Anybody still think the economy has turned the corner?

[Steve Wilkins]

For my example yes, they are all funded by tax dollars. The party's do draw lines of distinction through word or deed (and both need to be taken into account) that allow us to get an idea of the programs they support the most. In this case I would argue that the Republican party tends to value military spending and police spending more then educational spending, drug treatment or universal healthcare spending. All of these programs are for the public good since they either protect or help the public. I don't have alot of heartburn on any of these programs, all will benefit us as a country, I do however disagree with the levels of importance the parties give to individual programs, but thats a personal opinion anyway.

I can see your rationale and understand why you think this. Look at it from this perspective. It's not a matter of whether it's for the public good. It would be great for the public good if everybody owned their own home and/or had a full ride scholarship to college. But the government should not be in the business of providing either. The question should be, "Who is best suited to perform the service of each of these "programs"?

In other words, which provider is more appropriate and in line with our founding principles?

military services --> government or free market?
fire services --> government or free market?
police services --> government or free market?
education --> government or free market?
healthcare --> government or free market?
drug treatment --> government or free market?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

For all of the above I'm going to go with Government. The reason I feel this way is that Corporations as an entity have one singular purpose above all others - increase profit margin. Corporations have no allegiance to a country, they have no allegiance to the citizens and in fact CEO's (of public companies) have to put profit for their shareholders above all other considerations by Law. Profit to a corporation is more important then a Country, Profit is more important then a human life and profit is certainly more important then the Bill of Rights, Constitution of our Country and health and welfare of our fellow citizens.

With this in mind do we really want Corporations educating our childeren? Administering health care (I use the term adminstering very loosely as health insurance in America is one of the best scams running), Providing police and fire protection or any other service that we feel is in the nations best interests? Thier profit motive will simply result in lower quality product for more and more money. WE can get a great product now without the increase in cost by doing it ourselves, and we don't need to worry about a CEO deciding who lives and dies.

We all know where Fanta came from, it was developed by Coca-Cola to sell to the Nazi's during WW2. Coca-Cola could not come right out and sell the Coca-Cola brand to the Nazi's when their advertisements of the day pictured a GI drinking a coke and talking about kicking Hitlers butt. So how do you maintain profit, call it Fanta and sell it to the Nazi's so they can enjoy a good "American" beverage as well. Coca-Cola got the profit from both sides.

IBM supplied the data card readers to the Nazi's in order to better track, expidite and more efficiently carry out the slaughters in the concentration camps. A good American Company just trying to make a buck. How do we know this? They had to send IBM repair men to the concentration camps to repair the card readers.

So why would we ever trust these Corporations with running the programs listed above. They are far to important to the health and well being of the Country to be left in the hands of some douchebag MBA that will get a bonus if he manages to fuck the taxpayers a little. As to the housing scenario, If we as a country decided that Homelessness is counterproductive in our society so be it, find a roof for these folks, it wont be a mansion in Beverly Hills (probably more like the standard ghetto housing project and I wouldn't really call that a handout).

Ah yes, those damn evil capitalist pigs. Spoken like a true socialist.

 

[RadicalDude]

Ah yes, those damn evil capitalist pigs. Spoken like a true socialist.

Bhopal disaster anyone? Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis? I could go on. Pretending that the free market is all smiles and dollar signs and the invisible hand makes everyone happy is intellectually dishonest.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

So why would we ever trust these Corporations with running the programs listed above. They are far to important to the health and well being of the Country to be left in the hands of some douchebag MBA that will get a bonus if he manages to fuck the taxpayers a little.

 

[Clux4]

I'm still not clear who that would be. Post a picture or something as an example? I'm a visual kind of guy.

How about this for some visual.

 

[Clux4]

Ah yes, those damn evil capitalist pigs. Spoken like a true socialist.

Personally, the beauty of Capitalism is knowing that folks like Bernie Madoff can have their way with our money. In fact, I am delighted that for everyone we nab, there are many more helping themselves to our money. Truth be told, I would rather see them have their way with our money than the evil big government that Socialist are pandering.

 

[Clux4]

Man I love Team America, probably in the top running for my favorite movies with Fight Club, those movies never get old.

As far as being a socialist, I'd say my views are more of a hybrid. Capitalism is just fine when the safety and security of our citizens isn’t being traded for profit. I don't have any sympathy for businesses acting as war profiteers, businesses that make their profit off of the suffering of others and business that rely on corporate welfare or unfair business practices to make their profits.

