News America's aversion to socialism ?

[MarcoD]

I see the point raised a lot that the social democratic model of the nordic countries wouldn't work in the US because the US population is a much less homogeneous group, and I find myself wondering why? I mean, I agree that any model at all would probably be harder to implement because of that, but why does it make social ideas wrong? I mean capitalistic ideas are also harder to implement there for the same reason! In fact, it seems to me that socialistic ideas and strong government control are even more needed in an inhomogeneous environment.

I have made the point that a social democracy might not work in the US, but that stems more from the fact that the US has a different cultural background. In European terms, it's a pretty harsh capitalistic society still being under development where a lot of people are ingrained with a certain mental model of 'how stuff should work,' and still lots of space to move around in.

Every society considers itself to be heterogenous, and in fact, in lots of places in (northern) Europe you can claim that society is a lot more heterogenous than the US.

 

[mheslep]

...
Every society considers itself to be heterogenous, and in fact, in lots of places in (northern) Europe you can claim that society is a lot more heterogenous than the US.

You could claim that and you'd be wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, if the establishment consists of only one cultural part of the society (let's say white middle aged men), then it can be much harder for people with a completely different cultural background to enter the establishment. Regardless of talent and will to work hard, they still won't get hired. This is only a natural reaction, most people like to hire people they trust, and it's simply much easier to trust another person if you know that his culture is similar to your own. However, an outside regulator, like the government, can recognize these things and act like an equalizer by providing a good social security and laws against discrimination.

Laws against discrimination and social security are entirely different things and social security has nothing whatsoever to do with discriminatory hiring practices. Enforcing fair hiring practices fits great with the concepts of freedom and capitalism.

 

[mheslep]

One can argue logically that enforcing adult employment laws are necessary for a particular concept of society (I don't), but not that it enhances freedom. Telling someone who and when they can hire and how much they must be paid necessarily detracts from the freedom of many, and not just employers.

 

[mheslep]

...

For example, if the establishment consists of only one cultural part of the society (let's say white middle aged men), then it can be much harder for people with a completely different cultural background to enter the establishment. Regardless of talent and will to work hard, they still won't get hired. This is only a natural reaction, most people like to hire people they trust, and it's simply much easier to trust another person if you know that his culture is similar to your own. However, an outside regulator, like the government, can recognize these things and act like an equalizer by providing a good social security and laws against discrimination.

As a small employer, I see several assumptions above that contradicts my experience, but the most glaring problem is the assumption that somehow the 'outside regulator' will act in the best interest of all perspective employees or customers. History provides instructive examples, most notably the bigoted Jim Crow laws enforced by government.

From economist T. Sowell:

"Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today." Moreover, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than among whites between 1890 and 1900, whereas unemployment has become both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites in more recent times.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/04/27/race_and_economics/page/full/

 

[DoggerDan]

I know people from sweden too (seeing that I was born there), and they are perfectly happy there...

If they're from there, then how can they be there?

The folks I know from Sweden and throughout Europe moved away from there for a reason.

As my my "aggressive posts," they're not aggressive at all. If you feel they are, that's you're opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to mischaracterize my posts.

 

[MarcoD]

If they're from there, then how can they be there?

The folks I know from Sweden and throughout Europe moved away from there for a reason.

As my my "aggressive posts," they're not aggressive at all. If you feel they are, that's you're opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to mischaracterize my posts.

I know some people from the US living very happily in the Netherlands. It's a queer thing really, people tend to stay in the country they like most, and then sulk about it a bit too. That people returned and liked it better is no argument, you need to ask those who stayed.

 

[DoggerDan]

I know some people from the US living very happily in the Netherlands.

Well, I know a guy from the US living in Belgium. That's close, anyway.

It's a queer thing really, people tend to stay in the country they like most, and then sulk about it a bit too.

Sulk? As in talking bad about they country they like most? I know I talk bad about some of the things going on in the U.S. I do it, however, because I love this country, and see those influences as either contrary to our principles as a nation, or damaging to our country.

