell us much, considering the vast loopholes available to powerful U.S. corporations.

Those are basically the two reasons. So many people think socialism is a political system, associating it with the likes of the former Soviet Union, but it's more of an economic system that can incorporate democracy (or not). I can understand if someone is against socialist-like policies because they are pure free-market capitalists, but pure capitalism and pure socialism (IMO) are both bad policy - a mixture of both is what is necessary. I just tend to disagree with many on where that line dividing the two should be drawn.

I agree. All developed countries incorporate elements of both economic systems to varying degrees.

 

[mege]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I'm thinking about the Republican presidential debate the other night. Some of the tea partiers in the audience applauded after the moderator asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question on letting an uninsured 30 year old die. Clearly, the right wing is skilled at convincing poor and working class whites that the government is their enemy.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

The appeal is to have self-determinism. As the government gains more power through massing dependants via wellfare and other socialistic policies the individual becomes less important (though I prefer the term 'collectivist' to distinguish the anti-capitalist mindset that exists in the US). It's both a physical and philosophical argument - how much choice do you want? Do you want to be able to make mistakes and fail or should all of your mistakes/unlucky shortcomings be borne by everyone around you? The collectivist policies are steering the US towards a country without many choices and freedoms where there once was choice before. In addition, many of the collectivist policies are reactionary and do not always give time to correct themselves - I think the ACA (and the current jobs act being debated) are prime examples of these. Further, these policies probably wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have government interaction in the past (sub prime lending subsidies, medicare/aid both are government meddlings in relation to those policies - potential causes that get little discussed). These government policies are sweeping changes to how some companies do business and are intrinsically (and intentionally) manipulative. How do I have freedom when the government is steering me to 'favored' goods (or ideas) because of these policies?

There is also a fundamental difference between the US and the 'similar demographic' countrys that you listed: the US is a federal republic with the default power to the states (Canada is technically a federal system, but default power is given to the national government - France and GB are unitary). Our constitution specifically limits the power the central government can/should have. IMO this relationship is discounted by most non-Americans whom evaluate our political system (and by many collectivists whom would like to see more central distribution).

Personally, the reason I identify with the Right-wing in the US is for three reasons: predictability, responsibility, and optimism. I see Republicans as much more predictable. They're generally more willing to follow the rule of the land to a fault (hence being constitutionally minded currently). Leftists (by their nature) are much more quarrelsome and willing to just do what they feel needs doing without much attention to protocol. Responsibility: I am a firm believer that people are responsible for their actions. One of the first lessons learned in Microeconomics (fresh on my mind from tutoring on it) is that people don't count costs they don't bear. If I am given a government handout, I am not seeing the cost (my time to earn that money). While there are surely some whom can rationalize the costs associated, there are many whom cannot. This does work the opposite in the case of pollution, and I am in favor of non-punative environmental policies which hold polluters accountable (pure cap-and-trade = good, UN's socially weighted cap-and-trade = horrible - it's the 'extras' that turn most republicans off to enviornmental policies). This responsibility also extends to the collectivists - I feel there are many collectivists whom are too willing to spend another's money to fund the projects they advocate. Finally, optimism - the limited government interference in lives presumes a general optimistic view of other people. Collectivists presume that people (as individuals and as business owners) will make the worst possible choice, and thus need to be set straight and 'encouraged'.

With the situation in the OP regarding a 30y.o. man potentially being unable to pay for treatment: who's to say a market-based insurance system is any better? Under a system where every American has insurance (via single payer or via a mandate) there are going to be choices neccessarilly made about care priority. Nothing under a mandate makes this man's prediciment any better. He's still in trouble and his costs will be bore by society as a whole, not just him. In fact, if he was mandated to have insurance chances are likely that he would put himself in riskier situations anyhow. It's easy to give a sob story about someone not paying, but what's the real alternative? How quick can you get lifesaving heart bypass surgery or a transplant in Canada (compared to the US)? Mandating health insurance will make good doctors as rare as good teachers (for the same reasons). Then all of our economically minded-brain trust will become lawyers (oh yippie!).

(Thank you to whomever changed the OP's use of the term 'bagger')

 

[mege]

Tax rates don't tell us much, considering the vast loopholes available to powerful U.S. corporations.

Those loopholes aren't available in other countries?

However, I agree in part - the US tax system is horrible and needs to be recentered. Too many 'green' and other energy tax credits are being given out, but these are also available in part to be competitive versus other country's low taxes (or credits). Ultimately, you need to realize that these tax credits (just like any other money going out to individuals) is there in an attempt to manipulate the markets. Oil tax subsidies are being given in hopes to keep gas prices low, bank tax subsidies are being given out to hopefully spur home-lending, green-subsidies are given out to hopefully spur research - the government is trying to ENCOURAGE particular practices via tax credits. Why should they need to do that?

