History is clear.

Just not true.

 

Good luck explaining that to Americans who think socialism = government program.

 

But it is. We add something like 80k pages of new rules and regulations to the national registry every year. We now have businesses in this country whose so raison d'etre is to handle the compliance paper work for small businesses. Thank God for computers or the moral equivalent of the Amazon rainforest in paper would be locked up in filing cabinets in DC.

 

Ah so you don't understand what capitalism is either. Capitalism is the term Adams used in his book on how free markets operate. Capitalism is free markets.

 

Agreed, and in nearly every instance of adaption of social principals what we observe is inefficiency that takes twice as long and double the money to reproduce what is accomplished with a profit motive.

Socialism is essentially applying monopolistic principals to the means of production, which we all know from basic economics is not desirable.

Profit has become a bad word, and I honestly don't understand why.

 

There are plenty of things the profit motive will never produce, because they aren't profitable.

 

Most Americans are partially correct.

When we speak of social programs, the concept is the same as the "production" portion of the equation is essentially the people.

There are three primary constructs of socialism. These are often interchanged in order to cloud logical discussion, which I am trying to have here:

1. Social Programs - Based on the concept of collectivism in which the government assumes some level of responsibility to collect taxes and distribute them as a means of social safety nets. The government is using, and taking control of the means of production through taxation to fund these programs. Things like Welfare, Disability, Food Stamps, Housing Vouchers, etc.

2. Social Services - These are things the government control and administer because it is the best format. Again, they still use the means of production as a mechanism to fund them through taxation. This includes things like the Military, Primary and some secondary Education, Police, Fire, the branches of Government, Department of Transportation, Education, FAA, etc.

3. Social Markets - This is the government controlling and administering things that in my opinion are better handled by a competitive private for-profit market. These are things like Manufacturing, Medical Care, Mercantilism, Professional Services, etc.



If we want to have a honest discussion (which I hope you all do), we have to speak about the concepts of both capitalism and socialism in the context of these three concepts.

Most people that support capitalism that I know don't support laissez faire capitalism. They agree with the need for regulations to prevent monopolies, anti-trust, and even fraud. They support some additional Social Services to mitigate these issues created from private sector profit margins.

Additionally, most people I know support SOME Social Programs, except when they are abused and taken advantage of. Also, I would say 99.9% of capitalists also support Social Services, realizing that though government is usually inefficient compared to the private sector, there are some things that profit motive shouldn't be a part. This is the primary concern regarding healthcare, and the profits creating access problems for people with financial hardships. I agree, nobody should be bankrupted because they can't afford cancer treatment, and at the same time I have seen how the government administers the VA Health System and to be honest, that doesn't seem very enticing either.

I think there is room for negotiation and debate on things like Healthcare, if we work to understand the opposing points of view and find compromises and solutions.

Socialism in the markets is the last of the types of social principals, where we hear the buzz word "Democratic Socialism". Outside of Social Programs and necessary Social Services, I generally oppose the idea of the government controlling the private markets and means of production. We can talk more about that if you want to understand why I oppose it.

 

Agreed. In some cases, Social Programs and Social Services are a better format.

In other cases, for-profit private markets result in the best outcomes.

 

Human nature is to divide into like minded groups. Human are easily corrupted by power. This makes all forms of government doomed to dysfunction. I am not interested in splitting hairs over which form of government devolves into corruption the fastest when it is the end result of all forms of government. To paraphrase Socrates, Democracy is akin to the lunatics running the asylum and the lunatics are we the people. Socrates was sentenced to death in a democratic vote for simply making arguments that many thought were disruptive to the republic.

I am with you on standing against socialism and I do see democracy as superior. Sadly the thing that leads to socialism collapsing into authoritarianism or totalitarianism is the same thing that is slowly turning American democracy towards authoritarianism which may one day end in totalitarianism. I see too many on the right and left praise democracy while doing all they can to stack the deck and game the system to their advantage… which is anything but democratic.

If we really want to protect our democracy then both sides need to eat some humble pie and look at how they add to the problem. Simply pointing the finger at the other side ensures a continuation of America’s slide towards authoritarianism. Both sides are the problem. Siding with a subjectively perceived lesser evil is to side with evil.

 

does modern globalized monopoly deregulated capitalism seem very similar to the protpcapitalism described by smith? really?

