Socialism: Good or Bad?

[Deimateos]

It's a shame that since then Friedman's theories about removing government influence to increase efficiency have apparently failed repeatedly in practice and have been academically discredited.

By whom, exactly? I'd like to see some kind of proof of actual academic groups/panels saying this, because thus far I've only found the claim on a leftist web site, written by someone who failed to research WHY the market actually went under last year.

For those too lazy to research:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n

However, the Bush administration didn't really cause the beginning of this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
Keep in mind, Obama doesn't want to do anything to fix this problem.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/plan-gives-fed-sweeping-power-over-companies/
(A vid that includes Obama's stance on the Fed, as well as Greenspan admitting the Fed is above the law)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij1wDQO6x-0

In an education system that now lauds socialist ideals, it wouldn't surprise me to find some academics shunning his pro-capitalist ideas.
On the "discrediting"
http://www.byjustinfox.com/2006/11/milton_friedman.html

John Maynard Keynes

So what you're saying is Friedman was discredited by the long-dead (1883-1946) opponent he himself was discrediting? Now I'm not saying that Friedman was economical Jesus (nor that all of Keynes views were bad), just that he did have some good ideas and historically accurate backing for why capitalism has outperformed every other system in bringing the common folk out of poverty.

But let's say there is some definitive proof that Friedman has been discredited (For argument's sake).

To that I say, Judge the message, not the messenger. The worst thing to do is to write someone off because of public(ized) opinion. If 'Psycho Bob' tells you "Science says we're mostly made of water! :O", the masses response of "Well, why come we don't melt then, BOB???" doesn't make his statement any less true. Conversely, someone who is publicized as a prominent innovator, such as Mr. Gore can be nothing more than a fraudulent shyster, hiding behind pseudo-science.
Some debunking links (Notice how the heat(blue) comes before the CO2(red) level changes):
http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_22_49.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wowkodos/318222213/in/set-72157594412973859/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

And straight from the Senate's own site, debunking the "Consensus":
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

In either case, the orator is irrelevant, but what is being said, is.

I think Chappelle put it best:

"The WORST thing to call somebody is 'crazy'...it's dismissive...", "I don't understand this person, so they're 'crazy'". That's bullshit."

From this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0g_MShg1HQ
The full 90min video is a really good watch, btw.

That quote applies to all sorts of derisive name besides "crazy/madmen".

But back on topic, socialism sounds nice on paper, but is ultimately unworkable on a global scale. Just know that if it is implemented, the rich will simply defect to another country, leaving the USA worse off than it is now (As the rich usually becomes so by not giving their money away)
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol/2009/07/16/where-did-the-millionaires-go/

Removing that cash would mean even worse conditions for the working class, because guess who they'll expect to pick up that enormous slack? If the country truly does change systems, expect to be the grandpa/ma recalling "Back in my day, we only had to give 40% of our income(before sales tax)!".

 

[gorfias]

Probably the most succinct book against it is entitled, "The Road To Serfdom". Some economists would tell you there is no difference between Socialism and Facism. At their core is a disrespect for liberty, economic freedom and property rights. For socialism to function, your neighbors, in some respect, get to own you. You are property, legally obligated to produce to purchase other citizens individual goods and services, as opposed to the normal obligation of contributing to community or national needs, like national defense and national infrastructure (roads), local school systems.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It's a shame that since then Friedman's theories about removing government influence to increase efficiency have apparently failed repeatedly in practice and have been academically discredited.

By whom, exactly? I'd like to see some kind of proof of academic groups saying this, because thus far I've only found the claim on a leftist web site, written by someone who failed to research WHY the market actually went under last year.

Despite not being an economist I do read some web sites and books about the economy, rather than relying on right wing conservative news sources for my information like many people seem to.

Here is an obituary for Friedman by Yves Smith.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2006/12/milton-friedman-rip.html

Take his central belief, that free markets are preferable to government control. The problem with that simple dichotomy is that well functioning markets seldom exist without some level of government intervention (note this insight comes from Columbia professor Amar Bhide?s 1992 Harvard Business Review article, ?Efficient Markets, Deficient Governance?). A market where parties who don?t have a pre-existing relationship meet needs mechanisms to assure safety for its participants. Financial markets are heavily regulated. Even simple retail transactions are subject to a host of consumer protection laws.

