Why socialism will not work in America...

by zeroday 254 Replies latest jw friends

cognizant dissident

don't think the dual party system benefits anyone other than politicians, cronies, lobbyists, corporations, foreign investors, and private tycoons. I am in favor of a radical change that would eliminate lobbying and make it illegal, and also eliminate the electoral college and campaign financing. I think the popular vote should choose our officials. I think government should not become a position of privilege and tenure. No senator should serve 30 years. The perks and privileges should be removed.
These changes would be a good place to start. Not allowing government officials to enrich themselves and their cronies with back room deals and lucrative defense contracts would go a long way to eliminating corruption. Enforce very stiff penalties for corruption. Start at the top.
I also think corporate executives should be dispossessed of bonuses, golden parachutes, and options when a company continues downsizing and reducing salaries. I think overtime should be mandatory for all workers. Executives shoud be limited to one million dollars a year. Athletes should be limited also and celebrities.
These ideas are more questionable. I don't think the goal of socialism should be to totaly eliminate the free market economy, only install and enforce checks and balances. Especially when it comes to luxury industries, such as sports, entertainment, etc, Limiting executive, and celebrity salaries, helps the poor in what way? If the gross profits are not shared with the "workers" then it is just more in the coffers of the wealthy corporate shareholder's. This solves nothing, Only redistributes income from one group of wealthy to another. I think we tend to use celebrities as examples of the obscenely rich because their conspicuous consumption, is just so conspicuous! For luxury industries, the poor and middle and upper classes can vote with their pocketbook. No one is forcing people to pay $100+ for basketball tickets. It is a choice! Stay home, and watch prices and profits drop! I am not for forcible re-distribution by literally taking money from the rich and giving to the poor. This is merely a turning of the tables and not justice. Redistribution must come from the implementation of a more fair and equitable economic system, enforced over time.
Also, what is the purpose for mandatory overtime? That makes no sense to me. Or do you mean mandatory overtime pay? Please explain.
Cog
PrimateDave

In my original post I stated that the linked news article presented did not in my opinion support the conclusion of the original poster. Does the current governmental structure in California (and elsewhere) face problems? Yes. Is California a Socialist State? No. Can suddenly implementing Socialism in California in the traditional sense fix those problems? No. As I will attempt to explain, a wholesale change of economic structure would be an unmitigated disaster. Also, do not confuse Social Services provided by an Authoritarian Republic with a Command Economy (California, United States of America) with a full blown Socialist State (are there any "true" Socialist States?) or even a Social Democratic government (Sweden; Kerala, India; etc.).

One has to look at human society as a kind of "ecosystem". As with biological ecosystems, it is highly integrated and complex. Major changes implemented into the "environment" pose a grave danger of system collapse. A major political and economic change could put millions on the street in short order and even cause a complete economic collapse. As an example, consider the collapse of the former Soviet Union and, more recently, Argentina. The fact that Russia and Argentina have managed to recover is due to the overall global economic expansion that has happened in recent years which is attributable to a current abundance of petroleum based energy and an ever increasing liquidity of the money supply. As a result, the human ecosystem (always just a subset of the Earth's ecosystem) has grown many more humans and the temporary objects of our culture (buildings, cars, highways, power grids, etc. - all temporary cultural artifacts maintained by continuous inputs of petroleum-based energy purchased by government sanctioned, privately made debt notes).

That doesn't mean that we are currently on the right path, either. Making minor changes cause disruptions in the system which can adversely affect significant portions of the population. As an example of that consider so-called economic liberalization programs (free trade agreements, deregulations, etc.) that are like breaking the levees in a floodplain. In effect, old economic structures and relationships are swept away by new ones. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but those who stand to profit the most are those who plan these restructurings and those who suffer are often the people at the "bottom" who have little say in the matter. I may be incorrect in this, but I think some have called this "disaster capitalism". There is nothing wrong with Capitalism in and of itself. I think that it works fine when practiced in a lawful, ethical manner.