That people returned and liked it better is no argument, you need to ask those who stayed.

Well, I've been around. I like it here.

 

[MarcoD]

Well, I know a guy from the US living in Belgium. That's close, anyway.

Greece and Turkey are close too, so are Iran and Iraq, and North- and South-Korea. To the most of the Netherlands, that was an insult.

 

[russ_watters]

One can argue logically that enforcing adult employment laws are necessary for a particular concept of society (I don't), but not that it enhances freedom. Telling someone who and when they can hire and how much they must be paid necessarily detracts from the freedom of many, and not just employers.

I didn't mention pay and you're overstating the objection: anti-discrimination laws do not equate to the government telling a company who to hire.

You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction: employers aren't allowed the freedom to practice racism because in interactions between people, awarding that right to one person allows them to infringe on the rights of another.

 

[DoggerDan]

Greece and Turkey are close too, so are Iran and Iraq, and North- and South-Korea. To the most of the Netherlands, that was an insult.

Close geographically in no way implies any closeness in terms of ideology.

Nice try.

 

[MarcoD]

Nice try.

There was no try, you under appreciated the vast cultural differences between countries in Europe.

For most countries in Europe, if you cross the border, the differences are immediately apparent. For example, if I drive into Belgium, I have the feeling I ended up in Italy. The roads are worse, there are no bike lanes anymore, traffic signs feel like a mess, the houses suddenly come in all mixed shapes, major roads often run through small villages directly. It's a complete different country.

Similarly, if you come from Belgium, I imagine the Netherlands feels like a 'creepy' place run by mysophobists.

Similarly, Britain is a fairy-tale country full of hedges and lovely pubs and suburbs reminiscent of the industrial revolution, and France has long stretches of nature filled with 'petite' villages which eat everything the countryside can provide.

There are large cultural differences, and also some ideological differences. It's what most people like about Europe, you can't equalize those cultures on being geographically close.

(It's the same thing with the OWS movement. The slogan 'We are the 99%' means something in the US. In the Netherlands, it's a mostly meaningless statement.)

 

[WhoWee]

(It's the same thing with the OWS movement. The slogan 'We are the 99%' means something in the US. In the Netherlands, it's a mostly meaningless statement.)

It seems the media would like you to think the 99% thing is working. What is has done is spawned a new theme.
http://the53.tumblr.com/

The 53% group - as in we are the 53% that pay federal income taxes to support the 47% that enjoy redistribution.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't mention pay

The phrase was 'hiring decisions' in which pay is certainly one factor. The minimum wage for instance means that for many entry level people and youth with no skills that the hiring decision is "no I'm not hiring", especially in down times like the present.

...and you're overstating the objection: anti-discrimination laws do not equate to the government telling a company who to hire.

Not who down to the individual, but certainly 'who' at the ethnic group level. If we loosely say the society consists of larger ethnic group A and smaller one B, US law requires employers to higher from B.

...You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction: employers aren't allowed the freedom to practice racism because in interactions between people, awarding that right to one person allows them to infringe on the rights of another.

On the part of the employees what fundamental right is infringed? Employers routinely discriminate, with a small 'd', i.e. the power to distinguish, on all kinds of issues not specifically related to the job requirements: candidate is too arrogant, lacks self confidence, too intro/extro-verted for the existing group, worked for that-Company-with-the-culture-we-deplore, etc.

 

[Zarqon]

As a small employer, I see several assumptions above that contradicts my experience, but the most glaring problem is the assumption that somehow the 'outside regulator' will act in the best interest of all perspective employees or customers.

Yeah, it's a good point. You do have to trust the government, and maybe that's one of the key issues in the US for not liking social ideas.

From the discussions here, it seems to me that people in the US would rather trust people with money than the government. Maybe the thought is that people who have worked hard to get rich should have a natural desire to get even richer and so will invest all their money again so that there is a flow. However, growing up in a different type of country, I would rather place my trust in the government. From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole, whereas corporations need to make a profit, and would thus not care too much about how it affects people as long as they can get away with it (why private health insurance sounds bad).