You want to build a better mousetrap, go for it, and aside from the OSHA regulations regarding safety of your manufacturing plant and the SEC regulations regarding your ability to raise funding, and the taxes you will rightfully pay (if your a public company) the Government shouldn't stick their nose in. You fail or succeed based on your business acumen. However, if your business has the ability to harm/defraud the public, you’re going to be regulated and that's just fine. Just bear in mind that capitalism does not work in every circumstance.

Regulation in and of itself is counter to true Capitalism and is a form of Socialism. Based on the posts it sounds like many would love to remove the restrictions and regulations that are in place to protect the citizenry. That's fine, but have you (all the 100% true capitalism proponents) really thought about it? Could you really compete and win in a 100% pure capitalistic environment?

Anyone with any semblance of intellectual honesty will agree with you. But I am afraid your friends on the far right will not. Most of them see issues in two hues - black or white. Grey is not acceptable. Rather than accepting that both ideologies have weaknesses and strengths that can be traded off, they would rather discredit the other.(The same goes for the far left). But if I must pick one of the extremes, I think extreme socialism is far more benign than extreme capitalism. To each his own.

 

[exhelodrvr]

For all of the above I'm going to go with Government. The reason I feel this way is that Corporations as an entity have one singular purpose above all others - increase profit margin. Corporations have no allegiance to a country, they have no allegiance to the citizens and in fact CEO's (of public companies) have to put profit for their shareholders above all other considerations by Law. Profit to a corporation is more important then a Country, Profit is more important then a human life and profit is certainly more important then the Bill of Rights, Constitution of our Country and health and welfare of our fellow citizens.

With this in mind do we really want Corporations educating our childeren? Administering health care (I use the term adminstering very loosely as health insurance in America is one of the best scams running), Providing police and fire protection or any other service that we feel is in the nations best interests? Thier profit motive will simply result in lower quality product for more and more money. WE can get a great product now without the increase in cost by doing it ourselves, and we don't need to worry about a CEO deciding who lives and dies.

We all know where Fanta came from, it was developed by Coca-Cola to sell to the Nazi's during WW2. Coca-Cola could not come right out and sell the Coca-Cola brand to the Nazi's when their advertisements of the day pictured a GI drinking a coke and talking about kicking Hitlers butt. So how do you maintain profit, call it Fanta and sell it to the Nazi's so they can enjoy a good "American" beverage as well. Coca-Cola got the profit from both sides.

IBM supplied the data card readers to the Nazi's in order to better track, expidite and more efficiently carry out the slaughters in the concentration camps. A good American Company just trying to make a buck. How do we know this? They had to send IBM repair men to the concentration camps to repair the card readers.

So why would we ever trust these Corporations with running the programs listed above. They are far to important to the health and well being of the Country to be left in the hands of some douchebag MBA that will get a bonus if he manages to fuck the taxpayers a little. As to the housing scenario, If we as a country decided that Homelessness is counterproductive in our society so be it, find a roof for these folks, it wont be a mansion in Beverly Hills (probably more like the standard ghetto housing project and I wouldn't really call that a handout).

And you think government is more trustworthy? LOL!

 

[Random8145]

For all of the above I'm going to go with Government. The reason I feel this way is that Corporations as an entity have one singular purpose above all others - increase profit margin.

Corporations, unto themselves, are no better than government. The difference is that in a free-market, corporations must COMPETE for your dollars, and adhere to the laws. If they do not, they will make no money and go out of business.

So they are going to provide a product that is of decent quality for the most part.

Corporations have no allegiance to a country, they have no allegiance to the citizens and in fact CEO's (of public companies) have to put profit for their shareholders above all other considerations by Law.

You think government agencies have allegiance to country? Many government agencies only exist to continue to protect themselves. If they truly were for country, quite a few of them would probably declare that they are no longer needed, and can now be shut down.

And corporations must only put profits above all else to the extent that they are within the law. Doing things like forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions need to be illegal.

Profit to a corporation is more important then a Country, Profit is more important then a human life and profit is certainly more important then the Bill of Rights, Constitution of our Country and health and welfare of our fellow citizens.

You say corporations exist to only increase profit margin. You know what government agencies exist for? To spend more money. When you head a government agency, your job is to spend all of the money you are given, so you can then demand more, and the process repeats itself. That is how the head of a government agency keeps their job and garners prestige.

Government is very inefficient and wasteful.

With this in mind do we really want Corporations educating our childeren?

