Socialism, American-Style(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Socialism, American-Style
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/opinion/socialism-american-style.html
107 comments
xname(1)
> The fund collects and invests proceeds from the extraction of oil and minerals in the state.
This is not at all "Socialism".
BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
This is not at all "Socialism".
BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
> BTW, state-owned factories almost always failed (numerous examples in 20th century Europe).
Industrial factories, yes. Local utilities seem to do well enough in Europe.
I wonder if there's a principled difference?
Industrial factories, yes. Local utilities seem to do well enough in Europe.
I wonder if there's a principled difference?
Quite a lot of private factories have failed in the west too. Factories are very vulnerable to globalisation.
Utilities, on the other hand, are a natural monopoly inherently tied to a geographic location. They're not producing a "product", but instead a commodity that's the same for all customers. Many utilities are mostly forms of "road" - they just happen to be wire-shaped or pipe-shaped roads.
Note the mostly. Telecoms and electricity have two parts: the central, complex, services; and the big mostly-dumb network.
Utilities, on the other hand, are a natural monopoly inherently tied to a geographic location. They're not producing a "product", but instead a commodity that's the same for all customers. Many utilities are mostly forms of "road" - they just happen to be wire-shaped or pipe-shaped roads.
Note the mostly. Telecoms and electricity have two parts: the central, complex, services; and the big mostly-dumb network.
well Telecoms networks can be quiet complex and in the USA broadly you had more complexity at the local plant level than say the UK does.
Its the last mile that makes telcos's natural monopoly's not the exchanges/switches/central offices
Its the last mile that makes telcos's natural monopoly's not the exchanges/switches/central offices
Like the electricity/internet provider in my city of Jönköping, Sweden. It is a for-profit company, owned by the municipality.
The Municipality obviously dictates the goals, like 100/100 fiber in the most remote parts of the area (which I just signed up for), and the company gets to execute them in the way it sees fit.
The municipality housing company is operated the same way.
The Municipality obviously dictates the goals, like 100/100 fiber in the most remote parts of the area (which I just signed up for), and the company gets to execute them in the way it sees fit.
The municipality housing company is operated the same way.
I wonder about the state owned investment funds and if there is a parallel to state owned factories. Norway has a giant sovereign wealth fund built off of its oil industry, but does it perform as well as a private fund would? What about the California pension funds. I understand that they get screwed by their private equity and hedge investments all the time. I wonder if they weren't public funds if they would have more clout on wall street and could work out better deals to get better returns.
Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either distributed equally to everyone as "shareholders" (as in the Alaska dividend), or used to finance public goods.
There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only these specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only these specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.
I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example.
And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)
And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)
Should all land be publicly owned and rented out? I don't see why that's unreasonable.
What are the impacts on immigration policy under Georgism?
What are the impacts of Georgism on immigration policy?
What are the impacts of Georgism on immigration policy?
> Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms in many cases. (They aren’t perfect, of course: Many public agencies, boards and corporations that control enterprises are not fully accountable or transparent in their operations.)
Companies get efficient if they have to. Competition is one way to force their hands. (There might be others, like public oversight?) Private vs public ownership doesn't make too much of a difference.
Companies get efficient if they have to. Competition is one way to force their hands. (There might be others, like public oversight?) Private vs public ownership doesn't make too much of a difference.
State-managed capitalism and socialism are not the same thing. Putting a state-run monopoly in private hands (which is what's usually done), instead in state-run hands ... where the risks and profits are held by the same entity instead of the public bearing the risk and the private sector getting the profits? That's socialism? No...
This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's using.
According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".
What's next? Insisting cities which build private sports stadiums with public funds participate in profit sharing instead of just presenting the stadium with a little bow on top to some billionaire? Woah, Socialism cometh!
The real thing that's happening is that people want a fair shake... "If we're going to be on the hook in the bad times, then we should see some of the good time too." The companies that were bailed out with public funds now have record private profits ... that's the problem. It's got zilch to do with socialism.
This guy's a professor of political economy ... what a terrible word choice he's using.
According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".
What's next? Insisting cities which build private sports stadiums with public funds participate in profit sharing instead of just presenting the stadium with a little bow on top to some billionaire? Woah, Socialism cometh!
The real thing that's happening is that people want a fair shake... "If we're going to be on the hook in the bad times, then we should see some of the good time too." The companies that were bailed out with public funds now have record private profits ... that's the problem. It's got zilch to do with socialism.
Most of the examples in the article are about state-owned, state-operated enterprises, such as sovereign wealth funds, utilities, oil and mineral extraction, etc.
In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it?
> According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".
That's quite a strawman there. He never argued anything remotely like that.