I would rather distribute more power to the government, which of course means that the government needs to get and distribute more money, a.k.a. more taxes and better social security/senior citizen payments.

 

[mheslep]

...From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole, whereas corporations need to make a profit, and would thus not care too much about how it affects people as long as they can get away with it (why private health insurance sounds bad)...

Two points. 1) If one is going to fairly assign self interest motives to profit making businesses, then you must also assign the desire to get elected to politicians, and the desire to keep a job without competition for life and obtain large pensions to bureaucrats. 2) It is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Conceit" to assume anyone or anyone group has the ability to plan for a society, rather than accepting that societies evolve, so that even if the politicians and bureaucrats had only selfless motives (they do not), they'll still end up causing trouble with grand centrally planned schemes.

 

[DoggerDan]

There was no try, you under appreciated the vast cultural differences between countries in Europe.

You misunderstood my point. By "close" I thought he was trying to say they're similar, whereas I was saying in my response they may be close geographically, but geographic closeness does not translate into ideological closeness.

We are in agreement that things vary greatly from one country to the next.

 

[russ_watters]

The phrase was 'hiring decisions' in which pay is certainly one factor. The minimum wage for instance means that for many entry level people and youth with no skills that the hiring decision is "no I'm not hiring", especially in down times like the present.

Though the wording of that phrase may have been a little broad, you missed the context of my post: I was specifically referring to racism. I mostly agree about minimum wage laws: Rights issue aside, I think particularly during times of high unemployment, they do more harm than good. And I don't think there really is a good rights justification for them.

Not who down to the individual, but certainly 'who' at the ethnic group level. If we loosely say the society consists of larger ethnic group A and smaller one B, US law requires employers to higher from B.

That's still an overstatement when referring to quota-based Affirmative Action, but regardless, that has been struck down as unconstitutional. So it's a non-sequitur.

On the part of the employees what fundamental right is infringed?

One of the most fundamental rights and arguably the main reason the US was founded, considering that it makes up the main summary of the complaint in the Declaration of Independence: Equal rights, protected under the law. AKA "equal protection". Now unfortunately, there was some self-contradiction built into the Constitution due to the racism built-in to it, but nevertheless the principle was intended to be there - and was clarified and strengthened after the Civil War.

Employers routinely discriminate, with a small 'd', i.e. the power to distinguish, on all kinds of issues not specifically related to the job requirements: candidate is too arrogant, lacks self confidence, too intro/extro-verted for the existing group, worked for that-Company-with-the-culture-we-deplore, etc.

That you already cited two types of discrimination with a small and large "d" implies you know the answer to your question, which makes it odd that you asked the question, but regardless:

[d]iscrimination on the basis of things that affect job performance is a Constitutionally protected right of both the employers and employees. That's simply the other side of the equal protection coin.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, it's a good point. You do have to trust the government, and maybe that's one of the key issues in the US for not liking social ideas.

From the discussions here, it seems to me that people in the US would rather trust people with money than the government.

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole...

It is my perception that the only thing motivating most politicians is personal gain. What's good for society barely pings on their radar.

I would rather distribute more power to the government, which of course means that the government needs to get and distribute more money, a.k.a. more taxes and better social security/senior citizen payments.

Ok. That's fine for you. I disagree -- which is of course, what the title of the thread is asking.

 

[skeptic2]

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

I don't think the bolded part is true. I think we don't mind employees and businesses having freedom insofar as their freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others nor hurt the welfare of the United States.

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

#2. does not follow from #1a. The US did have a free market until about the 1890s when flaws in the free market philosophy started to become apparent and numerous laws to limit the freedom of businesses were passed in order to prevent them from taking unfair advantage of consumers and workers.

 

[WhoWee]

This is what happens - IMO - when generosity is confused with weakness and when a vote is cast due to name recognition or straight Party choices.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ll-unemployed-americans-for/?intcmp=obnetwork

"Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has offered his own $804 billion jobs plan that calls on the federal government to hire the nation’s 15 million unemployed Americans for jobs paying roughly $40,000 each, and bail out all the states and cities facing budget crises."

