The Greatest Ponzi Scam Ever!

Not only is all of thie terribly unfair, it actually moves us farther away from a Democratic form of government and closer to socialism which is ultimately a dictatorship. The dictator in this country's near future is not any one person but a group of people. If this is allowed to continue it will spell the complete elimination of the middle class. The only people left will be either rich or poor and the rich will become the dictator that this country is so quickly headed for. So many laws are already written to protect the rich and force the middle class to carry the majority of the financial burden for this country. While the rich just get richer. What this country needs is a flat tax. An even, decided upon percentage of your income that EVERYONE must pay.

I really, really wish people would stop making this mistake, I see it everywhere: socialism is not dictatorship! Socialism is not a governmental system, it is an economic system: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole," as opposed to in private hands, as in capitalism. This can be done through numerous forms of government. It is, in fact, perfectly possible (in fact, I'd argue, desirable) to have a democratic socialist system. To argue that socialism and dictatorship are equivalent is just wrong.

Furthermore, you imply through your talk of "laws protecting the rich" and the fact that "the middle class carry the majority of the financial burden for this country. [sic] While the rich just get richer" that you are in favor of somehow leveling the playing field. But you then, inexplicably, suggest a flat tax, which makes no sense. A flat tax, or proportional tax, would have absolutely no leveling effect whatever. What you seem to want is a progressive tax, where the tax increases with the amount being taxed. This taxes those most able to pay more than those least able to pay, and is the current system we have (though poorly implemented). It also happens to make sense. The first thousand dollars you make are a lot more important than the ninety-first thousand, or millionth thousand, because with the first thousand you are buying necessities (i.e. food/clothing/shelter/etc.) whereas with the millionth thousand you're buying a private jet, which I'm fairly certain we can all agree you don't need. Thus, it makes a lot more sense to tax the millionth thousand hugely and the first thousand not at all.

Socialism - any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer. Right in the middle of that definition where it says advocating state or cooperative ownership. That means that one form of socialism is when the STATE owns evrything. That is where we are headed. And when the STATE owns it, that IS a governmental system. And the dictator will not be any one person. It will be whichever group has the most power which will be the rich and the politicians. If pure socialism works so well, why is Russia so poor? Riddle me that. The middle and lower classes are being taxed to death and carrying the burden of this country while the rich get richer and do whatever they want. And don't put words into my mouth. I don't seem to want a progressive tax. I think a flat tax is what we need. No deductions, no bullshit loopholes. Everyone pays the same percentage which means if you make more you pay more. If the tax rate was 15% then someone who made a thousand dollars would pay $150 and someone who made ten thousand dollars would pay $1500. The more you make the more you pay. Simple as that. Then instead of the super rich who have a innumerable amount of write offs and deductions would finally have to pay their share instead of leaving it to the middle and lower classes who by definition own and controll less which gives them less deductions and write offs. So yes, a flat tax would have a leveling effect because it would effectively cancel out all the deductions and write offs that the rich have that the middle and lower classes do not have that allows the rich to pay such a low percentage of their income into the federal tax system.

"And when the STATE owns it" that will affect the governmental system. The system will have to adapt to deal with such new responsibilities, but that does not define one single "socialist" system of government, not even close.

As for Russia, it is no longer a socialist state, not even close. I have to say, though, that I'm glad you are not making the other common mistake and using the USSR as an example of communism, that is a particularly egregious and irritating error. Anyways, it's poor because they did a really poor job of it. A bad government in competition with the United States militarily was unwilling to allocate resources to the appropriate places, like feeding their population. Also, why are there societies with no conception of property which do quite well? Riddle me that. Or why many so-called socialist democracies in Europe are doing so well, with lower wealth disparities and higher measures of happiness than these good old capitalistic United States.

So your argument for a flat tax is that it has no deductions. You, my friend, are arguing against a straw man. A progressive tax, such as we have (and I advocate), does not at all have to have deductions. It can be a very simple system with no deductions/loop-hopes at all. That the current system has both such is due to poor implementation.

Instead of a flat tax, I think it makes more sense to implement a national sales tax on everything but food. That way, EVERYBODY pays their fair share, even criminals, or people who never file a return.

The USSR doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for many years... when it did, it was exactly as it's name implied. There has never been a "communist" nation, but there have been those who liked to call their system of government "communism" because it made what they actually had seem a little more idealistic. Real communism, like socialism, like capitalism, is, of course, an economic system, not a political/governmental one.

Like any other system, it can be successfully implemented and can be very workable, depending on the size and dedication of the society.

A sales tax is the opposite of a good tax, at least if you care at all about the poor. The poor (and middle class mostly, everyone except the rich) spend almost all of there income on things which are hit by a sales tax. Now, this shifts slightly given an exemption for food, but the shift is to the middle class, not the rich. The middle class buy lots of things, the rich do too, but the rich also buy lots of not-things, i.e. stocks, securities, hedge funds, bonds, etc. Things not hit by a sales tax. Thus, if we are talking about percentage of income, the poor and middle class would be hit much harder by a sales tax than the rich. It would be a regressive tax.