I know the national balance sheet would read similarly in the end - but if the government really feels it necessary to subsidize research, I would much rather it be money out in the form of direct payments (and then it could be more easilly held accountable). Using taxes as an IOU tally causes confusion and a lot of misconceptions.

 

[mege]

I consider your post to be well-reasoned and well-written--although I fear we are on opposite sides on many issues. I believe that the federal government of today bears little resemblance to the federal government of the late 1700's primarily because the world of today bears little resemblance to the world of that earlier time.

I agree that the world has changed, but the role of the USFG in the world hasn't really. In general, the states were left to domestic affairs and the federal government was left to international affairs.

Do you really believe that state militias could have defeated the Axis powers in WWII?

State-based National Guard units and CAP were involved in important roles during WWII. They're also playing critical roles in the current conflicts and have critical domestic roles during disasters.

Just to be clear: the National Guard are state entities.

Do we really want the right of women (or blacks) to vote to be up to individual states?

No, but that's why we needed their approval for a national 'rule' via the amendment process (like has already happened). The STATES decided to ultimately impose that rule, not a central government.

At the time of our founding fathers, ripples from local events rarely crossed state lines. Today, a bad decision by a farmer in Iowa can poison people from one corner of the country to the other. Individual states simply do not have the resources to deal with threats that are world-wide in scope. And individual citizens are even more powerless.

And the federal government can do just that with the commerce clause, this is the situation that the federal government was meant for. But, you need to be careful not to use this for an excuse for any little thing. Even 'national problems' such as immigration enforcement are joint-battles with the federal and state governments. The border states are the most impacted by their own immigration policys, so they have a large chunk of the enforcement. The possible impact on non-border states is managed by the federal government. Should a citizen in the plains states be forced to pay for a problem localized to another part of the country? Let's ignore immigration - why am I, in a fairly natural disaster-free area, helping to pay for people to live in a metro-flood plain like New Orleans? When was the last time FEMA was called in force to Michigan or Wisconsin or Montana? I like Sen. Paul's comment from last week's debate (paraphrasing) "If we didn't have FEMA, then maybe people wouldn't be living in areas that need rebuilding constantly"

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

Strong doesn't need to be large or overbearing. The federal government should be strong at what it's meant to do. Why does the federal government need to be 'large'?

Questions of how large and having what specific powers are always relevant and useful. But let's not just argue about size. If you want a smaller government, then specify the programs you want cut: farm subsidies?, aid to education?, defense?, interstate highways?, and so on. Then, we can argue the merits of those specific programs

Farm subsidies and education funding (at the federal level) need to be evaluated for different reasons. Farm subsidies are OK if you're considering them a taxpayer insurance system for national foods, encouraging surplus - though I think they need to be revised to accomidate the current climate (and not given to minorities, just for being minorities). Education funding always comes with strings attached - this is the classic example of an industry (grade school education) wanting money without accountability. How would you fund education, in it's entirety, from the federal level? Per student? What about rural communities where their bus costs are higher? or inner city where their infrastructure costs are higher? You'd still end up with a significant amount of inequality and have no real reason for schools to improve as they'd all be under one roof if nationalized (who would be accountable then? the Sec of Ed?).

Interstate highways are mostly maintained locally superficially and structurally - any federal dollars are the state's share of the federal gas tax (and minimal emergency project funding from Critical Bridge Fund, etc), it was just the initial infrastructure push which was federally funded with general revenue. On the flip side: Would you like to see USDOT expanded? How about a United States Road Commission with a fleet of snow plows (how would that work?)?

 

[mege]

Basically the argument I would have posted if not beaten by (a) time and (b) greater eloquence. I'd only add that, say, in contrast to Europe's difficulties in unifying its labor market (legal, cultural, language probs), the US's unified labor market makes the economy a lot more flexible. And a unified labor market begs unified health and SS policies, else mobility suffers.

Why does a unified labor market increase mobility? I would expect that it decrease mobility because you're in a homogenized environment. (How many union members move up and become management for instance?) This is also a downside to a unified health policy - you're creating a finite number of catergories (or 1) for an individual to choose from. Are everyone's health concerns so easilly put into a bucket?

 

[MarcoD]

I think it has a lot to do with the history of the US. The US has historically always been the land of opportunities. People could just get out of society, claim a piece of land, start for themselves, and build a their own life as they saw fit somewhere on the plains of the nation. (The little house on the prairie with a mother with a gun defending against Indians or low-life.)