You really want government educating our children? I'll take for-profit private schools anyday over the public education system. If you notice, the rich send their children to private schools, not the public education system. That is for the proles. Parents strive to send their kids to private school if they can.

Read up on the public school system. It is designed to condition people not to think. That is why children constantly change classrooms for each class in public school. They do not do this in private school.

The public school system is based off of the Prussian education system, which was very effective for creating soldiers and employees. It is designed to condition children for life as a laborer.

The modern system is more a leftover remnant of this, I don't mean there's a secret conspiracy here or anything, it is the result of a whole combo of factor, read up on it. A very good book on the subject is called: The Undergroudn History of American Education: An Intimate investigation of the Prison of Modern Schooling, by John Taylor Gatto, former New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year. He taught in the NYC public school system for many years.

T. Boone Pickens, in his book, also talks about how back in the 1950s, when you went to work in corporate America, it was just like being in school, you'd go in, the bell would ring, you'd have to be at your desk or workplace within five minutes, etc...

The public education system was designed, ultimately, to create a malleable population, so that:

1) They were stupid and would obey orders and not be as prone to striking

2) Business could create all sorts of useless stuff to market to them and they would buy it.

3) Politicians could get elected easily by a gullible public.

Only were the "elites" of society to be given a classical education. This was the belief of many who were involved in the design and development of the public education system.

Administering health care (I use the term adminstering very loosely as health insurance in America is one of the best scams running), Providing police and fire protection or any other service that we feel is in the nations best interests? Thier profit motive will simply result in lower quality product for more and more money. WE can get a great product now without the increase in cost by doing it ourselves, and we don't need to worry about a CEO deciding who lives and dies.

Now my head wants to explode. Why do not we just have the government make automobiles? We can't have those evil, profit-obsessed corporations making them. The quality will be terrible. Let government make them!

And government-designed and built houses.

And government-run agriculture!

And government-designed computers and electronics!

And government-designed pharmaceuticals.

And government-run banking and financial products.

You have your ideas backwards. The profit-motive, in a free-market, increases the quality of product. Businesses want your money! So they need to entice you to buy their products, which you won't if a better alternative is available.

Government FAILS at this most of the time precisely because it has no profit motive and is a monopoly. The profit-motive only results in lower-quality product when corporations have a monopoly. Create competition and quality shoots up.

Your idea that nationalized enterprises would do this was tried before and not too proven true.

And when you say "WE," what do you mean? You mean the government? Because "WE" do do most of the stuff in our society, as we have a free-market.

I seriously hope by "WE" you do not mean the government.

Police and firefighting is local and state government. If done by corporations, you might end up with some big, national corporations doing the police and firefighting, which might be bad. Education I'd leave to the states at most. Military obviously the government.

Healthcare and drugs, the private sector, as the private sector can do them a heck of a lot better than the government. The problems in the U.S. healthcare system right now are a result of government interference in healthcare and health insurance, not lack of it.

So why would we ever trust these Corporations with running the programs listed above. They are far to important to the health and well being of the Country to be left in the hands of some douchebag MBA that will get a bonus if he manages to fuck the taxpayers a little.

Healthcare, drugs, and education are far too important to our nation than to be left in the hands of some bureaucrats. The only reason police and firefighting and military are left in the hands of the government is because they are things just in general, left best to government.

And even then, technically, yes, police and firefighting could be privatized, it would work like garbage collection, specific companies would compete for contracts to handle the fires and/or enforcement of the law in a particular area.

But as said, this could lead to huge national police or firefighter companies.

Military you leave run by government because it's a national security issue.

 

[Random8145]

As far as being a socialist, I'd say my views are more of a hybrid. Capitalism is just fine when the safety and security of our citizens isn’t being traded for profit. I don't have any sympathy for businesses acting as war profiteers, businesses that make their profit off of the suffering of others and business that rely on corporate welfare or unfair business practices to make their profits.

You are confusing "capitalism" with free-market capitalism. Capitalism unto itself is no better than socialism. Both are just forms of serfdom. But unlike socialism, capitalism can be made to work with the proper institutions (rule of law, protection of private property, developed banking and financial system, free press, political freedom, etc...), so you have a free-market.

It's like democracy. Pure democracy is just another form of tyranny, just like dictatorship. One is tyranny of the majority, the other of the minority. But unlike dictatorship, democracy can be molded, with the proper design, institutions, structure, etc...to work very well, to create political freedom.

And if you are a "hybrid" regarding socialism-capitalism, you are more a social democrat ala Europe.