Why is it regressive to shift the 90% burden away from the wealthy? People should pay their fair share. Because of the many toys of the rich, they would contribute a great deal even in a pure sales tax. The tax could be set up with tiers, depending on the goods purchased, and their price. Items deemed "luxury" items, might be taxed more, while sundry goods taxed less.

We'd also recover a lot of money from sources that aren't currently taxed, such as black market activities, like drugs, illegal gambling, etc. With a little imagination, the tax wouldn't have to be oppressive.

Let's put it this way. If you make $30k a year, you pretty much are going to spend everything you make. If you make $30 million a year, you have a ton of room to put a lot of that in savings and not spend it at all. Thus, a federal sales tax taxes the middle and lower classes on a much higher percentage of their income than the rich who have the means to actually spend much less of their annual income. That is why a slaes tax is unfair. Why should I be taxed on 100% of my income while Bill Gates is only taxed on 10% of his?

Because that is the definition of a regressive tax. A regressive tax is one in which the tax decreases as the amount being taxed increases.

As to your idea of tiers of items etc., at this point the system really seems to be becoming as complex as the income tax system. Further, who precisely would decide which items belong in which tier? That seems like it would take a whole new level of government bureaucracy. And lobbyists too as companies lobby for their product to be in the lowest tier possible.

Now, as for why we should keep the burden on the wealthy, it's really quite simple: a poor man's dollar is worth more than a rich man's. The first hundred dollars you earn are worth much more than the millionth hundred. With the first hundred you are ensuring survival, buying food/clothing/shelter, etc. With the millionth you are buying a private jet. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to tax money going to necessities as little as possible whilst taxing absurd luxury items more. (You seem to agree yourself with your notion of a tiered sales tax).

You make a decent point with regards to illegal activities, except there's another way to do with: legalize a lot of them. Legalized pot, for instance, could be taxed as cigarettes and alcohol are now.

Finally, if your grand idea for a new tax system needs "a little imagination" so that it "wouldn't have to be oppressive" I question the base validity of the system.

That would be great, but to implement that as a federal way of making money instead of income tax, the percentage rate would have to be so high it would be crazy. They already tax cigarettes, booze, porn, and gas through the roof federally. They are about to start taxing your healthcare benefits. The taxes in this country are out of control. And to just have a national sales tax would be too easy to get around for rich people.

True enough,but if you had 30% of your income back, it would compensate pretty well. You could then decide what you wanted to buy, and for how much, which would allow you, to some extent to mitigate your taxes. If you want new cars, you pay more; if you are willing to take a car a few years old, that's already lost 70% of it's original value but is in good shape and might even have some residual warranty, you make out pretty well.

For lower incomes, it would still be possible to offer tax exemtion certificates, especially if they were using food stamps.

What an EXCELLENT idea!

I like it because, basically, if you play, you pay... period. Also consider that federal income tax doesn't got for infrastructure, or much else; it basically just covers the interest on the national debt(what we pay the Federal Reserve to print our money).

So, if income tax currently covers only the interest on the national debt (which is not "what we pay the Federal Reserve to print our money, the Federal Reserve, to my knowledge, holds precisely none of the United States' debt) how exactly would a sales tax help? For the sales tax to generate more revenue, which it would need to do to do more than "cover the interest on the national debt," it would need to cost somebody more money. Basically, you seem to be advocating a higher tax rate.

It would only have to generate as much as our federal income tax, to make it viable. If we bought out the Fed for $1billion dollars, which is our right according to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, we could even make that go away in time. The Federal Reserve does nothing but print money. They are not "federal" and they are certainl not a "reserve".

The Fed holds nearly all of the United States debt(since 1913) except what it sells to China, Japan, etc. Where do you think the money for the deficit spending comes from? The Fed is a private(not federal) international banking cartel. They print all of our money. When we need money they print it for us and we pay them interest for the privlege.

Sistphus,

You're forgetting one point. In many cases of a supposed Democracy transforming "for the greater" good, you see an evolution of tyranny and eventually a Dictatorship. Hence, they are related.

Lastly - the country is NOT a democracy - We are a republic WHICH by all means puts as far away from socialism as possible and it appears you are not at all anti-socialism.

Socialism IN THEORY is an economic system - but it is hardly that in REALITY. It affects government and changes the makeup of distribution - which leads to a GREATER difference between economic classes, not a closer which is also the premise behind socialism.

WHENEVER you tax you burden the poor and the middle class.

Your arguement: "It is, in fact, perfectly possible (in fact, I'd argue, desirable) to have a democratic socialist system." is completely true and currently in place in many countries.

However, I do not want my republic to lean toward socialism, communism OR a dictatorship and the current adminstrations plans of sizeable taxing of the middle class on down is what I think lwhaley is saying is NOT the actions of a REPUBLIC government. It is the actions of a government leaning toward the creation of a different form of government and could easily be argued if proven - a form of treason.

Lastly - the concept of a FLAT tax is universal across the country.

This country was not formed on the premise we need to TAX the rich more although we do... it was formed on the premise the work ethic and liberty and justice for ALL... not just the poor and not just the rich... which has been lost.