To put this $40K number into perspective:
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

"Per Capita Personal Income by State, 1990 to 2010"

 

[MarcoD]

No, that's not it at all. There are two parts to the other side:

Okay.

1. Capitalism is about economic freedom, so we want employees and businesses large and small to have freedom to make their own decisions. Whether those decisions are in the best interest of the country or not is irrelevant. We believe that freedom is a right (that's kinda a tautology) for moral reasons.

Capitalism is about private ownership. The whole, 'Capitalism is about Freedom' is a popularized populist notion of Friedman of his book 'Capitalism and Freedom' countering the communist 'agenda' that private property takes away individual rights.

It's an extremist reaction against another extremist.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. -- Joplin

1a. Naturally, when given freedom, people and companies will act in their best interest, whatever the particular interest is that is most important to them at the time.

'Economic freedom,' not freedom. The whole OWS movement at the moment is about that democratic 'freedom' can be bought in a neoliberal capitalist society.

2. We believe that freedom ultimately is good for society, even if specific decisions people make may not be. It helped grow the US economy into the largest economy in the world in a hundred years, right?

You believe. And it is a position which the US will lose again, history progresses.

It is my perception that the only thing motivating most politicians is personal gain. What's good for society barely pings on their radar. Ok. That's fine for you. I disagree -- which is of course, what the title of the thread is asking.

Personal gain is the definition of a neoliberal capitalist system. By that definition, a politician who acts only for personal gain is a given, and something to be heralded.

It doesn't make sense to discuss freedom in the context of capitalism, I've said that before, they're orthogonal notions.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the bolded part is true. I think we don't mind employees and businesses having freedom insofar as their freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others nor hurt the welfare of the United States.


#2. does not follow from #1a. The US did have a free market until about the 1890s when flaws in the free market philosophy started to become apparent and numerous laws to limit the freedom of businesses were passed in order to prevent them from taking unfair advantage of consumers and workers.

Skeptic, it is true, both as a matter of belief (as in: that is, in fact, what I and other capitalists believe) and legally (as in: that's how the American system was set up and works). Ask yourself why individuals are given freedom to act as they choose and then extend that to businesses: why wouldn't businesses be given similar freedoms? Why would it be morally acceptable to allow individuals to act against the best interests of the country and not allow businesses to? And why does a business acting within certain rights (such as in a big issue today: deciding to pocket their profits or give them to CEOs as bonuses rather than use them to hire more workers) necessarily infringe on the rights of others? (unless we're again going to play word-games and broaden the word "rights" beyond its original meaning).

Regarding "the welfare of the United States". That's a responsibility of the government, not a responsibility of the citizens. Don't misunderstand that part of the Constitution to mean that the government has unlimited power to force you to do what it thinks is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't.

...and up until the 1890s is that first 100 years I was referring to. Flaws or not, our economy advanced faster than other economies when it was freer. Also don't misconstrue my argument to imply I don't believe in worker and consumer protection laws. I do. The logic there should be obvious: if someone is "abusing" you, they are violating your rights. Making workers work in a building without ventilation or fire protection? That's abuse. Hoarding profits? Not abuse. Our restrictions on business have gotten pretty broad, but at least in theory they are supposed to be based on that type of justification. 'It would be better for the country if you did this...' is not an acceptable justification for any restriction of rights.

 

[russ_watters]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Beyond that, the logical flaw in your position could not be clearer: the OWS protestors are upset partly because money = power. Money = power because of freedom. OWS protestors want to decrease the power by siezing the money. Government siezing the money reduces the control, power and freedom of those who currently have it.

 

[MarcoD]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

 

[WhoWee]

MarcoD, "capitalism is about freedom" is not just a belief, it is a historical fact of the founding and at the very least the first half of American history. Don't confuse ideology and reality. It would have been impossible for Friedman to popularize something that predated him.