Here she quotes from a book by Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

The sad truth ? is that outside of China, poverty in the developing world has increased over the past two decades. Some 40 per cent of the world?s 6.5 billion people live in poverty (up 36 per cent from 1981), a sixth - 877 million - live in extreme poverty (3 per cent more than in 1981). The worst failure is Africa , where the percentage of the population living in extreme poverty has increased from 41.6 per cent in 1981 to 46.9 per cent in 2001 ? this means the number of people living in extreme poverty has almost doubled, from 164 million to 316 million?.Today, most academic economists agree that markets, by themselves, do not lead to efficiency; the question is whether government can improve matters.
Another shortcoming of markets is that the participants don?t shoulder the cost of ?externalities? such as pollution, resource depletion, or global warming. But that is a huge topic, which we will likely get to in future posts.
Markets are undoubtedly good for certain things, like price discovery and allocation of resources. And keeping government intervention to a practical minimum is also a sound idea. But the idea of free markets has become orthodoxy, and is too often used to defend corporate practices that have comparatively little to do with either freedom or markets (for example, Wal-Mart?s low wages being subsidized by taxpayers because its workers use emergency rooms, food stamps, and other public services).

For those too lazy to research:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4546583n

However, the Bush administration didn't really cause the beginning of this problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
Keep in mind, Obama doesn't want to do anything to fix this problem.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/16/plan-gives-fed-sweeping-power-over-companies/
(A vid that includes Obama's stance on the Fed, as well as Greenspan admitting the Fed is above the law)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij1wDQO6x-0

In an education system that now lauds socialist ideals, it wouldn't surprise me to find some academics shunning his pro-capitalist ideas.
On the "discrediting"
http://www.byjustinfox.com/2006/11/milton_friedman.html

I'm not interested in this political point scoring.

John Maynard Keynes

So what you're saying is Friedman was discredited by the long-dead (1883-1946) opponent he himself was discrediting? Now I'm not saying that Friedman was economical Jesus (nor that all of Keynes views were bad), just that he did have some good ideas and historically accurate backing for why capitalism has outperformed every other system in bringing the common folk out of poverty.

I knew that he was dead and that people say that Friedman discredited him, although his ideas are being used a hell of a lot by people in power in the west for someone who is discredited while Friedman's have been dropped like a grand piano. I used the quote to illustrate how people can get very attached to the political ideology of a dead economist without understanding the theory or looking into the current state of the dismal science.

 

[Deimateos]

Despite not being an economist I do read some web sites and books about the economy, rather than relying on right wing conservative news sources for my information like many people seem to.

Which is why I asked, because the search wording you and I have used probably differs enough to include/exclude more results. Personally I'm an independent, so most of the time, I make an effort to read both takes on the same story. From the links given, it seems that I had correctly suspected what the point of contention was: his "market efficiency" ideals. That's why I included the "By Justin Fox" link in the last post, which suggests that he wasn't as ideologically blinded as some of the articles I've found make him out to be.

I'm not interested in this political point scoring.

Again, I'm an independent, so any "points" I may score don't really amount to anything for either side (not that sides won't try to claim those points for their own). I prefer not to affiliate myself with the two-party system, as both "sides" are two heads of the same corrupt monster, for the most part.

I used the quote to illustrate how people can get very attached to the political ideology of a dead economist without understanding the theory or looking into the current state of the dismal science.

Just making sure. I've never thought all of Friedman's views were right, simply that his view on capitalism being a boon to the common man has been historically proven.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

From the links given, it seems that I had correctly suspected what the point of contention was: his "market efficiency" ideals.

That would depend on what market efficiency ideals we are talking about. There is a concept that markets are efficient in setting prices in that often they are not wrong by more than about %50 and only occasionally something like %500 wrong. Apparently economists see that as an improvement over some other pricing mechanisms but most laymen would not see that as efficiency.

The idea that markets are more efficient the less that governments have to do with them is something else and verges on political ideology. As far as I can tell, Friedman was a good economist who deserves respect for his work on monetary supply. His political messages are more suspect.

Just making sure. I've never thought all of Friedman's views were right, simply that his view on capitalism being a boon to the common man has been historically proven.

There is no doubt that things like trade and currency have been a boon to mankind although I see them as a means to an end and not the goal in themselves. Friedman often goes beyond being pro markets into free market ideology which has as much of a chequered history in practice as socialist ideology, if not more.

 

[AntiChrist]

Political power to the feeble minded plebs? I think not.

 

[bjj hero]

Pleeeaaaassseee... No... more... socialism... threads... *expires*

OT: Short summary of my opinion - I don't agree with socialism because I don't feel that belonging to the same race or species as a person entitles me or them to demand that we support each other. No one has a right to demand that I support them, nor do I have the right to demand it of others.

what about parents supporting their children and partners? The elderly?

Should we eutanise the disabled who cannot support themselves?

OT Socialism isn't good or bad, neither is capitalism. I believe that the answers are in the middle. Free market works fairly well but some things, military, healthcare, police forces etc. work better out of private hands.

Im also a supporter of regulation. Being rich or in an advantageous position shouldn't be an excuse to shaft your fellow man.