Our current Congress has more people that belong in prison than the entire Madoff organization.

False. Untrue. Incorrect. The opposite of what is right. (Except maybe that last line).

Point by point:
I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of an actual example of a true move towards democracy resulting in a true dictatorship. People often posit a theoretical "tyranny by majority" but that is not even remotely what has been seen in observed democracies (i.e. Athens). Not to mention, it's not a dictatorship.

Yes we are a republic, crucially, a DEMOCRATIC republic (I can use caps too!). Simply being a republic does not a priori move us any closer or further away from being a socialist country.

This next point doesn't make any sense. Socialism IS an economic system. I'd really like to see you cite source for your claims that "it leads to a GREATER difference between economic classes, not a closer." Especially since many so-called democratic socialist countries (i.e. France, Scandinavian nations etc.) have much smaller class gaps than we in the US. (Also, note that they too are not democracies but democratic republics).

Unless you use a progressive income tax.

I agree here, except that it's not, actually. As stated above, those countries are actually republics, they're also not actually socialist, but that's okay.

This point just makes no sense at all. I take it you'd prefer a totally capitalistic nation with huge income/wealth disparities (greater than those aforementioned democratic socialist countries)? Further, there are no plans, as yet, for taxing the middle-class on down. And there is nothing inherent in a republican system which ensures that such plans won't materialize.

This bit also makes no sense, and is the second time you've said "Lastly."

Liberty and justice for all indeed. I believe it is just that those who barely have enough to live on have nothing take from them while those with more than enough can be taxed. The reasoning behind this is quite simple, and I've posted it twice now.

This I mostly agree with.

No longer point by point:
You seem to be confused. At once you say "the current adminstrations plans of sizeable taxing of the middle class on down is what I think lwhaley is saying is NOT the actions of a REPUBLIC government" as though taxes upon the middle class and the poor are undesirable/wrong, yet you also say:
"This country was not formed on the premise we need to TAX the rich more although we do... it was formed on the premise the work ethic and liberty and justice for ALL... not just the poor and not just the rich..."

implying that you'd prefer a larger tax on the poor/middle class so that tax rates on the wealthy would be in line with them.

"I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of an actual example of a true move towards democracy resulting in a true dictatorship."

No democracy in history has ever lasted more than 200 years, and most if not all have decayed into a totalatarian state...

Which democracies do you have in mind? And are you sure they weren't really republics? Or are you sure that a "move towards democracy" wasn't in fact something else? I was perhaps being overly pedantic. Also, I would differentiate between a democracy which "decayed," that is to say, fell from within as opposed to one crushed by outside pressures. Athens, for instance, was still an effective democracy when it was conquered by Alexander. To take another example, there are strong arguments to be made that the French Revolution, had there been no outside pressures would have resulted in a legitimate democratic/republican state, instead of being Napoleon's empire.

Thanks for pointing out I used a word twice - that was necessary.

Would you not consider Venezuela a democracy that has if effect moved to a dictatorship?

No plans on taxing the middle class on down - Please tell us how cap and trade will not tax the middle class on down. How health care will not tax as well?

You're simply twisting the words of everyone around and quite effectively I might add.

No one needs a private jet while others are starving - who could argue with that? Completely ethical - but how about the person who wants the welfare check because they simply do not WANT (sorry, caps I use for EMPHASIS) to work... or the person who trades in the coupons to the street side vendor for cigarettes instead of using it to buy mile for their kids? Do you think that person should take from the doctor who works all day - or the nurse at half the salary.

I understand ethical reasoning and it's hard not to see your point - but not all poor are poor for any other reason than failing to try and adding more benefits to the pile only gives more reason to stay status quo.

Your taking extremes (private jet vs. starving people) and ignoring the programs in place already in this country to feed the poor.

No one should be starving in this country or anywhere - that we agree on.

Venezuela is not and never was a democracy, it is a republic. If you are going to point out the difference between the two (and I am glad that you did, many people don't) please use it consistently.

If cap and trade fails spectacularly it could then be construed as a tax. Upon everyone, however, since everyone's electricity would become more expensive. This only, though, if it fails miserably. And I don't imagine it will, because it creates huge incentives for the creation of renewable sources of energy, which is its purpose. There is not a priori reason that any sort of reform to health care will result in a tax on the middle class and down. Even a massively expensive plan need only result in cuts to other budgets (i.e. military) or perhaps a tax on the rich.

Thank you for the compliment, though I disagree. I have been taking words as I saw them meant and responding with legitimate arguments and facts.

You're two examples are clearly unethical, and should not occur. However, the unethical which you cite does not make my example any less true or any less egregious. The correct answer is a system which prevents both, not one which chooses one of the other. Although I would argue that, if we were to choose one, the correct choice would be an abusable welfare system that at least ensures there aren't people starving to death, as opposed to allowing the lucky few their frivolous private jets.

Again, true. But not true in such a way as to detract from my point.

Programs in this country? Are you implying that it is any more ethical that an American business man have a jet while African children starving than while American children are starving? I am unwilling to artificially limit my argument's scope. The entire international picture is important here.