You want to build a better mousetrap, go for it, and aside from the OSHA regulations regarding safety of your manufacturing plant and the SEC regulations regarding your ability to raise funding, and the taxes you will rightfully pay (if your a public company) the Government shouldn't stick their nose in. You fail or succeed based on your business acumen.

Yup. One thing to remember also, a free-market economy requires oversight. Government regulation is one form of oversight, and too much regulation can actually decrease oversight. Oversight takes multiple forms. For example, in the financial sector, it involves the SEC, the ratings agencies, the financial press, etc...

However, if your business has the ability to harm/defraud the public, you’re going to be regulated and that's just fine. Just bear in mind that capitalism does not work in every circumstance.

Capitalism is not perfect. But free-market capitalism, combined with political freedom, is the best overall system for raising the standards of living of humanity.

Regulation in and of itself is counter to true Capitalism and is a form of Socialism.

Well according to the strict Austrians, yes. But I disagree. To a strict Austrian, real free-market capitalism can never exist because of government intervention.

Based on the posts it sounds like many would love to remove the restrictions and regulations that are in place to protect the citizenry.

What you need to realize though is that many of these "restrictions" do no such thing, and actually protect the Big Business interests they are supposed to regulate. We have a whole alphabet soup of government agencies. It's a shadow government, as no one pays attention to them. But the big corporations of the particular industries each agency regulates sure do, and those corporations take a very keen interest in who is appointed to head those agencies, they lobby those agencies to create regulations favorable to said big businesses, etc...

Remember, when government seeks to regulate industry, industry will seek to regulate government. So you only regulate industry when you absolutely have too.

That's fine, but have you (all the 100% true capitalism proponents) really thought about it? Could you really compete and win in a 100% pure capitalistic environment?

Capitalism with no rule of law is anarchy. It's like organized crime. If you operate a huge crime organization that is in the businesses of cyber-crime, identity theft, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, gambling, etc...sure that is capitalism right there.

But it is not subject to the rule of law. The term "blow the competition out of the water" can take on literal meaning with those people!

 

[Random8145]

Anyone with any semblance of intellectual honesty will agree with you. But I am afraid your friends on the far right will not. Most of them see issues in two hues - black or white. Grey is not acceptable. Rather than accepting that both ideologies have weaknesses and strengths that can be traded off, they would rather discredit the other.(The same goes for the far left).

I would say there are no strengths whatsoever from socialism. NONE. Socialism is an EVIL system. Even the industries we nationalize or have run by local governments in America, we only do so because it is a necessary evil. Government itself is a necessary evil.

Capitalism, like democracy, has both weaknesses and strengths, and with the proper institutions, those strengths will be made prominent. Notice no one talks about the strengths to dictatorship

But if I must pick one of the extremes, I think extreme socialism is far more benign than extreme capitalism. To each his own.

That depends on how you define "extreme socialism" or "extreme capitalism." Do you mean capitalism where the government just enforces contracts, but otherwise does not regulate at all? With such an economy, private groups would form to oversee each industry and approve of the products and create standards. For example, parents would form groups certifying what products were safe to buy for your children (everything from soap to toys). Groups would form to approve of what foods were safe.

And companies would seek approval from these groups to get people to buy their stuff.

Also, the government probably would get involved because the parents would demand the government start creating some laws on this, and politicians love causes to gain power.

With extreme socialism, which would be government nationalization of the entire economy, the products would be terrible and completely untrustworthy and there would be nothing the people could do about it, because the government has a monopoly.

In this instance, I'd take extreme capitalism over extreme socialism.

If by extreme capitalism, you mean anarchy (no government), then yes socialism is probably better, because at least there is some rule of law and there will be an underground black market economy within this socialist system, which would be no worse than the economy in the anarchy society.

Socialisms also differ. You can have political freedom with a nationalized economy, like India had for many years, or capitalism with a dictatorship, like modern China (well they have some capitalism).

 

[Clux4]

Random,
You initially mentioned the apparent evil that exist within the socialist system but then agree that socialism is better when faced with anarchy. How could you possibly make that switch after barging socialism as evil?

You make government seem as this evil entity that is concerned with sucking the life out of the people. The same individuals running government will be the same individuals running your privatized industries. The only difference is the fact that they hold their allegiance to different entities.

