Socialism. We need it America......... For now

Most of the writings of the 19th century about socialism that I have read always speak in regards to the turmoil and upheaval and inequality of unrestrained capitalism. Perhaps I am wrong though, might you source me one that does not?

 

Whos analysis is more advanced? And what is this good reason?

I can understand how you might consider the idea nonsense as thus far you have yet to represent a clear understanding of what it is I am speaking of. You have confused it several times which I have pointed out, you just keep coming up with new stuff I suppose hoping that eventually you will hit the nail on the head.


Have a happy holiday season though Riever.

 

The U.S have had its chance to really make the best possible difference in the world, but it has failed. It has instead used of its wealth, much of which was acquired by exploitation, to subdue and oppress many poor Nations. So now, the U.S is on its decline and will never be again what it once was. And the American government is now going to turn on its own people and do to them via the military and other of its branches what it has done to others.

 

There's a whole raft of analysis into liberal and social democracy (e.g. ascertaining stability criteria and how institutions evolve to maintain poverty thresholds)

You've presented nothing of note. I doubt you will be able to. That isn't your fault. The whole approach is nonsense and you therefore have nothing to work with.

 

New ideas typically have less intellectual analysis than ones which have been around for quite some time. Subscribing to this would effectively label all new ideas in any regard to be relegated to being nonsense, as there would be more 'analysis' into the older ideas. This doctrine is bobbins Riever, its just bobbins.

I presented a fundamental statement regarding social capitalism. You have yet to ask me anything in which I may need to provide something 'of note'. You just keep presenting new information which fails to fit in anywhere as it does not pertain to the ideas which I bring up.
If you have a question please ask. Explain to me how one can rightfully consider something nonsense when the one clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding with the same topic which they deem 'nonsense'? This reasoning is bobbins riever.

 

So far you've only shown that its built on sand (i.e. the reference to market inefficiencies when capitalism feeds off such inefficiencies)

I'd like to see you defend it. Start by enlarging on the market inefficiencies comment. Make sure its more hardcore than the standard social democracy analysis into negative externalities and how there is partial complementarity between efficiency and equity aims

 

See Riever, when we approach a discussion starting with a simple Q&A it moves us along much better than all those meaningless and irrelevant comments. A market inneficiency is a flaw in the laissez faire ideologue's view on the resilience, or self healing abilities of unrestrained capitalism. The classic self healing self correcting business cycle rests upon (a critical assumption) that all prices are flexible. However they are not, wages, especially are not. This is even when we exclude unionization (which accounts for around 4% of the U.S workforce) and private work contracts. If you are familiar with this flawed assumption of market flexibility I need not explore the implications of the scenario. I do not see capitalism, as an economic structure, designed to bring the most amount of goods and services to the most amount of people at the most affordable prices to be 'feeding' off of this particular inefficiency. If, on another note, you wished to say that capitalists benefited or, 'fed' off of layoffs (which may present benefits, reduce overhead costs, and foster an increase in productivity and efficiency for a business) then I will agree.

 

Yes, I suppose to some demented souls the eradication of Nazi, fascist and totalitarian regimes would be considered a bad thing. Mind you this is only a small fraction of other examples.

Despite so many examples of other nations, (Germany to name just one) who have experienced much mor national hardship yet still recovered.

And I suppose you have evidence to back these outlandish claims?

 

Given laissez faire is snake oil and irrelevant to capitalism, that isn't a powerful start.

Wage rigidity is actually part of market efficiency. We just have to factor in aspects such as transaction costs and the very particular characteristics of labour (e.g. the need to minimise labour turnover and therefore the need for labour market contracting)

The flaw of 'market flexibility' is actually about neo-liberalism and the long term damage created through a profit motive inconsistent with skills investment. We don't need to refer to so-called socio capitalism to refer to avoidance of that problem. Standard liberal democracy can deliver.

I still don't see anything in your comment to meet my request: "I'd like to see you defend it. Start by enlarging on the market inefficiencies comment" (i.e. please make some reference to socio capitalism that is distinct from the standard arguments used in liberal and social democracy)

 

It is, given the extreme confidence that many exhibit in the free market and its alleged efficiency in all aspects of society fraudulentlt propagated by capitalist ideologues Your reference to variouse ''flavors of capitalism'' is most likely why you have submitted this..