Another problem I see with our present human ecosystem is its inherent unsustainability. While some praise capitalism and the "free hand of the market", our economic ecosystem is highly manipulated to ensure constant growth. That is why "recession" is such an ugly word to most economists. It is also a reason why attempts to soften or prevent market corrections are made by the Federal Reserve. Thus, my reference to "Bubble Ecomonics" in my previous post. Our human economic ecosystem seems to suffer similar problems to our modern industrial agricultural system. Both require ever increasing inputs of resources (liquidity and petrochemicals) to achieve increasingly diminishing returns.

Wow! If you've read this far, thank you! I can't claim to know all that much, but I do like to read and try to get a grasp on the bigger picture. I find it hard to argue points anymore because new information always comes along to make old information obsolete. It is why I have no solutions to any modern problems of mankind, only questions. I admit that some of my ideals conflict with my other ideals. I put this post "out there" not as a definitive "answer", only as a peek at the complexity of the world we live in where there is no "one right way".

Dave
BurnTheShips

This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but those who stand to profit the most are those who plan these restructurings and those who suffer are often the people at the "bottom" who have little say in the matter.
Not if you are a poor Chinese or Indian. Then your quality of life improves considerably.
Another problem I see with our present human ecosystem is its inherent unsustainability.
There are finite resources, that is for sure.
Wow! If you've read this far, thank you! I can't claim to know all that much, but I do like to read and try to get a grasp on the bigger picture.
Your post was excellent. PrimateDave. Definitely better than some of the other poo-flinging primates on this board.
cognizant dissident

I thought your post was right on Primate Dave. You seem to have a good grasp of the big picture. National and global economics are very complex. Knee-jerk reactions can and do cause havoc. A little tweak in the system one year can bring about wide-ranging repercussions two years down the road, many of them unforseen.
Socialism does not have to be radical and does not have to be revolutionary. It is not a "turning of the tables" as in the French Revolution or Communist dictatorships as so many seem to equate it with. As Hillary said, true socialism, rewards the climbers AND provides a safety net for the less fortunate. It is not ANTI-capitalism and does not need to totally eliminate a free market. It is a system of checks and balances which if instituted rationally, prevents extreme abuses at either side of the spectrum, left or right. In order to be successful, it cannot bring about radical change all at once simply because of the economic complexities you describe. It should be more of a gentle and gradual equalizing with the aim of maximizing natural potentials of all citizens, IMO.
Cog
sammielee24

Also, what is the purpose for mandatory overtime? That makes no sense
My father worked for over 25 years with a company and this was one of the contractual agreements that they had to meet. We lived 2 hours away from his job so it was a 4 hour round trip. In order to meet this mandatory obligation - which was usually a 4 hour stint at work and always on a Saturday - he would generally get up by 3:30 am to get ready, defrost the car and drive in a blizzard to get there for 7 am. I don't recall him ever complaining to us about his work but I often wonder what that mandatory overtime really got him. A lot of friends of mine worked in the same factory putting in all the overtime they could to meet every deadline and after 20 years the plant closed up and went to Mexico. I'm not all about mandatory overtime because it can set the scale of balance too far one way - a man can be forced to work 10 hours a day at the expense of other obligations or goals he might have (family, education) and then allow the employer to lock the doors. Too much power in the hands at the top. sammieswife.
sammielee24

As an example of that consider so-called economic liberalization programs (free trade agreements, deregulations, etc.) that are like breaking the levees in a floodplain. In effect, old economic structures and relationships are swept away by new ones. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, but those who stand to profit the most are those who plan these restructurings and those who suffer are often the people at the "bottom" who have little say in the matter. I may be incorrect in this, but I think some have called this "disaster capitalism". There is nothing wrong with Capitalism in and of itself. I think that it works fine when practiced in a lawful, ethical manner.