Generalizing, my common description (no offense) of a typical US citizen is someone who is born with a national flag in one hand, a gun in the other, a kick-*** attitude, and "In God we trust, the rest we buy" stamped into his forehead. US citizens still dream of being completely independent, it leads to anarchistic tendencies.

In Europe, everything has been old and static for centuries. There is nowhere to go (except for the US), and people historically just read their newspapers, dragged themselves to their jobs, and drunk some alcohol around noon just to get through the day. There was little else except for dreaming of other means (socialistic) of organizing the state, or said differently, just share the poverty. (Of course, life is different these days.) [To balance the scales, I guess, that generalizing, the historic description of a European citizen would be a somewhat well-informed, rational, worker with alcoholic tendencies.]

The US and Europe are somewhat similar these days. It must be harder to just start somewhere else, so I think the US will slowly become more socialistic. At the same time, if the borders fall away in Europe, people will find soon out that you can just buy a small kingdom in Romania for 15K Euros. Maybe we will become more like the US.

 

[redsunrise]

Definitions I know (sorry, I have them in Polish only) put pressure on the fact that means of production are not privately owned. I don't think anyone plans to change that in US, and in this context speaking of socialism in US makes no sense to me.

There are as many definitions as there are makers of the definition. Definition per se is useless, the thing is the nebula of ideas that the word designates, not a filter of definition. If from someone's viewpoint a socialism is pay as you go retirement system, that's what socialism is. Then someone else comes along and defines it as a voluntary socialism, like this, my definition:

Socialism is a system of managing capital and production via voluntary collective means, driven by various worker collectives, from a plethora of small ones managing particular facilities, to conceivably one huge collective managing every facility, industrial or other, remotely, and where produced goods are distributed along the lines of social justice (somehow defined adequately, even though it's not clear how this end would be achieved) or principle "from everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his need" and not through system of individual purchases according to market prices like in capitalism; such a system would promote human flourishing along progressive, collectivist, materialist and scientist version of enlightenment mentality and it would satisfy almost every material need a human could have (need definition and evaluation notwithstanding), and it would be fundamentally collectivist in production and consumption, unlike individualist like capitalism.

The thing is, this definition requires underlying axiom of socialism as voluntary. A Stalinist socialist would not agree, for example, holding philosophy that people have to be forced into socialism with the use of coercion, propaganda and terror.

 

[redsunrise]

We need a large and strong central government for the US to survive and prosper in today's world.

That's about the worst recipe you could propose. The bigger and more centralized the government is, the more removed are its inner workings from realities of the country.

And no, small states could deal with most things just fine. Take Norway, for example, 4 million people and somehow it deals just fine. I don't see a reason why American state could not deal in the same manner, minus national defence provided by federal govt.

 

[redsunrise]

What makes people in the U.S. so fearful of government involvement in financial markets and social welfare? I don't get it.

I'm thinking about the Republican presidential debate the other night. Some of the tea partiers in the audience applauded after the moderator asked Ron Paul a hypothetical question on letting an uninsured 30 year old die. Clearly, the right wing is skilled at convincing poor and working class whites that the government is their enemy.

Other countries with similar demographics like Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies. So, what makes them so appealing to Americans?

There's a "medium term" theory in sociology, that once ideas take root in a country, they are hard to get rid of. In US it appears that as it has been found as classical-liberal republic, the ideas are fundamental distrust of government power as such, belief into individual rights and capability, and constant rereading the constitution to get to its "original meaning" (originalism). E.g. Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court judge is a strong originalist. He just reflects broader American society.

That is not the case with Europe, which had collectivist ideas in mind since Bismarck state.

 

[redsunrise]

I think it has a lot to do with the history of the US. The US has historically always been the land of opportunities. People could just get out of society, claim a piece of land, start for themselves, and build a their own life as they saw fit somewhere on the plains of the nation. (The little house on the prairie with a mother with a gun defending against Indians or low-life.)

Generalizing, my common description (no offense) of a typical US citizen is someone who is born with a national flag in one hand, a gun in the other, a kick-*** attitude, and "In God we trust, the rest we buy" stamped into his forehead. US citizens still dream of being completely independent, it leads to anarchistic tendencies.

In Europe, everything has been old and static for centuries. There is nowhere to go (except for the US), and people historically just read their newspapers, dragged themselves to their jobs, and drunk some alcohol around noon just to get through the day. There was little else except for dreaming of other means (socialistic) of organizing the state, or said differently, just share the poverty. (Of course, life is different these days.) [To balance the scales, I guess, that generalizing, the historic description of a European citizen would be a somewhat well-informed, rational, worker with alcoholic tendencies.]