Its not a part of market efficiency as it runs contrary to the classic economic self correcting business cycle.

We dont need to do alot of things good fellow. I do not see how this is considered of significant merit as a rebuttle argument. Perhaps you might expound upon this adage.

The distinction is an amorphous system to adjust to various needs as understood. The distinction also focuses on the minimisation of crimes impact on an economy. The 'standard arguments' are most certainly included. A distinction would also include free market institutions over state control or a planned economy.

 

Who are these 'many'? It certainly isn't economists.

That is the standard externalities comment I've already referred to. It isn't of any power in terms of justifying a 'socio capitalism' buzzword. You're going to have to do better

This is meaningless. Why are you struggling to come out with a simple list of socio capitalism hip-hip-hoorahing?

 

If you havent heard of or researched classic economic theories on the self correcting business cycle it does not follow that they do not exist simply through virtue of your own ignorance. You have spoken of cost plus pricing as contributing to layoffs and aggregate demand in the past yourself. You were simply confused about market concentration.

It is a system designed to maximise economic output by enhancing the social networks of the poor.

 

I did say the best possible difference in the world I did not say the U.S never did any good. No Nation or government does only evil.....you will never find a Nation that has never done anything good. But none and that includes the U.S has done the best that it could have done.

The U.S claims that as a Nation and its people are not like other Nations or people, but by its example it has done the same things that others before it has done. It has oppressed, violated international laws, including its own. But I don't need to get into all the details of crimes and violations committed by the U.S; it's all a matter of historical record and can be find by anyone on the internet or the library.

The Nations of Germany is not the U.S and it does not mean that Germany will remain what it is indefinitely.....history shows that no Nation last forever.

Look around you and see what is happening........the rights that Americans thought that were guaranteed are slowly being eroded by the American government. You will soon see soldiers patrolling the streets of the City. If you don't believe, wait and if you live long enough you will see it with your own eyes.......but it’s not going to stop there.

 

I can but refer to the reality. "Given the extreme confidence that many exhibit in the free market" isn't supported. Most economists have no such confidence. I don't see much point in suggesting otherwise

Get it right now. I've referred to how capitalism will, by definition, lead to market concentration and cost-plus pricing ensures a role for interventionism (i.e. Government is a key economic agent). That refers to all types of capitalism. You won't be able to use it to crow about this socio capitalism that you refuse to defend.

Why are you being deliberately vague? Come on, hammer home what you mean. 'Social networks' of the poor? The right wing economist would refer to social capital; the left wing may prefer to the multidimensional nature of poverty (and how 'absolute poverty' is more than just a minimum basket of goods and services). Nothing to hip-hip-hoorah some notion of socio capitalism though

 

Socialism is often based on a specific model of the past for most people. Most of the spin of socialism is nagative. But the reality it is a effective way of culture. However, with the sturcture of power and money in control of the USA, socialism will never be in it's true form. For that to happen, the government needs to be in charge, not the corporations or influence of media and money. And these are variables that will never give up their hold on the taxpayer and the government.

 

There has been some aspect of socialism in America but mostly for the rich and most farmers for example.

 

"Unrestrained capitalism" wasn't really a common proposal until the mid 19th century. Remember; the corporation as we know it today originated as an instrument of the state. Up into the mid 19th century, they continued to be granted mainly by government degree. States in the early 19th century were very mercantile in their outlook. The capitalists who exploited the poor during those periods were mostly in positions of power within governments, and used those positions to advance their cause. Labor in the 19th century understood that, without the government, they would have the force to bring down their oppressors.

You can see this line of sentiment very clearly in the pamphlets and proposals of the early British labor "combinations", or the Chartists. It wasn't until later that capitalist organizations evolved into somewhat independent organizations, and at that point they started preaching the hands off approach to economic policy. For most of the 19th century, capitalists fiercely fought for control over the government, and promoted very aggressive interventionist policy, to provide price supports, guaranteed purchases, restricted materials access, policies to dis-empower labor and the poor, etc.

The evolution of the laissez faire philosophy was concurrent with the development of modern approaches to socialism/anarchism. Early socialists opposed the state mainly because the state promoted the interests of the capitalists; the state was a guardian of those in power. There's a reason anarchists and socialists are part of the same political tradition.