 

Socialism is about the way production is organized. If owners can buy and sell ownership shares, it's a capitalist enterprise. If they can't, even if they exercise control over the enterprise, then it's collective production--socialism.

If the government is running these programs and not just distributing money which people spend as they see fit, then they're socialist.

Definitely socialist because government is producing the service.

Capitalist.

As long as we maintain a distinction between private and collective production.

True.

Depends upon the program--its benefits, structure and funding. Social Security has strong public suppot:

Pew Research Center, for example, recently reported that "74 percent of Americans say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way," and previous Pew researchfound that only 6% favored cutting government spending on Social Security. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll last year found that six in 10 Americans would prefer to reverse the 2017 tax bill rather than cut entitlement programs like Social Security if necessary to reduce the deficit. Gallup polling historically has found that Americans would rather raise Social Security taxes than reduce benefits. A 2014 survey (PDF download) conducted for the National Academy of Social Insurance found "77% of respondents … agree it is critical to preserve Social Security benefits for future generations, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by working Americans."​

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/258335/social-security-american-public-opinion.aspx

Medicare has support, too.

One recent poll finds 84% of Americans—89% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans—favor adding dental, vision, and hearing coverage to Medicare. Another, out this week from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), indicates similar levels of support for allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices—83% were in favor, including 91% of Democrats; 76% of Republicans; and 84% of older adults, who would be most affected by this shift. The support holds steady even after the respondents learn the arguments for and against the policy.​

https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2021/10/14/new-poll-shows-considerable-public-support-for-proposed-medicare-changes-in-the-build-back-better-plan

Republicans are playing with hand grenades with their 'we have to cut Social Security and Medicare to save them' approach. They think people won't notice.

Agreed. Programs like Social Security are transfer payments where recipients choose how the funds are spent.

I, too, oppose government getting deeply involved in production. What are your reasons?

 

We really aren't all that different.

I dont trust government, believing they have their own agenda which is not necessarily the best interest of the citizens. Government is inherently corrupt and power hungry.

I also feel people are motivated by selfish desires, and profit provides that. I think the human element cares about charity and philanthropy so long as they feel they are getting what's owed them for the labor.

The idea that government takes control of the means of production dictating winners and losers and people losing motivation to be innovative and individually successful is a recipe for disaster.

 

Business is interested in what makes money--efficiently allocating capital--whereas government allocates capital based on political agendas.

Social values are not the first interest of business. Those concerns have to be addressed by government.

It didn't work for China or the Soviet Union.

 

Yes, but government has authority.

They can force you to buy their product no matter how bad, costly, or inefficient. This makes their control over markets more dangerous.

Businesses and private markets are voluntary.

In some cases, yes I agree.

That however in my opinion doesn't outweigh or justify control of ALL business and markets, especially considering the above dangers.

Agreed.

 

.

 

We don't have deregulated anything. We haven't had an entirely free market since the Sherman anti trust act in the1880 and protective tariffs go back to pre civil war days. And since FDR the amount of regulations added every year has grown geometrically.

 

That would be because it seldom if ever happens. We have spent by now 40 to 50 trillion dollars on the war on poverty over the last seventy years. There is little to no evidence that anyone has benefited from it beyond those who administer the system. The poor who are still poor and and increasingly poorly educated into the bargain certainly haven't benefited.

 

I would say that millions of children benefited from the legislation regarding school funding. I would say the same of Medicare and Medicaid as well as social security and food stamps. Has it eliminated poverty as planned? Nope. Are any of the systems perfect? Nope. But I can't imagine where we would be without any of them.

 

Mr. Justice Brandeis wisely noted almost a century ago that we can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.

 

Government has the ultimate hammer and should be very careful about how it uses power.

 

Almost all of public education is funded by the states and locally. The only thing the feds supply is about 8% of education money dozens of strings and the overwhelming majority of bad ideas.

 

The trouble as always is that to the man who wields the hammer everything eventually starts to resemble a nail.

 

We don't seem inclined to consider that government in a crowded, complex society can be extremely oppressive if it tries to regulate our too many of our activities.

 

That is what most of my posts in this thread are about. Hell if you Google how many federal agencies there are you find there isn't a defintive answer. I've found numbers between 46 and 53 inclusive.

 

I will wholeheartedly agree that the original legislation has changed a great deal since it was introduced, and rarely was it improved with respect to education. But I think that is more the fault of politicians than the intent for the legislation.