The US and Europe are somewhat similar these days. It must be harder to just start somewhere else, so I think the US will slowly become more socialistic. At the same time, if the borders fall away in Europe, people will find soon out that you can just buy a small kingdom in Romania for 15K Euros. Maybe we will become more like the US.

That's a rough approximation of history as it happened, but in my view too rough. The difference is in ideas, read up on origins of welfare state in Europe, like here:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/miller-george_failure-of-the-welfare-state.html"

I completely disagree with the ideas presented, Miller is proponent of the welfare state as such, which I hold as a very bad idea, even though I'm European.

There's evolution of ideas here that anthropologist could best tell about. Consider British TV series titled "Little Britain", which pretty much satirizes lives of people in welfare state, reflecting growing disillusionment with welfare state in some sections of society. To be sure, this is not turned into political worldview - yet.

 

[redsunrise]

Those are basically the two reasons. So many people think socialism is a political system, associating it with the likes of the former Soviet Union, but it's more of an economic system that can incorporate democracy (or not). I can understand if someone is against socialist-like policies because they are pure free-market capitalists, but pure capitalism and pure socialism (IMO) are both bad policy - a mixture of both is what is necessary.

This is a popular error, that we should have a "mix" of policies. A correct policy is what we should have. If capitalism is correct policy, this is what we need to have. If socialism is necessary, this is what we should have. If something else is correct, this is what we should have.

The truth does not lie in between two falsehoods, and you don't get a good medicine by mixing two bad ones.

I argue for minimal government, tackling only the problems that individuals cannot handle themselves: national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting, environment pollution.

Everything else is just a bad policy: good along simplistic mental model, and a collectivist sentiments instead of reason.

I realize it's not easy to settle this down: this pretty much depends on your philosophy. If you think government is more competent than individuals, a big government is what you will probably argue as a proper policy.

 

[redsunrise]

Excellent post.

Nope. It's complete rubbish. Popular rubbish, rubbish nonetheless.

Try to apply scientific thinking to an argument of "policy mix": is a good scientific number an average of two bad ones?

 

[redsunrise]

There are a lot of false dichotomies in political analysis. The basic dynamic of any human social system is the natural need to balance competition and co-operation. Any system needs its global constraints (its mechanisms of co-operation), and also its local freedoms (its competitive and creative capacity for action).

So from this, we can see why it is generally right for states to be in charge of regulation, but not production. Yet also, why self-regulation is what you want (regulation being pushed down to the lowest scales practical) and equally why production can also have an appropriate scale that is state-sized (when for example a state is acting as an individual - as in conducting wars, or ensuring the health of its collective body, the wisdom of its collective mind).

This is why the military, health and education, as well as general regulation, lead to "socialised" production mechanisms.

So the left vs right, conservative vs liberal, dichotomies become phony debates as all social/political systems have to strike a balance of competition and co-operation. And they would be having to do this across all scales of a society.

As many note, the US seems trapped in some strange internal war against itself. Politics looks quite dysfunctional - perhaps losing an external enemy in communism has something to do with this? Perhaps it is the high levels of economic inequality (IMO of course).

In my country, New Zealand, we went through a period of neo-liberal extremism in the 1980s. As an experiment, it now looks a dismal failure.

But anyway, we have started to employ a more systems approach to our politics again - still in small ways, but at least testing the water.

And I see they gave out a Nobel to the US lady who is one of the inspirations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

There is nothing objective in socialized medicine or education, about dynamism, cooperation or competition. I claim you presented a bad model.

There's one idea behind socialized health and eduction: from cradle to grave. That is, it's expression of philosophy that an individual is largely helpless and the state has to manage many aspects of his life, and this will make things work better.

It won't. Even proponents of welfare state admit it has been a failure re achieving its original objectives:

That guy wants the welfare state to work, dammit. It won't, in my view, it's not a matter of some or even many tweaks, the whole thing is conceptually, economically, philosophically and politically broken. There's nothing one can do to fix this.

Still, I'd like to hear from you what you mean when you say that neoliberalism in New Zealand has failed? What particular policies were put in place, and what was the result?

 

[russ_watters]

There's a "medium term" theory in sociology, that once ideas take root in a country, they are hard to get rid of. In US it appears that as it has been found as classical-liberal republic, the ideas are fundamental distrust of government power as such, belief into individual rights...