Pick a good history of the Chartist movement. This one is in the public domain. You can also find references to this sort of basic socialist history in primers like Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism.

 

Right, and one that does not submit to an elite. An elite that has tried to take over the USA in 1773, is again in control.
'Socialism' (which is an antagonistic term, deception) will lead to empire and destruction (war), like the former Sovjet Union and the German Empire last century. 'Socialism' lead Russia and Germany into a union and an empire (whats the difference, just names for totalitarian systems, systems without freedom)
Today we see again unions were created world wide over the past decade, and heading for a global empire (they join these unions one day, or if fail let them collapse and cause nationalism, and this will lead to a hardcore empire)
Every political party does the opposite of what is should do if you listen to the party names, for example, the freedom parties in Europe take away freedom, the green parties have never created more green, the workers parties did not create more job, the so called liberal parties do the opposite as well, because this is the whole trick of the fundament of the ideology that is running throughout the western politics, everything has turned upside down. What is needed is disappearing or went in the opposite direction (opposite change), smaller banks, more jobs, technological progress, electric/hydrogen cars/transportation, more green, the real alternative energies geothermical/tidal, a new space shuttle, new concorde, humans on Mars, the big western industries and banks are sold to China and India. Since Kennedy was assasinated everything went in the wrong direction on any front, ideology did this. 'Socialism' does anti social things. 'Our' politicians have become like robots over the decades (part of a political sect), they follow orders, they submit (to an elite), and now we are in big trouble (same trouble as the German people were), and can go down more because the people are going to vote in mass, giving more power to an elite.
'Socialism', what for example Youtube does is the same as was used in 'national socialist' Germany, using the same mind contol (psychological warfare) against the masses (world wide, billions use Youtube, and Google as well, also a red,white and black menu, remember the flags and banners in Germany post 1933) using the same imperialistic or 'socialist' colors, red, white or light grey and black. People are totally unaware that this is happening to them, lots of people think it's modern, but it is not, it is done for psychological reasons (turning millions of visitors/viewers in some sort of hypnotic state, all start to become the same (accept this new 'fasion'), it's like the movie 'the invasions of the body snnatchers', but this is snatching the mind of the masses)
We don't need 'socialism', but rather the return of the American dream, less government, no elite at all (who are they btw? nobody can see them, because they operate in secrecy, J.F. Kennedy spoke about this, the secret societies, thats what we need to oppose)

 

You are denying that there are many who promote and support the alleged self correcting powers of the free market? You debate with such all the time in the econimics board? You limit people and there existece to 'economists' and then attempt to argue based on such limitations.

Market concentration is a number only, plain and simple. You can say things allow for higher concentration or lower concentration but the idea that something leads to the number itself is just bobbins.

Social capital has nothing in relation to the poor directly. The system itself allows for an amorphous plan of action. So long as capital output is based upon the benefits bestowed by enhanced social networking of the poor, and free market institutions are supported over state control, then socio capitalism may be employed. I asked you about your take on it months ago, you mentioned the problems Dealing with the inefficiencies of cost plus pricing, i.e- layoffs and decreases in aggregat demand I believe. Do you remember? I will post the quote if you like.

 

Yes, the development of philosophies were concurrent. My point is that all prominent socialist writings of the 19th century speak of the dislocation and inequality bestowed by unrestrained market forces. In other words no holds bars. The 'osmanian university book' you linked did not suggest otherwise fromwhat I can tell. While there is of course the idea that state and private enterprise may be in bed together and further dislocated workers and inequality, the writings I have read are predicated upon private enterprise exploiting the working class. While government as a factor in this was of course considered, the basis remained the same.

 

Marxist socialism and traditional anarchism, yes, this is perfectly true.

There are many variations on both theories. Many anarchists are certainly communists and communists are definitely socialists. This does not mean that all socialists are communists, and there are many anarchists who do not fully meet the bill of communism in its entirety, especially the further back that we go in its history.

 

I see what you mean. And true, they have their own form of it. But then again, they have some influendce on the policies of the governemt, as well as the wealth to create the environment they chose to inhabit.