True.

I, personally, do not think we need to close the gap between the amount of money made by the rich and the poor. That kills motivation for hard work to make more money. I do not think that the guy who dropped out of high school and just got out of prison should be able to make any where near as much as the guy who spent $100k on his education to become a lawyer or doctor. I think that somehow our governement needs to figure out a way to fairly tax everyone without overburdening any one class. But since our government is the rich it makes sense that they want to protect their money and could really care less about anyone else's.

I'm not necessarily against differences in income based on talent, rarity of skill, importance of job, etc. That is a question I'm not yet done forming my opinion on.

However, I do think the gap between rich and more needs to be lessened, not widened. Simply because no one needs a private jet, certainly not while there are people starving in poverty. My argument is not justified on any sort of economic grounds, simply ethical ones. I find it totally morally indefensible that anyone should be worth billions and billions when there are those that can't afford to eat. Or that a baseball player should make millions while a soldier, or a teacher, or even a doctor makes a mere pittance by comparison.

I don't necessarily know what the correct system is, but I know that one that does this is wrong.

For all you claim to know, you're facts are hideously incorrect.
For information on the Fed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve
For information on the US Debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_debt
For information on the Federal Reserve System: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

So, what debt the Fed holds is not for the sake of holding debt, but for the sake of orchestrating monetary policy, which is the Fed's primary function. The Federal Reserve is, in essence, a private bank with a public mandate. Not something I entirely agree with, but better than leaving monetary policy and interest rates to the whims of the market.

As for those that hold the debt: currently 25% percent of the debt held in foreign hands.

P.S. What exactly do you mean by "buy out the Fed for $1billion dollars," you just said they held all of our debt (more than one billion), right?

P.P.S. Also, the Fed does not print money, that would be the Treasury Department.

a) Read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
b) The Treasury prints money at the direction of the Fed, who determines exactly how much will be printed.

a) I'll take that under advisement, upon the arrival of sufficient time.

b) Yep, so it is incorrect to say that the Fed prints money. They control monetary policy, which is quite different, and is a rather important economic function. What would you suggest instead?

What do you mean by "print our own money"? Do you mean that we should create an institution run by governmentally appointed individuals to control our monetary policy? Because that would be the Fed. If you have I viable alternative, I would like to hear it. I have no particular liking for the Fed, but they do provide a rather critical function in our current economy.

As for your point that "Federal Reserve Notes aren't backed up by anything anyway. They're really nothing but I.O.U.s..." I congratulate you for have unraveled the mysteries of money. Money is never, itself, worth anything. It's only of value because we say it is, it one grand delusion, albeit a very useful one. I do not believe that there is any modern currency which is 'actually worth anything" (though I am not certain of this).

I'd suggest we throw the Fed out on their ear, as we have the right to do, and print our own money. Federal Reserve Notes aren't backed up by anything anyway. They're really nothing but I.O.U.s...

Well actually, indirectly it is absolutely true that they in fact controls the printing of money. Without Fed orders, the treasury does not print. Hence, inflation, deflation, hyperflation - all are an economic function of the Fed's decision to (or not to) print more money (or remove it from circulation.).

Basically is the government does all it can to screww you and me out of as much money as they possibly can while allowing the rich to get richer because they are they ones who make the campaign contributions. We can talk all day about what it could be and what it should be, but all that matters is how it is. And how it is right now is how it will stay until this country crumbles because our government is too powerful and too in control of everything for even a revolt to work. So we better get used to it or get out pretty much.

The Bush administration gave AIG $750 billion with no strings attached.
Did you call that a Ponzi scam? Reagan & GW Bush put us in debt, BIGTIME. But of course, republicans don't consider that to be Welfare.
LOL.
JerrySatire
www.Lampoon.net

I'm a Republican. I opposed the AIG bailout form the beginning. GW Bush was a irresponsible spender. Reagan spent for a reason; to end the USSR by forcing them into an arms race he know they couldn't handle, due to the price of oil.

Don't paint all Republicans from listening to Rush Limbaugh. While I'm conservative on many issues, I tend to be center to the left on others. I'm driven by pragmatism not ideology. Ideologs, on both sides, are more a part of the problem then the solution.

Jerry - Yes - I wouldn't defend the AIG bailout at all - and I said all parties need to come together.

Carter and CLinton put us in the mortgage crisis. You cannot blame it on just Reagan and Bush - that's only HALF the photo.

Sisyphus - Venezuela in NO Republic - it is a dictatorship - we will have to disagree there. When you abuse the political system to appoint your own Congress and add seats to the "supreme" court and appoint 12 new members - I'd say you might claim it is anything -but it's a dictatorship.

Lastly - no one should have to starve ever in a world where there is food.

Stop condescending - it truly is NOT necessary - Everyone gets your point but we don't have to agree with you - You're for socialism - WE GET IT!

Alright, Venezuela is no republic. But it was, it certainly wasn't a democracy as you claim. It was a democratic republic, just as the United States is. (Also, it may interest you to know that presidents have before, in this country, appointed additional supreme court justices in order to get their way, i.e. Grant.)(And what about appointing Presidents? Rutherford B. Hayes, for instance?)