In fact, I could not find any example of "putting a state-run monopoly in private hands" anywhere in the article. Did you even read it?
> According to him, not blindly gifting away the collectively-held public commons into the hands of private capital to sell it back to us is now called "Socialism".
That's quite a strawman there. He never argued anything remotely like that.
I think those to examples are intended to describe "privatization" as it's often done (i.e. badly from an purely economic perspective, because it's partly/mostly ideological) which is, as you note, the exact opposite of the article's focus, which is state run stuff that makes economic sense.
That's combined with pedantry about the term "socialism", which has confused some readers of the comment.
So kristopolous appears to approve of certain things being run by the state, and would prefer that not to be described as socialism, as it might put people off who immediately dismiss anything with that label, and lead to more economically silly privatization or public subsidy of private profit.
That's combined with pedantry about the term "socialism", which has confused some readers of the comment.
So kristopolous appears to approve of certain things being run by the state, and would prefer that not to be described as socialism, as it might put people off who immediately dismiss anything with that label, and lead to more economically silly privatization or public subsidy of private profit.
[deleted]
I don't see a very significant distinction between "a state-run monopoly in private hands" and "a state-run monopoly in state-run hands." Each person is still an individual, after all, with "private" incentives. Whether their title is technically a government job is irrelevant, as long as their money is coming from government either directly (from the government budget) or indirectly (thanks to a government-enforced monopoly).
The differences are in the kinds of risks taken, how the revenue is allocated, and how the profits are handled.
The incentive structure of the two systems are different. This changes the outcome.
The incentive structure of the two systems are different. This changes the outcome.
Can you explain how the incentive structures differ? They don't seem significantly different to me.
Capital driven entities excel by maximizing revenue and minimizing cost. They perpetuate themselves and insulate their volatility by building vast warchests.
A public equivalence however, excels by maximizing utility. They perpetuate themselves by making sure the value they provide is near the cost they incur.
Take a gym for example. A private one wants to maximize membership dues but minimize actual facility use - that maximizes profit. A public one wants to be something that the community utilizes.
Generally speaking, in a public equivalence, the only party to enrich in the exchange is the customer base.
Now given this, a homogeneous state-run society sounds foolish ... but America's homogeneous capitalist society is equally foolhardy. We are sophisticated enough to analyze things and apply appropriate incentivized structures upon them instead of using the same one inappropriately in every use-case.
A public equivalence however, excels by maximizing utility. They perpetuate themselves by making sure the value they provide is near the cost they incur.
Take a gym for example. A private one wants to maximize membership dues but minimize actual facility use - that maximizes profit. A public one wants to be something that the community utilizes.
Generally speaking, in a public equivalence, the only party to enrich in the exchange is the customer base.
Now given this, a homogeneous state-run society sounds foolish ... but America's homogeneous capitalist society is equally foolhardy. We are sophisticated enough to analyze things and apply appropriate incentivized structures upon them instead of using the same one inappropriately in every use-case.
> A public equivalence however, excels by maximizing utility.
I don't think that makes sense economically, and I don't think it's true empirically. It's probably what the public wants a public institution to be.
I don't think that makes sense economically, and I don't think it's true empirically. It's probably what the public wants a public institution to be.
He's writing for the NYT. I haven't read Gar Alperovitz's works closely, but he seems quite a serious thinker. I'm currently giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he has to phrase his message in certain ways to get published in NYT.
They seem to 'know' their audience- the NYT isn't an academic economics journal, so playing a bit loose with terminology is OK- the simple fact is amongst the people at large socialism=government controlled as opposed to worker owned.... or some other academic definition I'm ignorant of.
Actually, socialism is a broad enough term to encompass state ownership as well as worker ownership or control. That's true in academia as well as in non-academic discourse. State ownership of major industries, without worker control, often accomplished through nationalization of pre-existing industries, has been a characteristic policy of socialist political parties and governments throughout the 20th century. For example, almost every major industry in the UK was nationalized in the 1940s, and such action was labeled as socialism by both its proponents and opponents. Under this most prevalent usage of the term, state ownership of an electrical utility or a sovereign wealth fund certainly qualifies.
I feel like a doofus asking this- I was always under the (false?) impression that socialists and fascists were diametric opposites- how is a nation asserting rule over an industry socialist, but not fascist?
Perfectly sensible question! Meanings of words drift. And these are historic real-world movements; the definitions don't come from dictionaries.
Orwellian propaganda muddies the waters: the Nazis called themselves "socialists"; East Germany under the Soviet Union called itself the "German Democratic Republic".
These quotes seem to be helpful:
"I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders." (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.h...)