 

Yes. Economists know that the free market does not and cannot exist. Polling of AEA members also shows that they shy away from ‘free market economics’. One should remember that the dominant school of neoclassical economics. That only refers to perfect competition as a means to understand determinants of market failure. Those failures typically ensure a position alien to the crackpots that continuously crow about ‘free markets’

Internet sites will encourage the likes of the Austrian wannabes and the Georgists. They aren’t ‘many’, nor are they part of any up-to-date economic analysis. The wannabes just wait to be told what to say via mises.org (with the only useful output from the Quarterly Journal of Austrian economics).

Cost-plus pricing can only be relevant if there is market concentration. We know that cost-plus pricing is rife and therefore we know that market concentration is common. And that will always ensure the importance of interventionism

Analysis of social capital within poverty analysis is restricted to appreciating the bluntness of reliance on pure income measures. By definition, it changes the sample of the poor and weakens the importance of income. Nothing to do with socio capitalism of course.

This again is vague. Present something that is specific to socio capitalism!

Nope, don’t remember. If it means something more concrete then knock yourself out with pasting!

 

Socialism for the rich is one of the things that those who are against socialism refuse to talk about. They get far more from the government than all those on welfare combined.

 

I am not necessarily in disagreement to this, however economic thought today is not necessarily dominated by what economists, true economists think or encourage. In fact, due to the current mantra of, "economists are mostly wrong" sentiment, many other financial analysts and others involved with investment firms and other financial institutions (who are not economists by trade) are sometimes a more prominent voice in terms of what people promote. Think of how much literature and other information is being propagated from those who are not economists. Hoover said, "I want a one armed economist so they may never say, on the other hand..." This idea that economists mess up and never have a straight answer is understandable given the vast array of economic variables, price elasticity, other economic uncertainties ect. However it has led to more and more people looking for more simplified approaches to economics which is one reason why people so easily fall into one of two groups. One primarily focused with tax cuts allowing for the best economic growth, the other taking the approach that the economic playing field should be more evenly distributed. Considering that democracy is about voting, and the vast majority of voters are sheeplike who simply fall in line with their political affiliation, it is not wrong to speak of many who promote a specific ideology as they are the ones who are essentially going to enact, or thwart a specific economic policy by electing the promoters thereof into office.

market concentration
Definition
Extent or degree to which a relatively small number of firms account for a relatively large percentage of the market.


Market concentration may be high or low. If the market concentration in a particular industry is say, 80%, it means that 80% of that industry is produced by just 4 producers. The other 20% is left over to others. The market concentration could also be very low, say 20%. This would be a very vast array of producers and not given to the control of just a few producers. It follows that what you want to say pertains to a high market concentration, and not just market concentration as it is simply a degree or extent.

Social capital is about the value of social networks, bonding similar people and bridging between diverse people, with norms of reciprocity. This is valuable to enhancing the welfare of the poor and in turn increasing capital output byt increasing spending and decreasing the impact of crime on an economy ect. It is alos a practice employed to enhance business or a firms productivity. It is not directly related to the poor unless the current status quo of a country is allowing for it. Thats all I was saying.

originally Posted by Felix (R)
Reiver, this is a bit off topic but I wanted to ask you a question specifically. Do you consider any countries today as socio-capitalist (social capitalism) if so which ones. Do you advocate this as a system?


Thanks.

Van Kersbergen identifies social capitalism as the "common kernel" of the European welfare state and situates social capitalism as a "middle way" between socialist collectivism and neo-liberal individualism. Social capitalism as described is not directly related to the notion of social capital as popularized by Robert Putnam and James S. Coleman. Corfe's vision of social capitalism is fully consistent with the above sources: he decries "untrammelled capitalism;" he calls for policy based upon empirical evidence instead of the ideological speculation; and he views a core value of social capitalism "to realise the full potential of those from every background according to their ability and inclination." He therefore "repudiates any measures influenced by class bias." Most definitions of Social democracy question the full application of traditional capitalism. Social capitalism does embrace tenets of traditional capitalist theory. Social capitalism validates traditional capitalism as embodied by Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the marketplace. The "invisible hand" should be free to the greatest extent possible to create market efficiencies for all participants in the marketplace: The Tier-one economy. However, under social capitalism, government regulation is required to protect the marketplace from manipulation. The marketplace must be protected so that the invisible hand can work for maximum growth.