I think there are strengths to a dictator regime but then again, we have not had a pure dictatorship in decades so there is really nothing to compare. A pure dictatorship without elements of totalitarianism will be an interesting dynamic. I might add that proponents of capitalism like yourself might welcome such an arrangement; less government intrusion, reduction of waste and government resources. Can you imagine trying to pass a healthcare bill without the political horse trading.

Nice try but no, I still think a mixture of both is best.

 

[Random8145]

Random,
You initially mentioned the apparent evil that exist within the socialist system but then agree that socialism is better when faced with anarchy. How could you possibly make that switch after barging socialism as evil?

Because anarchy means all the evils in the world run wild, whereas with socialism you have one evil in control, so you have law and order. Yes, it may be repressive law and order, but in general still order.

Although you have a point, I mean if you have a choice between Somalia or the Soviet Union at the height of Stalin's Reign of Terror, which would you prefer?

On the other hand, if one had a choice between the Soviet Union ala 1980 and Russia in the mid-90s, many would have preferred the Soviet Union because at least then there was law and order, whereas in the mid-90s, and still to a good deal right now, there is a lot of anarchy and crime.

You make government seem as this evil entity that is concerned with sucking the life out of the people.

That is generally what governments do, yes. It is in their inherent nature to.

The same individuals running government will be the same individuals running your privatized industries. The only difference is the fact that they hold their allegiance to different entities.

As I said, corporations and businesses unto themselves are not good, they are kept in line by the rule of law and the free-market (i.e. make decent products or you're out of business).

Businesses and government operate according to different incentives. I'm not saying the people in government are all evil, plenty are honest, hardworking folk, same with private-sector. And you find scoundrels in both too.

But the way government is structured, it tends to do far more evil than good. That is why you limit it as much as possible.

I think it was George Washington who said, "Government is like fire. A dangerous servant and a fearsome master."

I think there are strengths to a dictator regime but then again, we have not had a pure dictatorship in decades so there is really nothing to compare. A pure dictatorship without elements of totalitarianism will be an interesting dynamic.

Louis XIV achieved absolute power as a dictator, he also bankrupted the country completely. Dictatorships historically are oppressive and evil, and if you do happen to get a good dictator, his successor is almost always bad.

By the way, socialism is a form of dictatorship. It is economic dictatorship.

I might add that proponents of capitalism like yourself might welcome such an arrangement; less government intrusion, reduction of waste and government resources.

No I would not, because political freedom is essential to preserving economic freedom, and a dictatorship is not political freedom.

Can you imagine trying to pass a healthcare bill without the political horse trading.

Sure, but then that means the government gets to do what they want, and if the people do not like it, tough. No thanks.

Nice try but no, I still think a mixture of both is best.

I would say reality disproves your theory.

If that was the case, then the mixed economies of Europe would be kicking our butts economically and they would be the world's leader.

The United States dominates because we have a nation where the economy is overwhemingly organized by the private sector, and the role of government is extremely limited.

To us, government is not a force for good, it is nothing more than a necessary evil, something we implement only when necessary.

If you think a mixture is best and like dictatorship to some degree, maybe you would prefer to live in France, which has far more socialism than here in America, and is a quasi-police state essentially (EDIT: If this sounds smart-assed, I just mean it rhetorically).

A mixture means certain industries, or enterprises, are nationalized, and a large amount of government spending. So what you get are a good chunk of the economy being highly inefficient and wasteful (government-run) plus a huge social welfare state meaning a lazy, dependent people who have little incentive to work because all their money is taxed away to pay for said welfare state and why work hard when the government pays for everything? So part of the economy is inefficient being government-run, while the private sector portion is stifled via taxes and regulations.

Not to mention we have decades of experience that show that massive social spending meant to fight things like poverty tend to only make it worse.

Of course then there is also little to no wealth creation so far fewer entrepreneurs to donate money to things like universities, charities, museums, and so forth (that is assuming the entrepreneurs would even want to after they get so much of their wealth taxed).

You can have France, I'll stick with America

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Bhopal disaster anyone? Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis? I could go on. Pretending that the free market is all smiles and dollar signs and the invisible hand makes everyone happy is intellectually dishonest.

So you think because people are in favor of solutions borne out of free market capitalism versus those of the government, that they condone the actions like those surrounding the Ford Pinto. Please. We are under no illusion that companies will sometimes pursue unethical means. Companies are run by humans and humans are fallible. But that is not cause to give the government more control over your life and certainly doesn't give you permission to control more of mine.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

How about this for some visual.

You really don't even know who you're referring to do you? Just who exactly is the "little man" that needs to be protected you keep referencing?