True

You end with an erroneous statement. If you "get my point," that is to say, see my reasons and agree that they are valid, and then see my point and agree that it is valid, then you do, in fact, have to agree with me, anything else is doublethink. Unless that's not what you meant by "get my point." But if all you meant was 'understand the reasons and conclusion, but don't agree' then why do you not attempt any meaningful counterarguments? Either you concede the point, you leave the argument, or you commit the much graver offense of doublethink.

Because I have to attend to my family. - Tis dinner time - I wish I could engage longer because I definitely do NOT agree with you.

Fair enough. I certainly wish you could as well, I am interested in why you disagree. I'll keep an eye open should you come back.

P.S. I'd like to apologize for my previous comment on the use of caps, that was a bit puerile and certainly not necessary (though, in my defense, caps is often overused). I do, however, maintain that my comment on the use of "lastly" twice, though perhaps overly snide, had legitimate editorial merit.

By the way - we've certainly took a LEFT tangent - the article's POINT was that the FHA is providing the same loans that created the crisis.

sisyphus - NO PROBLEM on the caps - I use them too often...but back to my point on socialism for now. I am sure you will have a response ready by morning. -

As an editorial note of my own - "lastly" is not too much of an issue to me as the use of moreover, as was done THREE times within three paragraphs sent to the Editor in this Sunday's Globe... (Noting you are also from Massachusetts.)
---------------------------------

Although my article had nothing to do with a discussion on socialism – it seems to have found a voice in the comments section and I will state my opinion at this time.

Socialism fails because it lacks motivation for equality and advancement. Although it grants and initial view that it may be successful, and this gives government further authority to proceed, in the end it is nothing more than misery found in the form of tyranny.

Basic human behavior is to relish incentives. Without them, the motivation of the individual weakens – without incentives; you end up giving up all freedom and security away under the premise that if you were to give up a little freedom – you would gain more security – NOT SO.

Even within a Marxist theory, the ethical issues of laziness are raised. Under socialism it is explicitly stated in s.2 of the Manifesto, under socialism -- if you are capable of working and you choose not to – you starve. So the argument that you would rather see someone lose the jet and gain the couch – is not really a theory of socialism OR capitalism. Those that choose to stay lazy when fully capable of thriving would and should starve.

On the other hand - Marxists like to compare socialism with capitalism utilizing a PERFECT Socialism model paired against an imperfect capitalism model which grants socialism the superiority they are seeking to push. Capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing economic system available. Socialism is not.

Capitalism works due to profit and loss incentives and structures determined by the market and private property rights. Socialism controls prices in the economy which results in inefficiency and artificial prices which creates constant shortages and surpluses and improper price models. Socialism also fails to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting eliminating the reward to efficient and successful businesses thus losing the disciplinary mechanism which would redirect resources away from unsuccessful.

Profits protect the public from firms that fail to serve a public interest.

Socialism fails to recognize the rights of private property which w/out economic growth, collapses.

Welfare, universal health care, social security all sound good in thought- but those implemented in this country already have proved to be mishandled and a draw on society. At start they appear to be a value and “for the greater good” is often used. They all fail eventually because they all ignore the role of incentive in business.

And finally (verses "lastly") – a noteworthy article by Alexander Tsypko which I find strikingly pertinent to today’s America in so many ways: “The Revitalization of Socialism or Restoration of Capitalism?

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj11n2/cj11n2-8.pdf

First, the pieces of your post which deal with incentives, are arguing against communism, not socialism. There is nothing inherent in the public ownership of the means of production which necessitates that people all be paid the same (not to say that wouldn't necessarily be reasonable, but that's not currently at issue).

Second, most of your post, in addition to targeting communism, seems to be targeting a specific tyrannical, despotic implementation of socialism. As I have pointed out, neither tyranny nor despotism are required by socialism, so arguments such as "you end up giving up all freedom and security away under the premise that if you were to give up a little freedom – you would gain more security – NOT SO" are irrelevant.

As to the question of laziness: I am not, in point of fact, a Marxist, so his particular views are of only academic curiosity to me. Not to mention, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people actually want to work, perhaps not at their current job, and perhaps for not as many hours as they currently are, but they're not against doing useful things.

I'm curious what exactly you mean to prove by claiming that "Capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing economic system available. Socialism is not." Alright, so? Wealth-production is a nice thing to have in an economic system, but I'd argue that keeping in line with basic ethics is preferred. As is allowing the greatest greatest happiness to the greatest number.

"Profits protect the public from firms that fail to serve the public interest" is an amusing statement, mostly because it is the opposite of what is true. Profits are the incentive which drive corporation to work against the public interest. Further, even given that this statement is true, it is still the case that in capitalism, the incentive is profit: a company aims to be as profitable as possible. That it happens to create a good product, or serve the public good in any way whilst doing so is completely incidental. In socialism, on the other hand, a companies are actually aiming at the public good, that is there one and only intent.