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

 

[MarcoD]

That guy wants the welfare state to work, dammit. It won't, in my view, it's not a matter of some or even many tweaks, the whole thing is conceptually, economically, philosophically and politically broken. There's nothing one can do to fix this.

Well, from my Dutch perspective, that Miller article is utter nonsense. The welfare state works, he says it himself, everybody is better off. The fact that the poor are not poor out of choice but also are just worse at coping with everyday life, and do more dirty jobs, translates to statistics that they have a poorer health, I don't find that anywhere strange.

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

 

[russ_watters]

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

A capitalist believes it does not lead to a more prosperous society. And americans also value freedom, which socialism reduces and you don't even list as a relevant issue.

 

[mheslep]

Tax rates don't tell us much, considering the vast loopholes available to powerful U.S. corporations...

and to powerful French, Canadian, and UK companies, and even the not so powerful. You made the blanket statement that "Canada, France and Britain reject right wing economic policies", and while I'd agree there are cases where those governments are to the left of the current US government, I argue that the reality is more complicated and I'm inviting you examine the basis for that statement instead of just accepting it as a given.

 

[MarcoD]

A capitalist believes it does not lead to a more prosperous society. And americans also value freedom, which socialism reduces and you don't even list as a relevant issue.

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Why does a unified labor market increase mobility? I would expect that it decrease mobility because you're in a homogenized environment. (How many union members move up and become management for instance?) This is also a downside to a unified health policy - you're creating a finite number of catergories (or 1) for an individual to choose from. Are everyone's health concerns so easilly put into a bucket?

By labor mobility I mean geographic mobility. Growth rates and employment opportunities are not uniform among the States; never have been. The freedom to move to "where the action is" is a great boon to all, labor or management. Imagine how difficult that would be if you could not take your previous SS payments, unemployment tally (how long you've been working, important if your current employer asks you to relocate), etc along with you. A seamless market is a boon to all, and certainly guarantees businesses can seek the best candidates nationwide. Good for capitalism!

A unified health policy may include a range of choices. My personal opinion is that whatever the system, we would benefit from coverage, private or public, that is based on actuarial tables over the largest population possible, which would lower the average cost, cover pre-existing conditions, and avoid capricious policies that game the system by excluding pathologies or placing arbitrary caps. Perhaps three nationwide insurers and a salary tax for those uninsured to cover the public cost of treating them would do the trick. A national policy might also regulate those circumstances that tend to lead to excessive costs (e.g., prescriptions specify component drugs, not brands.) Good for the common welfare!

 

[MarcoD]

A seamless market is a boon to all, and certainly guarantees businesses can seek the best candidates nationwide. Good for capitalism!

Or it means in times of recession that the poorest from all regions drive out the middle-class everywhere to increase the wealth of the richest. Maybe good for capitalism, but whether it is good for everyone, clueless.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

 

[mheslep]

What is an example of "enlightened social policy" in the Netherlands as compared to the elsewhere?

 

[MarcoD]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

I am glad you liked it. Not everything is perfect here, of course. I visited the US shortly twice and liked it too. The same, but different, right?

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

We get that argument here too. But most people really don't want to be unemployed. And also, there just is a (very) small percentage of the population for which the country is even better off that they stay at home. People just receive money, they rent houses, pay for food, good for the economy and they remain reasonably happy with that. It redistributes the wealth somewhat and I don't see where it would hurt the economy one bit (as long as we can pay the 4% of the unemployed.)

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

It will mean a return akin to what we had during the start of the [previous] century in my country. Too many people living in too little spaces with little else to do except for 'drift' around in society holding their hands up for scraps. You don't get a job if you don't even have the clothes to apply anywhere and just drink your unresolvable problem away [neither do your kids].

 

[russ_watters]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal...

By taking something that I would have done for myself and doing it for me or forcing me to do it a certain way. It boggles my mind that people who favor socialist policies do not see that.

…I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected.

Only by re-writing the definition of freedom does protection become freedom. They are practically opposites!

[Anyway, it makes little sense to discuss 'socialism' in US terms. I assume that most people in the US identify the Netherlands as a socialist state, although most people here wouldn't agree to that. So, it's inherently a difficult issue to discuss.]

It is only difficult because people who favor socialist policies keep throwing around that strawman. There is no need for black and white labeling of countries here, only policies. That was addressed earlier.

 

[Dale]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

While there are economic reasons to favor capitalism over socialism I think that American aversion to socialism is not primarily an economic objection, but an objection based on principles. Specifically the principle that a human should own and control the fruits of their own labor and means of production. We fought a rather bloody civil war over the general topic.