 

[Sun Flash]

the socialism Obama's trying to bring about is good in my opinion, I honestly don't understand how free healthcare is a terrible thing. I'd rather have a bump in taxes than having to remortgage my house just to pay for an operation.

what's wrong with helping the poor?

the only gripe I have with it is that one can get to carried away and communsim strikes and everyone's back to square one, only poorer.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It depends on what country you live in.
Socialism may not be good for America but it is necessary in some countries if only to keep the populous alive.

I'm not saying capitalism is the definite answer: see what it's led to in the USA - conflict of interest in the government where the leaders listen to whatever industry pays up the most rather than the people or you get these unregulated corporations that take advantage of the ignorant portion of the populous in order to make the most money for it's shareholders.

The USA needs a new system; like a responsible form of capitalism since most of these yuppy dbags can't be responsible on their own.

 

[Sovvolf]

Didn't I already make a thread about this months ago??.

 

[Captain Pancake]

State owned factories, no civil rights, a compulsory army, all key points of Hitler's regime and socialism in practicality.

Get your facts right, please. all the points you stated were autonomous from socialism, they were part of Hitler's policy and his alone. you're getting fascism and left wing ideologies mixed up.

Ahem. Give me one socialist country that doesn't enforce those ideas? That's the whole point. Socialism looks good on paper and propaganda, but in the real world it turns to dung.
And are you suggesting the Soviet Union wasn't a socialism driven country? That would turn every historybook ever written upside down and inside out.

But that's just it, we're not talking about real world examples, we're trying to discuss the concept of socialism without the connotations of it's previous embodiments. Besides, the soviet union was communist.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I personally agree with socialism. It's not as ball-breaking as communism, and it's certainly fairer than capitalism whilst still letting people make their fortune in life.

 

[UpSkirtDistress]

I think more Socialism introduced into the systems already in place would do a world of good. Pure socialism is as flawed as pure democracy or communism ,what you need is a society that takes all the good elements of each system and values individual rights.

 

[LockHeart]

Pleeeaaaassseee... No... more... socialism... threads... *expires*

OT: Short summary of my opinion - I don't agree with socialism because I don't feel that belonging to the same race or species as a person entitles me or them to demand that we support each other. No one has a right to demand that I support them, nor do I have the right to demand it of others.

what about parents supporting their children and partners? The elderly?

Should we eutanise the disabled who cannot support themselves?

You misunderstand me, I would happily support my children (though an ex-spouse would be another matter, nothing to stop them getting a job), and would take it upon myself to support my partner if she was out of work) and I would have an obligation to - I would have to be responsible for my own choices. Nor would I ever support the involuntary euthanasia of anyone (beside the fact that disabled people who cannot support themselves are usually taken care of by their parents). I'm not entirely sure as to how you got to that point, but whatever.

However, despite the misfortune of their condition, I could not condone the theft of wealth from others in order to provide care for them. I think you underestimate the amount that people donate to charities and non-profit companies, I know I donated out of my wages when I was working, and they do an awful lot of good, much better than what the State can provide.

 

[Nightfall2021]

If I had more time I would go a bit more into this, but as it stands right now, Healthcare and Education should have never been allowed to become a profit based business. Both should have never been a business, they should have been a public owned service (like fire, police, military, post office, etc.)

No one, no matter what should be denied healthcare because they can't afford it. No one should die because they don't have coverage, and no one should go broke because they are sick. America needs to turn their health care system to more preventative style medicine. I feel bad because of the thousands of people employed by the Insurance Companies and the Pharmacutical (sp) companies, but as it stands now those companies are the core of the problem here in America.

With all the money and lobbyists in Washington though, we will doubtfully ever see a fall of these monetary empires. At best we may see a law passed that makes it illegal to not have insurance. How does that help people who don't make that much money? Tax Credits? Nothing is free, if the government is giving people money as a credit towards a service the people are paying for it anyway. They might as well just socialize public healthcare and get it over with.

Education is the same thing. We are starting to see a burgeoning caste system here in America. Where the Rich continue to get richer and the poor either stay poor poor, or the exceptional few who have the drive, opportunity, intelligence and probably most important luck who can claw themselves out of their past.

The way it is going, someone from a financial struggling family has to work even harder to get the money together for school, and will doubtfully (there are exceptions, but exceptions are not the rule) never get to a Ivy League school and will work themselves into a 30-100k debt that will take them years to repay.

Pundits will say that a socialized education system will inspire laziness in the failures in society (which is pretty much what many consider any lower to lower-middle class non college educated adult). Sure this would be true in the current educational market, with education being provided for free as long as someone paid. Raise the marks, take the funding for higher education away if someone can't keep their marks in school. Heck, take it a step further, if they can't pass the entrance exam they are not qualified for school (make it like a job, if you are not qualified you need to work harder to be so).