Though this is an entire new argument, there are many good arguments to be heard against private property. And I would like to see some evidence to the proposition that without private property, economic growth collapses.

Your last point is simply entirely false. None of these programs has yet failed, though some are indeed doing poorly, and one (universal health care) has not even been implemented here. Although I will point out, that in the places it has been implemented, it tends to do very well. In particular reference to that, I know of not one universal health care scheme that has truly failed, at least not without the state failing in anticipation.

Ultimately, it is worth considering this: Capitalism is some strange alchemy by which private vice is, in theory, morphed into public virtue. Socialism is an honest attempt at an economic system which aims at public virtue first.

Sisyphus, I admittedly turned to a very strong and respected colleague of mine to assist in some of your remarks.

My reasoning being, not only do I consider his political points to be valid, but additionally, as a former citizen of the USSR who formally went through the naturalization process to become an American citizen, his perspective is additionally relevant.

Citation required but given he is not yet on this forum, I thank MR for his assistance in relaying these points.

In fact, it will go without saying that we could go on an on with "theory" for weeks - and you, not I, will ever agree on the government implementation of its current social programming.

When it comes to governmental procedure, one cannot argue until "they are blue in the face" with anyone to change their views unless the opposing person is one they can intellectually conquer - which - of course, leads to the less intellectually superior person walking away and the other person feeling either superior or disappointed.

Hence, although I admire your passion for your beliefs - they are not in line with mine and no amount of back and forth will change either of our minds.

Thank you however, for making this discussion last - and solidifying my views.

S.
First, the pieces of your post which deal with incentives, are arguing against communism, not socialism. There is nothing inherent in the public ownership of the means of production which necessitates that people all be paid the same (not to say that wouldn't necessarily be reasonable, but that's not currently at issue).

****

1. I believe, that despite attempts to spin, the essence of the argument was not to assert that “all people are paid the same”. The point is inhibition of achievement, and these two are not the same.

2. Public ownership of the means of production implies a massive, sophisticated and far-reaching bureaucratic apparatus. Socialism, in any of its forms, democratic or authoritarian, simply cannot function without one. As the result, the economy is influenced, as compared with the free market society, to a lesser degree by competition, entrepreneurship and evolutionary forces, and to a greater degree, through political command and control. There is no motivation whatsoever for a bureaucrat for agility and entrepreneurship, and as the result, a bureaucracy tends to normalize economic stimuli to a lower common denominator, consequently resulting with disincentives for the stakeholders to take necessary risks. Of course, we can try mumbling something along the lines of “benevolent tyranny” and try to assert that democratically elected governments can effectively reign in growth-impeding bureaucracies, but that will not stand to the historical fact.

S.
Second, most of your post, in addition to targeting communism, seems to be targeting a specific tyrannical, despotic implementation of socialism. As I have pointed out, neither tyranny nor despotism are required by socialism, so arguments such as "you end up giving up all freedom and security away under the premise that if you were to give up a little freedom – you would gain more security – NOT SO" are irrelevant.

*****
Socialism requires bureaucracy; bureaucracy requires control; control means bureaucracy, not people, frame the liberties and freedoms. Suggestion - move to Sweden, and try to fight for, say, property rights. You are missing the point entirely – it is not the freedom to exercise freedoms within a given framework; it is the freedom of the citizenry to _change_ the framework to prevent the state from going too far. Of course, one may argue that with their four constitutions, French Social Democrats have discovered a perfect model…

S.
As to the question of laziness: I am not, in point of fact, a Marxist, so his particular views are of only academic curiosity to me. Not to mention, I think you'll find that the vast majority of people actually want to work, perhaps not at their current job, and perhaps for not as many hours as they currently are, but they're not against doing useful things.

*****
Proof, please? For one, lacking economic incentives, I am not working. Neither is anyone I know. Are you suggesting community activism similar to that only experience our beloved President had? Again, the demonstrable fact is that when large segments of population are given the opportunity to work less, they gladly jump on it. Witness welfare, unions, and government workers.

S.
I'm curious what exactly you mean to prove by claiming that "Capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing economic system available. Socialism is not." Alright, so? Wealth-production is a nice thing to have in an economic system, but I'd argue that keeping in line with basic ethics is preferred. As is allowing the greatest greatest happiness to the greatest number.

******
Yes. However, what is the measure of happiness and who measures it? Is that the big socialistic government who’ll be setting the ethical standards for all of us? I’d say that compared to other historical precedent, the US anti-socialistic model was able to provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, as evidenced by the immigration numbers. I know of no line of people waiting outside of Austrian or Spanish embassies. And besides, wealth production is not “a nice thing to have”. It is the absolute unequivocal must-have, to preserve, to say the minimum, just the social order. Indeed, a loony left.

S.
"Profits protect the public from firms that fail to serve the public interest" is an amusing statement, mostly because it is the opposite of what is true.

******
Proof? Enterprise that does not serve public interests (as expressed by catering to public demand for goods and services), is not viable and will not survive (unless of course the socialistic government steps in to save it – something that we witness on the daily basis now).