Another problem I see with our present human ecosystem is its inherent unsustainability. While some praise capitalism and the "free hand of the market", our economic ecosystem is highly manipulated to ensure constant growth. That is why "recession" is such an ugly word to most economists. It is also a reason why attempts to soften or prevent market corrections are made by the Federal Reserve. Thus, my reference to "Bubble Ecomonics" in my previous post. Our human economic ecosystem seems to suffer similar problems to our modern industrial agricultural system. Both require ever increasing inputs of resources (liquidity and petrochemicals) to achieve increasingly diminishing returns.
Well put Dave.
Deregulation usually always implodes the industry it regulated and that's because human nature being what it is, greed and selfishness always take over. We just saw the finest example in the housing market. Drop the regulations around the loan and suddenly a person without a job qualifies. Commission paid on loans meant everybody is out there pushing people to buy because they can get more money if they get you to sign on. The buyer wants a piece of the pie even if he can't afford a whole slice but he finds the bank telling him he can do it now so he jumps in. The investors want more and more money, so they want those homes sold to increase their investment income so they could care less who number 12354 is or how they got there. The contractors see a way to make more money by hiring illegals at a third the cost of their regular workers and avoiding any employment/workers comp or other taxes and then selling more homes - so they use illegal not just deregulated avenues - round about circle when they get their loan from the bank and contract with the real estate company that sells the homes with no regulations.
As for sustaining our ecosystem - I agree. That's another problem and a complex one. sammieswife.
Mincan

Both require ever increasing inputs of resources (liquidity and petrochemicals) to achieve increasingly diminishing returns.
Most people will be shocked when they find out agribiz requires 10 times more energy to manufacture food than the food energy it produces.
That's right, 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy goes into every 1 calorie of food energy you stuff down your gorge.
As Oil peaked 2 years ago, we're leaving the plateau phase and entering the depletion stage (demand about 3 mbpd higher than supply)...without a depletion protocol such as Richard Heinberg's suggested one...
Mincan's Suggested Reading:
Richard Heinberg - The Party's Over, Power Down, The Oil Depletion Protocol
Matthew Simmons - Twilight in the Desert
James Howard Kunstler - The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency
Mike Ruppert - Crossing the Rubicon
Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Beyond Oil
Julian Darley - High Noon For Natural Gas
BurnTheShips

That is an interesting reading list Mincan!
I have read "Crossing the Rubicon" (gave it away), I own the "Long Emergency". You may enjoy "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts.
Matthew Simmons is probably the best author on your list. He is thorough, unbiased, and does not fall prey to conspiracy theories (I find Crossing The Rubicon hard to believe).
You might enjoy these sites:
http://theoildrum.com/
http://fromthewilderness.com/
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
I don't always agree with Kunstler and he has definite bias but damn he is an interesting read. He updates his blog every Monday.
Cheers,
Burn
Mincan

That is an interesting reading list Mincan !
I have read "Crossing the Rubicon" (gave it away), I own the "Long Emergency". You may enjoy "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts.
Matthew Simmons is probably the best author on your list. He is thorough, unbiased, and does not fall prey to conspiracy theories (I find Crossing The Rubicon hard to believe).
You might enjoy these sites:
http://theoildrum.com/
http://fromthewilderness.com/
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
I don't always agree with Kunstler and he has definite bias but damn he is an interesting read. He updates his blog every Monday.
Cheers,
Burn
First off, I must say... so, I'm not "scum" (with or without quotations marks ) anymore?
Now, as for The Oil Drum, Clusterfuck Nation, and From the Wilderness (when it was up and running), I visit regularly obviously you must glean from my reading list.
I have read The End of Oil, but didn't find it as helpful for new ones as the books I've listed.
Clusterfuck Nation, hahahahaha, I post there as Brandon, or did for many months when I was a doomer. Perhaps you remember these posts, hilarious...perhaps.....? Kunstler is a quack, Ruppert is not. Both are biased, you are correct in stating Simmons is the least, he's worked for "the world's largest investment banker" and is definitely in the in-crowd.
BurnTheShips

First off, I must say... so, I'm not "scum" (with or without quotations marks ) anymore?
Look I am burying the hatchet. I will make allowances. Maybe I did misunderstand you post. OK, end of the love fest. We all have our Pavlovian buttons, at least, those of us that hold something sacred. Anyways:
I read Rupert's book early 2005. The problem is that his assertions are sometimes so incredible and his sources are so secret at the same time. I have a hard time with them. Also, over the years, he has made predictions and they do not come true. I think he predicted a descent into a fascist, Peak Oil aggravated, collapse in 2005 for the following year. It did not play out. It is just hard to take him too seriously with stuff like that.
Cheers,
Burn

Why socialism will not work in America...

Share this