"Now, as far as socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century, that it’s hard even to use. I mean, the Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two major propaganda operations in the world: the western one and the Soviet one. They both called it socialism for opposite reasons." (https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for...)
Orwellian propaganda muddies the waters: the Nazis called themselves "socialists"; East Germany under the Soviet Union called itself the "German Democratic Republic".
These quotes seem to be helpful:
"I mean fascism pretty much in the traditional sense, [analogous to] a system in which the state integrates labor and capital under their control. The ideal is top-down control with the public essentially following orders." (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Noam_Chomsky_Corporations.h...)
"Now, as far as socialism is concerned, that term has been so evacuated of content over the last century, that it’s hard even to use. I mean, the Soviet Union was called a socialist society by the two major propaganda operations in the world: the western one and the Soviet one. They both called it socialism for opposite reasons." (https://tansafte.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/some-footnotes-for...)
This is something that is very important to understand - all human activities can devolve into an authoritarian/totalitarian condition akin to fascism, no matter the original intent. We are all capable of becoming the very totalitarians we despise - even despising totalitarianism can, itself, become a form of authoritarian dogma which overrules individual freedom.
The key is, dogma.
The key is, dogma.
well i think that is only due to latest history, but take Nazi party of WWII for example: nazi is short for national sozialist; NSDAP for nationalsozialistische deutsche arbeiter partei (national socialist german labor party)
I understand ... I just don't want the idea of being fiscally prudent and economically responsible with municipal resources at a structural level to be stigmatized as a form of socialism. It's just an act of diligence and paying attention.
It feels like 'socialism' (which is actually closer to an optimum model than free markets for some types of problem) needs to undergo the same identity shift in the US that started for black & gay people after the Second World War. It's the stigma that's a problem, not the 'socialism'
The biggest thing that needs to happen is the realization socialism can exist next to capitalism just like charities, private clubs and other types of charters.
Replacing any class of duality based thinking with multiplicity based ones seems to be really hard for people. The capitalism/socialism false binary is pretty ingrained
Replacing any class of duality based thinking with multiplicity based ones seems to be really hard for people. The capitalism/socialism false binary is pretty ingrained
Sounds reasonable. Perhaps the 'ism' is the problem; it sounds like an encompassing ideology rather than a tool.
Were you under the impression that the author intends to stigmatize anything, or believes that socialism is a bad thing? He is clearly in favor of public ownership.
Sure he is.
But if I wanted more of something, calling it "socialist" is probably not a winning strategy to help convergence numbers.
But if I wanted more of something, calling it "socialist" is probably not a winning strategy to help convergence numbers.
San Francisco rent control policy is another example of weird and conflicting policies in the U.S. I can't believe a policy like that is in place in the United States!
They also have minimum wage in the US.
how so?
One should in my opinion not forget about two things here:
- The US American arms industry
- Welfare and other benefits for veterans
I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".
- The US American arms industry
- Welfare and other benefits for veterans
I think when it comes to citizens and industries somehow related to military the US has a history of applying (some) socialist principles, which is interesting, because it actually was used to "fight socialism".
There's an interesting-looking book on that subject coming out this fall: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674286139
The article is misleading. It is far away from the concept of the socialism. I live in country in which were everything in public property for 40 years. It totally destroyed our state and the society as well..
To the americans here, please understand that socialism is NOT communism. Socialism is regrouping a lot of different things (including the most extreme form of communism) and please do not mix the two together.
Perhaps today the meanings are different (one is a superset). But according to Von Mises:
"In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. "
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908
Also, uses of "Liberalism" has been changed even more throughout the history.
"In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. "
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1060#lf0069_label_908
Also, uses of "Liberalism" has been changed even more throughout the history.
Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public.
There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making.
In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in marketing departments alone, both rising prices.
Having said that, the difficult part is to determine these cases and to figure out how to transition the privately owned companies into public property without stealing it or overpaying for it.
Another difficulty is to judge, when something suddenly stops to be one of these cases (e.g. postal services with electronic messaging as an alternative to it).
There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making.
In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in marketing departments alone, both rising prices.
Having said that, the difficult part is to determine these cases and to figure out how to transition the privately owned companies into public property without stealing it or overpaying for it.
Another difficulty is to judge, when something suddenly stops to be one of these cases (e.g. postal services with electronic messaging as an alternative to it).
Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?
I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it.
I'm from the Netherlands, and I'm proud to say I live in a socialist country. It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%.
And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it.
In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Anything else, in my book, is uncivilized.