S.
Profits are the incentive which drive corporation to work against the public interest.

*****
Sure, tell that to pension plan owners. Modern capitalism has attained public wealth ownership on the level no socialist society can ever dream of. But, again, would you care to clarify what specific interests of what specific public segment Pfizer is working against? General Mills? Intel? Bank of America? Dreamworks Studios? Cigna Insurance? Northrop? Walmart? Or is it some Left conspiracy theory? Are we supposed to chant over a crystal to prevent Exxon from spreading ancient Atlantis viruses from Area 51?

S.
Further, even given that this statement is true, it is still the case that in capitalism, the incentive is profit: a company aims to be as profitable as possible

****
with important clarification: as profitable as possible _within the governing legal and ethics framework_ I think it makes all the difference. Of course, the Left’s favorite is the enterprise which does not generate the profit but relies on taxpayer’ donations… question is, where these donations would be coming from if nobody is making the profit… I guess, once we are not generating any wealth (of which profits is a derivative), we can still fund Obama’s programs by selling our kidneys to China?

S.
That it happens to create a good product, or serve the public good in any way whilst doing so is completely incidental.

****
No, it is not incidental, it is a direct and intended consequence. In order to make profit, one need to sell, and in order to sell, there has to be a socially recognized perception of value. Of course, the Progressive brains cannot make the jump of imagination and realize that unlike their beloved governments, corporations do not _confiscate_ to attain their goals; there _has _ to be a mutual symbiosis of needs and capabilities.

S.
In socialism, on the other hand, a companies are actually aiming at the public good, that is there one and only intent.

*****
Proof, please. What public good Aerobus is aiming at that Boeing does not? Please do your homework and name one non-for-profit corporation from a Socialist-leaning country.

S.
Though this is an entire new argument, there are many good arguments to be heard against private property.

******
Yes, I read all of them in Lenin’s and Stalin’s works. Indeed, they are very good arguments. Pity on those to whom they apply. But I will condensed nonetheless to this baby talk: assuming at least some vestiges of intelligence, please elaborate on the mechanisms of enforcement for such a great model? Say, I’ve come in a possession of a potato skin which the government has not rationed for me?
But if you want to relinquish your house to a tuberculosis sanatorium for underprivileged Mexican children, by all means, do – providing that your former private property is way off mine. At the least, you may rest assured that the last private property I will part with will be my .44

S.
And I would like to see some evidence to the proposition that without private property, economic growth collapses.

**** Ah, please, by all means. USSR? Too drastic? Not the right example (oh, sure, USSR is not the right exhibit, they didn’t make it work _right_!) How about EU growth rates? Not the right example either? Hmmm… what have we left… Socialist Republic of Congo?

S.
Your last point is simply entirely false. None of these programs has yet failed, though some are indeed doing poorly

*****
Sure, none have failed. They are just doing poorly. What a subtle semantic difference, so becoming to the representative of the school of thought by which students are not to be graded and soccer is not played for score. But never mind, we’ll see those politicians who burden public with their ideological pet programs swept out, and then we’ll move those programs that do poorly right to the failed category.

S.
and one (universal health care) has not even been implemented here.

*****
Medicare? MA universal health care? Indeed, never let facts stand in the way of your beliefs.

S.
Although I will point out, that in the places it has been implemented, it tends to do very well.

*****
Reference, please. Say, average life expectancy, child mortality, survival rates, care outcomes, hospital beds per capita against taxation rate? (all well-attainable statistics). What does “tends to do very well” means? A warm feelings toward a French gynecologist?

S.
In particular reference to that, I know of not one universal health care scheme that has truly failed, at least not without the state failing in anticipation.

*****
Have a trip to Canada. If that is far too far, read more on MA universal healthcare.

"Ultimately, it is worth considering this: Capitalism is some strange alchemy by which private vice is, in theory, morphed into public virtue. Socialism is an honest attempt at an economic system which aims at public virtue first."

Public "virtue" with no G.N.P., oppressive taxation, and very little room for personal initiative. Sounds peachy...

Oh yes, because high tax rates are so oppressive when you're getting it back in effective, useful social services and making sure the poor don't starve. And of course because public ownership of the means of production automatically stifles innovation. I'm sure that with the advent of socialism, people will stop having ideas. And your GNP claim is simply silly, and refutable with even the worst modern examples of 'socialist' states. Ever heard of five year plans? Not terribly pleasant no, but I believe they tended to result in an increase in GNP. Not that I think an increase in GNP is a particular good measure of success anyways. P.S. You leave a snide, insubstantial reply you get a snide, slightly more substantial answer. A substantive challenge would be nice, for instance, actually challenging something I've said as opposed to raising tired trite pointless objections.

Regarding five-year plans, some were reasonably successful, others were dismal failures. The last one in the USSR only lasted one year before the USSR went into meltdown primarily due to the low price of oil, which is still Russia's prime means of funding for defense, infrastructure, etc.

I don't think that's a consistent role model for anything I would want to be associated with.

Which is precisely why I cite it only in poor passing. Not really something I'd like to be associated with either, but it was pretty effective in disproving your idle complaint about GNP. It is good proof that even the worst implementation of socialism, perhaps ever, does not fall to such an argument.