Stop dumbing down schools. While no child left behind at its core tried to do something great, lowering the standards on testing so the schools can maintain their score and get federal money. The answer is to raise standards and make children learn. It is getting to the point that if you are not going to a private school the odds are starting to get stacked agianst you.

The argument of "They didn't work as hard as I did so screw them" is idiotic at best. I know (as we all do) lots of hard working people who are in the bottom rungs of society. We all know the lazy ones as well. Sure, many had made decisions or have had unfortunate things happen to them (myself included) that slowed or stopped any further growth financially, but that doesn't mean they are any less deserving of what should be a necessary service. Neither should their children.

Society would not function without these people. Who would bag your groceries, cook your food, pump your gas, run your registers, work your front desks, clean your rooms, do your laundry, chuck your luggage, mow your lawns, do your hair, wait your tables, mix your drinks, wash your car, change your oil, stock your shelves, pick your crops, activate your credit cards, run IT services, fix your computers and so on and so on. All of these people are in the lower to lower-middle income bracket, and many of them have to work hard just to tread water to pay their bills.

Society needs these people. Workers are a natural resource to be protected, and all children are to protected, educated and provided the best possible future.

What needs to be done is both of these systems need to be overhauled, turned into publicly funded organizations (nothing is free) government spending needs to be curbed and a tax rate needs to be set so the US can finally start paying its bills. Every person in America should pay the same percentage of their income to taxes.

Because of the lobbyists in DC and the inability for most Americans to grasp that we need to stand together as one and provide for all Americans (As soon as Americans hear "more taxes" they freak out, even if its an overhaul of existing taxes) we will doubtfully ever see the socially progressive Socialist programs we see in other counties.

And I guess it was longer than I thought!

Long live the US, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pharmacuetical companies!

 

[the_baku_eats_dreams]

To the nutbag who said that Nazis were socialist because it was in thir name, look at countries with names that do not represnt what they are. The Offical name of North Korea is "The people's democratic republic of north korea." are they anything like that? or China, who's name is "The people republic of china" The fact of the matter is you can't take a country or party's name at face value. many "christian republicans" are actually quite socialistic since thay want a big moral police to tell us what is right for us to watch and listen to and see. in short, learn what shit means and then make opinions rather than statements.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Not a great idea to start a political debate here, but whatever.

Socialism is a good principle, but difficult to put into effect.

 

[bjj hero]

You misunderstand me, I would happily support my children (though an ex-spouse would be another matter, nothing to stop them getting a job), and would take it upon myself to support my partner if she was out of work) and I would have an obligation to - I would have to be responsible for my own choices. Nor would I ever support the involuntary euthanasia of anyone (beside the fact that disabled people who cannot support themselves are usually taken care of by their parents). I'm not entirely sure as to how you got to that point, but whatever.

You were saying that everyone has a responsability to support themselves, I was pointing out that it's not an option for everyone. You say the disabled are usually cared for by their parents but children usually outlive their parents and not everyones parents are up to scratch. The disabled can also have expensive health needs that can push an otherwise fine family into poverty.

However, despite the misfortune of their condition, I could not condone the theft of wealth from others in order to provide care for them. I think you underestimate the amount that people donate to charities and non-profit companies, I know I donated out of my wages when I was working, and they do an awful lot of good, much better than what the State can provide.

When I first returned home from America 9 1/2 years ago I was unemployed, could not get into the profession I'd qualified to do and was unemployed for about 9 months. I spent the time volunteering at a charity that gives debt and legal advice to those who cannot afford it. I eventually got a job in a different field and I've worked ever since, I have a good job, pay my taxes, own my own house, am raising a family etc. and thanks to our benefit system, paid for by tax payers I was able to get back on my feet and contribute. Ive definately put more in than I've taken out but it was there when I needed it.

Some things are just better state run and that needs taxation. Some people can't provider for themselves (although I'm aware some choose not too) and paying in means they don't starve on the streets. I feel that makes my country a better place, even when I grumble at my deductions. There is a place for socialism along side capitalism.

 

[Unknower]

Middle ground between capitalism and socialism is good.

For every person who genuinely needs some sort of help, there are more people who simply expect it because it's offered; not wanting to do anything on their own to help themselves.
...
The problem with a system that stresses equality is that is seems to punish success. Taxing the rich more to give to those who are not as rich seems backwards to me. Why bother to work hard, save your money, and enjoy your hard-earned wealth when you will only be penalized for it?

The freeloaders are a very small minority.

Also, you're making progressive tax sound like a person with average pay gets a pat on the head while a rich guy gets punched. That's not how it works.

If there wasn't progressive taxing, average people and poor people would have to pay more taxes. However, they couldn't afford it. Rich people can afford to pay more taxes and still have loads of money after it.