---
To those citing governments destroying incentive structures (can't reply - your comment is deleted), I strongly suggest looking up the Dutch model for infrastructure. In a very, very summarized example, the government gives subsidy to private/public hybrid organizations. Those organizations compete in the regular market. In order to qualify for subsidy you need to meet the government standards. Think internet companies, hospitals, etc.
You're perfectly free to set up a 100% privatized hospital in the Netherlands - you just won't qualify for government subsidy.
I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it.
I'm from the Netherlands, and I'm proud to say I live in a socialist country. It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%.
And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it.
In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is free. If I have or get some disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community. Anything else, in my book, is uncivilized.
---
To those citing governments destroying incentive structures (can't reply - your comment is deleted), I strongly suggest looking up the Dutch model for infrastructure. In a very, very summarized example, the government gives subsidy to private/public hybrid organizations. Those organizations compete in the regular market. In order to qualify for subsidy you need to meet the government standards. Think internet companies, hospitals, etc.
You're perfectly free to set up a 100% privatized hospital in the Netherlands - you just won't qualify for government subsidy.
I don't think it's about being a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. I think a lot of people in the US don't care for the treatment they get when they have to deal with federal, state, or local government services. Long lines and extremely rude government employees who abuse bureaucratic power just because they can. Think the USPS (long lines), TSA (rude and unprofessional), state run DMV's (long lines and rude). Many of them are a nightmare to deal with and many people in the US aren't excited about extending that unique brand of terrible service into MORE of our lives.
Also I often hear the argument that many socialist and communist implementations failed due to corruption at the highest levels. I would argue that due to the reliance on central planning (and human central planners) those systems are just way more susceptible to corruption. Is there a single group of humans that has shown itself to be free from the formation of elite classes and corruption? From pre-school to the old folks home power and influence shift between people and they take advantage of it. How would a country ever work past that to implement large scale redistribution of resources through central planners?
Also I often hear the argument that many socialist and communist implementations failed due to corruption at the highest levels. I would argue that due to the reliance on central planning (and human central planners) those systems are just way more susceptible to corruption. Is there a single group of humans that has shown itself to be free from the formation of elite classes and corruption? From pre-school to the old folks home power and influence shift between people and they take advantage of it. How would a country ever work past that to implement large scale redistribution of resources through central planners?
Perhaps it is because it is not applicable to most countries. Netherlands has a very strong private industry and a reasonably small population. High tech - high profit Industry can withstand the very high taxes imposed by the government. To me, Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment is less socialistic. But, if people are ok with current situation, it is their choice.
It is easy to play socialism where you have strong private industry and/or abundant natural resources with small population. Try that in say, India and you will see the catastrophic results in very short time (In fact, they have recovered by abandoning socialistic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberali... ).
It is easy to play socialism where you have strong private industry and/or abundant natural resources with small population. Try that in say, India and you will see the catastrophic results in very short time (In fact, they have recovered by abandoning socialistic policies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Post-liberali... ).
> To me, [the] Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment [sic] is less socialistic.
Who would be more prosperous? The richest 1% would be much richer, yes. The bottom 50% of the population would be a lot worse off: sick and uneducated.
Who would be more prosperous? The richest 1% would be much richer, yes. The bottom 50% of the population would be a lot worse off: sick and uneducated.
I would challenge that. What is the average salary of %50 and their tax percentage?
Not the most reliable source, but I don't have much time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
Median gross salary is €1714 monthly or €20568 yearly.
Then, looking up the income taxation (reliable): http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/
It seems that median salary almost entirely fits in the first 'schijf' (english: disk) of taxation. This means that the total income tax is:
19822 * 0.365 + (20568 - 19822) * 0.42 = €7548 yearly.
Median gross salary is €1714 monthly or €20568 yearly.
Then, looking up the income taxation (reliable): http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/
It seems that median salary almost entirely fits in the first 'schijf' (english: disk) of taxation. This means that the total income tax is:
19822 * 0.365 + (20568 - 19822) * 0.42 = €7548 yearly.
On the other hand, being afraid of all kinds of public ownership is not helpful. I'd bring national development banks into this. They proved themselves to be very efficient in the twentieth century in places that were at the time in need of development, like Singapore and Australia. The UK even mooted one, through Vince Cable, as a means of growth out of the GFC. Didn't fly in the end for pretty obvious reasons.
China's just made one, the Asia development bank, and to the chagrin of the US, has been joined by those same countries who from experience, know that they work.
Australia's largest bank, the commonwealth bank, was public, which you can get from the name. It had a trading bank. For development.
Australia's largest bank, the commonwealth bank, was public, which you can get from the name. It had a trading bank. For development.
Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen.
Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great place and I loved the time I spent there, but no one talks about replicating the inventiveness and penchant for the creation of world-changing technologies of the Netherlands. The US is the innovation capital of the world for a reason.
Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great place and I loved the time I spent there, but no one talks about replicating the inventiveness and penchant for the creation of world-changing technologies of the Netherlands. The US is the innovation capital of the world for a reason.
Have you considered how much American innovation happened as a result of:
- Government programs, the huge military budget, and the once huge space budget (which can be argued was really an extension of the military budget). Can you say for certain that the Internet and would have come about in the U.S. first if it weren't for DARPA? The advancement of computers if it weren't for NASA?
- Non capitalist or profit seeking scientists (Many if not most of whom are funded by the government or philanthropies).
- Luck. The U.S. has an immense natural resources to population ratio, perhaps the highest. It has, at present, virtually limitless land. It doesn't have to worry much about its borders or invasion. Our one border "worry" is actually a benefit to exploitive capitalism: a super cheap black-market labor.
Since you mention "private property", do you realize it is entirely antithetical to free market principles? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313.
Since you mention Elon Musk, could he have achieved what he achieved without $4.9 billion in government subsidies? (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...)
I could easily extend this list and make a more powerful argument, but I have work to do. The point I'm really making is to be objective about your analysis of what is behind American innovation and success.
We won't even get into things that we call innovation but have not made the world a better place.
- Government programs, the huge military budget, and the once huge space budget (which can be argued was really an extension of the military budget). Can you say for certain that the Internet and would have come about in the U.S. first if it weren't for DARPA? The advancement of computers if it weren't for NASA?
- Non capitalist or profit seeking scientists (Many if not most of whom are funded by the government or philanthropies).
- Luck. The U.S. has an immense natural resources to population ratio, perhaps the highest. It has, at present, virtually limitless land. It doesn't have to worry much about its borders or invasion. Our one border "worry" is actually a benefit to exploitive capitalism: a super cheap black-market labor.
Since you mention "private property", do you realize it is entirely antithetical to free market principles? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9942313.
Since you mention Elon Musk, could he have achieved what he achieved without $4.9 billion in government subsidies? (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015...)
I could easily extend this list and make a more powerful argument, but I have work to do. The point I'm really making is to be objective about your analysis of what is behind American innovation and success.
We won't even get into things that we call innovation but have not made the world a better place.
it's not really that simple. the US had enormous untapped natural resources, and is still well-off in that respect. and the two world wars were not fought on its territory. of course, i do not want to say that's all, the US model is respectable and its success deserves respect. i just don't think it can be completely attributed to anti-socialism, nor that a bit of socialism would destroy it. (which, btw, we can see now, or? US does have a pretty big social apparatus, and is still doing very well.)
"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?"
Propaganda I assume. Socialist ideas may be ok as long as the word isn't used.
I guess we need to find a new politically correct word for it because the old one is too pejorative now.
Propaganda I assume. Socialist ideas may be ok as long as the word isn't used.
I guess we need to find a new politically correct word for it because the old one is too pejorative now.
"Fragile By Design" does an excellent teasing apart of the small differences between Canadian and American social... consciousness as expressed in government policy. A very surprising book.
The too-short upshot is - Canadians actively consider the social welfare function as a thing in itself, while Americans try to bury it under complicated things like mortgage subsidies.
The too-short upshot is - Canadians actively consider the social welfare function as a thing in itself, while Americans try to bury it under complicated things like mortgage subsidies.
It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll
give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly
capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll
pay 50%.
And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year,
I can miss it.
In return I know that my life is safe from being
destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or
will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't
matter, education is free. If I have or get some
disability, I will be taken care of. If I get injured, I
will be taken care of. If I get sick, I will be taken
care of. By the community.
I think such Americans genuinely question if such a smooth trade off - between paying a good chunk more in taxes and a proportionate increase in the standard of living of those on whom that increase in taxation is supposed to benefit - is ever possible in a government that is rife with dysfunction, graft and bewildering inefficiencies at every level. The examples of this present themselves at regular frequencies - say the botched roll out of the healthcare website [1] a few years ago - in the glare of the American media, which don't exactly help either.
Further exacerbating this problem is that bright young Americans [2] don't want to serve in the public sector in similar rates as in Northern Europe.
[1] Obamacare Website Costs Exceed $2 Billion, Study Finds
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-...
[2] 'Pro-Government' Millennials Take Government Jobs, Discover They Suck, Move to the Private Sector
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/millennials-take-governmen...
> If I get sick, I will be taken care of. By the community.
Socialism (miniscule s) in the small is charity, forms of which even the most rigid egoist (e.g. Rand) can find ideologically palatable: intentional, contractual communities are communities nonetheless, and generally contain mutual aid clauses. Scale matters, however, and somewhere between 150 and 100 million other persons, the charity co-ordinating entity (i.e. the governing power) becomes a beast unto itself, the contract becomes blurred, and Socialism in the large imposes itself on ideological dissenters with the force of the local violence monopolist.
If nation-states were actually communities caring for their own, the philosophical concerns of consent and compulsion, and the pragmatic concerns of checks and balances, would be much reduced. I await the Maneki Neko experiment that could imbue a society of great magnitude with equally great cohesion.
Socialism (miniscule s) in the small is charity, forms of which even the most rigid egoist (e.g. Rand) can find ideologically palatable: intentional, contractual communities are communities nonetheless, and generally contain mutual aid clauses. Scale matters, however, and somewhere between 150 and 100 million other persons, the charity co-ordinating entity (i.e. the governing power) becomes a beast unto itself, the contract becomes blurred, and Socialism in the large imposes itself on ideological dissenters with the force of the local violence monopolist.
If nation-states were actually communities caring for their own, the philosophical concerns of consent and compulsion, and the pragmatic concerns of checks and balances, would be much reduced. I await the Maneki Neko experiment that could imbue a society of great magnitude with equally great cohesion.
>I await the Maneki Neko experiment that could imbue a society of great magnitude with equally great cohesion.
That'd be the internet. We just need to figure out the right software to run on it.
That'd be the internet. We just need to figure out the right software to run on it.
> is ever possible in a government that is rife with dysfunction, graft and bewildering inefficiencies at every level.
This is a fair point, but I think we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the presence of a significant group of politicians in congress who have made their entire careers out of sabotaging government programs. Remember, Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare at every turn, even taking it to the Supreme Court - twice.
So to say the system can never work because it hasn't worked is confusing the cause for the effect, it seems.
This is a fair point, but I think we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the presence of a significant group of politicians in congress who have made their entire careers out of sabotaging government programs. Remember, Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare at every turn, even taking it to the Supreme Court - twice.
So to say the system can never work because it hasn't worked is confusing the cause for the effect, it seems.
As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national.
That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.
That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.
As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.
If it was State run then you could say hey the State failed to deliver. This was a private company which failed to deliver. And the private company, if you actually look it up subcontracted it, so you can't say hey there was no private Capitalist oversight over the project, you know greed to make things run efficiently.
But even subcontractors on government projects are subject to the same limitations as the prime contractor. So many limitations and increased overhead are imposed on government contractors, it's not surprising government projects fail in ways a similar private project would not with similar funding.
State engineers we do have (Army Corps of Engineers, NASA) often do a fantastic job.
Government IT has a huge impedance mismatch in the interface from the government agency to the contractors.
Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer-based insurance and other "perks" were given tax protected status instead.
And for a long time, this turned out to be a more effective system. But accumulated rent-seeking and other problems rendered it less cost effective over time.
Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer-based insurance and other "perks" were given tax protected status instead.
And for a long time, this turned out to be a more effective system. But accumulated rent-seeking and other problems rendered it less cost effective over time.
It's amazing how libertarians and others who see free market and the invisible hand as sacrosanct principles don't see how rent-seeking[1] including the private ownership of land is antithetical to those very principles.
Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[2][3] and Georgists[4].
The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.
-
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
[2] http://geolib.com/welcome.html
[3] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632
[4] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...
Libertarians claim far too much as "the product of their labor." Firstly, they immensely overvalue their individual contribution to a product and undervalue the contribution of all who came before them. Secondly, the finite natural resources and space (land) of the planet can NEVER be considered the product of anyone's labor, and thus can NEVER be treated as private property in any strict sense (exclusive ownership in perpetuity until sold, zero property or inheritance tax). The later point is conceded by Geolibertarians[2][3] and Georgists[4].
The notion of perpetual ownership of any finite resource is antithetical to the principles of the free-market, because it allows one to purchase an infinite amount of something (i.e. perpetual rights to a piece of land, including perpetual rent collection) for a finite sum.
-
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
[2] http://geolib.com/welcome.html
[3] Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7076632
[4] http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-s...
I agree - rents are poorly understood. I read epic flamefests on nntp://sci.econ during the last 20 years and that is the only reason I "got it".
Sadly, I have to differ on multiple other points:
- Substitution pretty much makes resource constraints a nonproblem. We've gotten so good at this that there's a large trade in "antiques" largely based on the numismatic value of old materials.
Whether or not the carbon content of the atmosphere counts is a very slowly closing but still open question. Having dealt with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, the probability of an honest solution based on public goods seems bleak.
- The planet very well can be largely private. Let it be private and tax the rents. This leaves more open the question "what does government do?". Consider private and public as merely possible management - or finance - schemes, each with weak and strong points.
- Perpetual ownership is just a lease with an undefined term. The British renewal rate of 99 years as a standard is just using a different constant.
Of course people overvalue their contributions. It takes a long time to get calibrated properly. And when I was a kid, the grownups were a lot more likely to be blunt about this than I am led to believe they are now.
But Libertarians are still the "R&D" department for politics.
Sadly, I have to differ on multiple other points:
- Substitution pretty much makes resource constraints a nonproblem. We've gotten so good at this that there's a large trade in "antiques" largely based on the numismatic value of old materials.
Whether or not the carbon content of the atmosphere counts is a very slowly closing but still open question. Having dealt with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, the probability of an honest solution based on public goods seems bleak.
- The planet very well can be largely private. Let it be private and tax the rents. This leaves more open the question "what does government do?". Consider private and public as merely possible management - or finance - schemes, each with weak and strong points.
- Perpetual ownership is just a lease with an undefined term. The British renewal rate of 99 years as a standard is just using a different constant.
Of course people overvalue their contributions. It takes a long time to get calibrated properly. And when I was a kid, the grownups were a lot more likely to be blunt about this than I am led to believe they are now.
But Libertarians are still the "R&D" department for politics.
The government of almost every country is -almost always- incompetent and inefficient. Why would I want to give them my money for "security" when I could assure myself that security much more effectively?
Because we are a civilized society, and this is not about you. A lot of people can _not_ assure that security for themselves.
[deleted]
According to Richard D. Wolfe
https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff
It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propaganda to make Socialism a boogie man, eventually associating it with Communism... and it worked.
In general in the United States ideological words get muddled through rhetoric and propaganda until you can no longer talk about them. When this happens it's impossible to act on anything because you can't talk about it much less come to any conclusion about whether it's good or not or if it serves your interests. It's a brilliant propaganda technique that seems to have been mastered to stifle any debate about ideology.
It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propaganda to make Socialism a boogie man, eventually associating it with Communism... and it worked.
In general in the United States ideological words get muddled through rhetoric and propaganda until you can no longer talk about them. When this happens it's impossible to act on anything because you can't talk about it much less come to any conclusion about whether it's good or not or if it serves your interests. It's a brilliant propaganda technique that seems to have been mastered to stifle any debate about ideology.
I think it generalizes to Americans being uncomfortable with anything they perceive as ideology. The propaganda just serves that.
Lyndon Johnson would have "gotten away with" The Great Society had he not also been forced to deal with Vietnam. Regardless of what we in the US say of that, those programs are very much part of our ...portfolio.
At an ethical level, Americans are much more likely to embrace consumer surplus as a core value, hence the emphasis on work rather than on government. Our "conservatism" when it is coherent is really a more-radical Liberalism in the sense of an emphasis on a self-reliant individual.
Lyndon Johnson would have "gotten away with" The Great Society had he not also been forced to deal with Vietnam. Regardless of what we in the US say of that, those programs are very much part of our ...portfolio.
At an ethical level, Americans are much more likely to embrace consumer surplus as a core value, hence the emphasis on work rather than on government. Our "conservatism" when it is coherent is really a more-radical Liberalism in the sense of an emphasis on a self-reliant individual.
[deleted]
The US Army is the biggest socialist organisation in the US. They provide medical care, educational grants and benefits, housing etc etc.
"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?"
Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.
Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.
You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value.
Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.
Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.
please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'
I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always results in tyranny. It did in Russia. It did in China. Vietnam. Korea. Even the Nordic countries, who had the best chance of pulling it off, have started to suffer under its weight.
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)
Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)
I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit.
Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were totalitarian in nature.
Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were totalitarian in nature.
> I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit.
Are you referring to the Stalinist oppression that began with the Barcelona May Days in 1937, or to anarchist atrocities in the city before then?
Are you referring to the Stalinist oppression that began with the Barcelona May Days in 1937, or to anarchist atrocities in the city before then?
The description of the book I'm reading doesn't specify, but from what I understand, Borkenau spent a few months there in '36 and in '37, so he could have written about both.
The book just made it to the top of my to read pile. :)
The book just made it to the top of my to read pile. :)
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
?!
Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption.
Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.
?!
Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption.
Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.
Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.
Let me get this straight:
>Communism is a subset of socialism
and
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes.
Does that mean that:
> Square is a subset of rectangle
so
>rectangle always results in four right angles
given that my only examples of rectangles are squares?
Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect.
By your own admission:
>Humans will always create a hierarchy
Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.
>Communism is a subset of socialism
and
> Socialism always results in tyranny.
but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes.
Does that mean that:
> Square is a subset of rectangle
so
>rectangle always results in four right angles
given that my only examples of rectangles are squares?
Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subset of socialism is plainly incorrect.
By your own admission:
>Humans will always create a hierarchy
Socialism could not have been tested, because it would require social ownership of the production of goods, and co-operative management of those resources. Hierarchy means they did not have co-operative management of resources, they had hierarchical management of resources.
The GDR was socialist and arguably a tyranny.
Edit: As was The Third Reich.
Edit: As was The Third Reich.
From what little I know about East germany and post-WW2 soviet history - wasn't GDR controlled by the communist state of soviet russia?
Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy?
Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy?
Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
If National Socialism was socialist because it had "socialism" in its name, then the GDR was democratic for the same reason.
Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy.
Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
> Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable?
If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."
I'll give you a new example to work with, scrubbed of geometry so you can more easily understand it:
Premise:
>Za is a subset of Z
>Za always results in behavior1
Conclusion:
> Z always results in behavior1
How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1?
How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example?
Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman?
you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources.
Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies.
Editted formatting
Premise:
>Za is a subset of Z
>Za always results in behavior1
Conclusion:
> Z always results in behavior1
How does this argument prove that behavior1 occurs in all instances of Z, when you've only shown us that a subset of Z (in this case Za) exhibits behavior1?
How do you plan to prove that other subset Zb, Zc, Zd, etc follow this same rule when you've failed to provide even a single example?
Or if you still are unable to answer that question, can you please show us in what way i misrepresented your argument to create a strawman?
you not only have yet to actually address this point, you also have yet to address my point concerning your own words on hierarchy and the incompatibility with that and the idea of co-operative management of resources.
Once you can make your argument make sense, you can begin looking at counterarguments for fallacies and semantics, else you will have this situation where you are digging yourself a deeper hole by misunderstanding counterarguments and rashly trying to mislabel them as fallacies.
Editted formatting
The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
Please don't insult other users on HN, even when you think they're wrong.
When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
When the site guidelines ask you not to call names, "nonsensical mindless garbage" is the kind of thing they have in mind.
The post was so incendiary/insulting my natural inclination to strike back in kind got the better of me but I recognize fighting fire with fire does not make for a good community so I'm sorry about that and will watch it.
I'd argue that a primary misfeature of the US system, crony capitalism, is actually the result of socialism. Crony capitalism only works if you have enough government spending and control to make that sort of corruption profitable.
Excellent point.
I wish there was a mainstream medium that discussed (and made accessible) the real risks and benefits of policy ideas. The biggest policy decisions our government makes are more or less discussed and debated through anecdotal stories shared in op-ed pages of major newspapers. (Note: I'm talking about policies pushed by both sides of the aisle, not just this particular op-ed.) This seems to be the biggest driver of polarization in the political sphere, as individuals tend to seek out op-eds that reinforce their own views in an exercise of confirmation bias, instead of thinking critically about what the positive and negative effects, plus potential risks, would be.
Personally, I tend to default to looking for free market/libertarian solutions to societal problems based on two major risks. First, if the government fails to deliver the good or service promised (like energy for your home, or healthcare), you normally have no other alternative to choose from. This can cause an entire population to suffer greatly, especially given the government is most often tasked to providing fundamental goods and services most necessary for human life (water, energy, healthcare). Second, choosing your government to provide a solution for you is fundamentally saying that 1 (non)elected government official can offer a better solution than ~330 million other individuals (in the US). Statistically this is highly unlikely, even considering the advantage of coercive power the government-provided solution possesses. I'm not opposed to government control over productive capital in some arenas, but any policy idea needs to mitigate and address these two fundamental risks. Very few policy proposals pass this test, and no mainstream media source exists to provide an objective risk analysis of the ideas and policies being debated by our elected officials.
Personally, I tend to default to looking for free market/libertarian solutions to societal problems based on two major risks. First, if the government fails to deliver the good or service promised (like energy for your home, or healthcare), you normally have no other alternative to choose from. This can cause an entire population to suffer greatly, especially given the government is most often tasked to providing fundamental goods and services most necessary for human life (water, energy, healthcare). Second, choosing your government to provide a solution for you is fundamentally saying that 1 (non)elected government official can offer a better solution than ~330 million other individuals (in the US). Statistically this is highly unlikely, even considering the advantage of coercive power the government-provided solution possesses. I'm not opposed to government control over productive capital in some arenas, but any policy idea needs to mitigate and address these two fundamental risks. Very few policy proposals pass this test, and no mainstream media source exists to provide an objective risk analysis of the ideas and policies being debated by our elected officials.
Welfare State has nothing to do with socialism