It's really nearly impossible to present a reasonable argument to an ideologue; anything that is offered will either be "silly", "trite", "tired" or "pointless".

This is very true, I agree. It was interesting though that you offered unsubstantiated, unsubstantial, overused arguments, with no backing. Is that something an ideologue would do?

I wasn't being snide, I was expressing an opinion; I don't see anything even vaguely appealing about socialism. I believe people should receive the fruits of their labor, rather than passing them to other people who just want to ride. How many people starved in the USSR because the price of oil was at $12 a barrel? With the advent of socialism, there's no incentive for ideas, because there's nothing to be gained. There's no venture capital because there's there's no monetary return. Socialism, to me, implies that the state knows better how to look after its citizens than the citizens themselves. I find that oppressive, arrogant and short sighted. Can you explain why the G.N.P. of a country isn't a particularly good measure of success? How is Capitalism a "strange alchemy by which private vice, in theory, morphed into public virtue"? Profits are required to have anything to tax in the first place, no? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just prefer to disagree.

I'm not universally opposed to socialism; I think it has it's applications and some of them can be productive; I just haven't seen many examples of it being particularly productive(as compared to capitalism, or even modified capitalism) on an national basis...

I'd be willing to look at a few if you have them to offer. There's really no use in us taking potshots at each other, and admittedly I've been as guilty as anyone.

When I look at Cuba, the USSR, Red China, and other socialist or quasi socialist states, I see the rights of the individual being suppressed for the "greater good" of the state. That's probably where my primary irritation with socialism lies.

In situations where socialism or communism was enacted from within, with the support of those being affected, such as the Jamestown colony, the Jewish kibbutz system, etc, it can be very successful, primarily because everybody is rowing in the same direction. I think that would be pretty difficult to do with a really large population...

Which leads to a fairly simple answer: decentralize. Move power to the local level, and you have local groups working together, because that's easy to orchestrate, and the main purpose of the national government being to coordinate cooperation between localities. If nothing else, this solves the problem of oppression: with no strong central power, there is no one to do the repressing.

I tend to disagree... oppression can happen in nearly any scenario where there are two or more people, which is why societies of all sizes tend to develop in groups and out groups, according to any number of deciding issues; when a difference in direction occurs, what guarantees does an individual have under socialism? Who determines the best direction for the group? How is it determined?

Please don't get me wrong... I'm not a proponent of strong central government; I'm merely asking for clarification.

I'd be in favor of a highly democratic system. With enough decentralization, things on the local level could be directly democratic. This is, of course, with the caveat of a strong Bill of Rights, or similar. Something which guarantees certain rights and freedoms, which cannot be overturned without something like a unanimous vote. It's fairly simple defense against the more egregious abuses of power which anti-democrats tend to cite.

I tend to think the most egregious abuse of power in a democracy, is when the people realize they can vote themselves the largess of treasury, and begin to make decisions based on the greatest return for themselves.

It also makes them susceptible to corruption, because politicians are natural whores, and the people their even more willing patrons. The ones who promise the most will stay in power the longest.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that this is perhaps the most often used attack on democracy, I know of no democracy which has fallen in this fashion. For instance, Athens survived numerous wars, entered numerous wars, and did much that stands in opposition to this argument. So, either this argument is invalid, or the citizens of Athens were abnormally stupid (or perhaps abnormally intelligent).

The democracy of Athens was, in theory, a direct democracy, but only in the sense that each person had only one vote. the actual voters comprised only a fraction of the total population (women, and men who had not finished their military commitments were't allowed to vote.) In many ways, it functioned more like a republic.

"The democracy of Athens was, in theory, a direct democracy, but only in the sense that each person had only one vote" and the Assembly was the governing body, and the were no representatives, and there was no government but what the Assembly decided on any given day. So how again was it like a republic?

Furthermore, the restriction of the voting population does not make it any less of a direct democracy. It should, theoretically, have been just as susceptible to the sorts of problems which everyone always talks about in reference to democracy, particularly since there were no class distinctions in deciding suffrage.

I agree that, technically, it was a direct democracy. It's function, however was more akin to a republic, or representative democracy, because so few governed for so many.

The common people in Athens who had no vote didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting anything they wanted, unless they actively or passively petitioned those who could vote, but who had no responsibility to listen. The common people had less juice than in most republics, since they would never vote, and couldn't really do much to influence those who did. If the entire population has been allowed to vote, it could easily have been much different.

If you want to see what is happening in the current financial crisis to U. S. democracy you have only to look at my state of North Carolina. Here the outlook for a employment is practially non-existant. The Governor wants to tax the citizens to death while eliminating most programs that do not benefit the politicians. I myself have been out of work for over four years, but still am looking. I get by on food stamps and odd jobs because that is what is available. Thankfully we got rid of the former governor who spent big bucks buying designer dresses for his wife not in the U. S. A. but in Italy and at tax payer expense. The former governor gained political office using what is usually described as shady methods so it should come as no surprise that he is now being investigated by the Feds, but that is par for the course with politicians these days.