Beyond that, the logical flaw in your position could not be clearer: the OWS protestors are upset partly because money = power. Money = power because of freedom. OWS protestors want to decrease the power by siezing the money. Government siezing the money reduces the control, power and freedom of those who currently have it.

I'd like to know WHO the people in favor of socialism TRUST to make decisions for them - regarding their lives and futures?

 

[Oltz]

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

I think the point he is trying to make is that without Freedom its not capitalism.

You need to be free to buy and sell and produce what you like when ou like where you like.

You need to be free to negotiate the price of your goods/service/time/effort.

You need to be free to preform these tasks without fear of theft/attack/sabatoge.

We already have an impure form of capitalism with minimum wage and trade agreements as well as forced union memberships. Then you add in expanded government interference and we end up with cronny capitalism.

IMO we need to return to a more "free market" form of capitalism.

 

[MarcoD]

I think the point he is trying to make is that without freedom it's not capitalism.

You need to be free to buy and sell and produce what you like when you like where you like.

You need to be free to negotiate the price of your goods/service/time/effort.

You need to be free to preform these tasks without fear of theft/attack/sabatoge.

We already have an impure form of capitalism with minimum wage and trade agreements as well as forced union memberships. Then you add in expanded government interference and we end up with cronny capitalism.

IMO we need to return to a more "free market" form of capitalism.

Yeah, I get it. You're neoliberals. I personally don't see anything good coming out of that position, that's why I disagree.

[ Anyway, I am going to give up. Just not in the mood to discuss fairytales. Everything you stated can only be done by a government holding the guns and enforcing the rules of 'free' trade. What freedom? It's BS. ]

 

[skeptic2]

Why would it be morally acceptable to allow individuals to act against the best interests of the country and not allow businesses to?

I'm having a little difficulty with your term "morally acceptable" which implies adherence to a standard of conduct which is not evident. Are you referring to the Federal Statutes, the Bible or what? To whom must the act be morally acceptable? What may be moral to some citizens may not be to others. For instance, the act of donating money to a terrorist cause may be morally acceptable to the person doing it. Can you cite an example of an action, against the best interests of the US, which if performed by an individual would be "morally acceptable" but which would not be allowed for businesses?

And why does a business acting within certain rights (such as in a big issue today: deciding to pocket their profits or give them to CEOs as bonuses rather than use them to hire more workers) necessarily infringe on the rights of others? (unless we're again going to play word-games and broaden the word "rights" beyond its original meaning).

Regarding "the welfare of the United States". That's a responsibility of the government, not a responsibility of the citizens. Don't misunderstand that part of the Constitution to mean that the government has unlimited power to force you to do what it thinks is in the best interest of the country. It doesn't.

I think possibly you have pigeon holed me and assumed that I believe the same things as others you have put in the same pigeon hole, because I have not made statements contrary to the above.

...and up until the 1890s is that first 100 years I was referring to. Flaws or not, our economy advanced faster than other economies when it was freer. Also don't misconstrue my argument to imply I don't believe in worker and consumer protection laws. I do. The logic there should be obvious: if someone is "abusing" you, they are violating your rights. Making workers work in a building without ventilation or fire protection? That's abuse. Hoarding profits? Not abuse. Our restrictions on business have gotten pretty broad, but at least in theory they are supposed to be based on that type of justification. 'It would be better for the country if you did this...' is not an acceptable justification for any restriction of rights.

Then how do you explain the at least equally rapid expansion of the Chinese economy without the freedoms to which you attribute to the success of the United States? I'm not sure what you mean "rights" nor by "original meaning". Certainly "rights" do not have the same meaning in China as they do here.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, you asked for working with definitions. On the Wikipedia page, there's nothing about freedom in relation to capitalism. There only is the populist book by Friedman. It's a fairytale.

Huh? What wiki page are you looking at?! It is all over the page for "capitalism", including a redirect from the page for "free enterprise"!, with historical context back to the 1600s! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism