A Christmas Carol

[jcd11235 0]

First, I should say that it is difficult to discuss socialism without also discussing capitalism, as they are two sides of a single coin.

Quote

"[T]he minority, the ruling class, is in possession of the schools, the church, and the press. By these means it rules and guides the feelings of the majority of the people and bends them to compliance."


Albert Einstein, July 30, 1932, public letter to Sigmond Freud

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of 'capitalism.' Our whole education system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculated into the young individual, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented towards social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."
Albert Einstein, May 1949, Monthly Review"

As far as things that everyone would buy anyway, I am referring primarily to education, which benefits everyone in the community, and not just the person in school; healthcare, as a healthy population is beneficial to the entire community (Have you ever stopped to think just how ludicrous it is for us to pay our doctors when we are unhealthy, instead of when we are healthy? Where is the incentive for preventative medicine?); food and shelter, for same reasons as healthcare.

Currently, my tax dollars are financing a war I believe to be unjustified, poorly planned, and a threat to humanity and peace. By your logic, which I do not altogether disagree with, this is at odds with my liberty.

As to your objection to forcing people to pay, that is a valid point, but I believe that when it can be demonstrated that tax monies are being spent wisely, few people would object.

Personally, I do not believe either Capitalist system or a Socialist system, if implemented as designed, would work. (History has proven this with Capitalism.) I believe a combination of the two is necessary to be successful. Some industries will thrive, due completely to demand, without a need for profit, while others rely on profit as a motivating factor.

If I had to choose between the two, I believe socialism to be the (far) lesser of the two evils.

{Einstein quotes from The Einstein Scrapbook by Ze'ev Rosenkranz (c) 1998, 2002 The Jewish National & University Library, Jerusalem, The Johns Hopkins University Press} For those unaware, Einstein's second love, after science, was politics. His political opinion was valued highly enough that he was offered, and declined, the Presidency of Israel.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

I'll try to add more later. I'm a bit rushed just now.

Quote

...I am referring primarily to education...

How much education? Are we talking about grammar school for everyone, or free Ph.D.'s for the country? That's a pretty wide margin, and one that "everyone" is demonstrably unable to agree on. Given this failure to agree, I believe it is unjust to force those who do not wish to support the system to do so.

Quote

Have you ever stopped to think just how ludicrous it is for us to pay our doctors when we are unhealthy, instead of when we are healthy?

No. Not really. That's because I pay my doctors when I am healthy, via a device called a monthly health insurance premium. I pay them continuously, knowing that I will eventually need to call on their services. It's an evolved mechanism to allow me to group together with others to pay for our collective health care gradually, so that should any of us (those who have voluntarily joined this little socialist collective) need it, it will be available.

Quote

Currently, my tax dollars are financing a war I believe to be unjustified, poorly planned, and a threat to humanity and peace. By your logic, which I do not altogether disagree with, this is at odds with my liberty.

You are correct. Using your tax dollars to support causes you disagree with is a violation of your Liberty.

Quote

...I believe that when it can be demonstrated that tax monies are being spent wisely, few people would object.

You are wrong. I would object. That one person is enough for me. On a more realistic note, do you think it's possible to concoct a single spending plan and get everyone to agree that it is "wise"? Watching a congressional budget hearing ought to quickly disabuse anyone of that notion.

Quote

Personally, I do not believe either Capitalist system or a Socialist system, if implemented as designed, would work. (History has proven this with Capitalism.

If neither system has ever been implemented in a pure sense, how can history be said to have "proven" anything about either?

Quote

If I had to choose between the two, I believe socialism to be the (far) lesser of the two evils.

I disagree, but thankfully, neither of us has too choose for everyone, nor are we able to.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

If I had to choose between the two, I believe socialism to be the (far) lesser of the two evils.

I disagree, but thankfully, neither of us has too choose for everyone, nor are we able to.

Well, one of you wants to...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

How much education? Are we talking about grammar school for everyone, or free Ph.D.'s for the country? That's a pretty wide margin, and one that "everyone" is demonstrably unable to agree on. Given this failure to agree, I believe it is unjust to force those who do not wish to support the system to do so.

Whether one chooses to get a PhD or not has little bearing on the fact thatr the community is better off having more Phds. School is not for everyone, but those that show desire and capacity to learn should not be held back due to lack of funds.

Quote

No. Not really. That's because I pay my doctors when I am healthy, via a device called a monthly health insurance premium. I pay them continuously, knowing that I will eventually need to call on their services. It's an evolved mechanism to allow me to group together with others to pay for our collective health care gradually, so that should any of us (those who have voluntarily joined this little socialist collective) need it, it will be available.

That is not paying doctors when you are well. Health insurance only allows the rich to profit from the poor health of the population. Doctors don't see any of that money until you are no longer well, which provides no motivation to keep you well. Why do you think the current system focuses on treating diseases instead of curing them?

Quote

If neither system has ever been implemented in a pure sense, how can history be said to have "proven" anything about either?

Since the civil war era, until FDR's adminastration, we were, for all practical purposes, a strictly capitalist economy. The Great Depression and the subsequent recovery showed us that it is necessary to temper capitalism with socialist safeguards in order to ensure a healthy economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Whether one chooses to get a PhD or not has little bearing on the fact thatr the community is better off having more Phds.

Is the community better off by having everyone get PhDs in basketweaving? If you have no financial incentive (read: no need to make money afterward) you're going to see a lot of people studying things that don't make a productive contribution to the community. In fact, many advanced degrees do not pay for themselves in terms of payback to society, in economic terms. Even some MBA programs (which ought to be best on that footing) aren't actually worth the money if you do a comparative cost-benefit analysis. You're going to have a lot of trouble convincing me that providing free PhDs in esoteric, impractical subjects is really going to make society better off. Far better to spend that money on something more comparatively useful. In short, I disagree with your underlying assumption that a nation of PhD's will necessarily be more productive than a nation with heterogenouse educational levels.

Quote

...Health insurance only allows the rich to profit from the poor health of the population.

Can you tell me what leads you to this conclusion? For most of my life, I've been in the bottom 50% (usually more like the bottom 25%) of income, and I've always felt that I benefited from having health insurance. Are you arguing that I would have been better off without it? That somehow I was fooled into allowing myself to be exploited while thinking I was being made better off?

Quote

Doctors don't see any of that money until you are no longer well...

This is demonstrably untrue under some insurance systems that have evolved in a relatively free market way. For example, doctors at HMO's get paid a salary regardless of the number of patients they see. It is actually in their interest to keep the patients healthy, because then they have to do less work for the same pay.

Quote

Why do you think the current system focuses on treating diseases instead of curing them?

What makes you sure the current system is focused this way? I could construct good arguments that (a) the system is in fact focused on preventing diseases, or (b) that there are sound reasons to focus on treatment (getting people back into their lives) rather than prevention (which is far more expensive, and targets lots of people who would never contract the disease anyway). Which would you like to hear?

Quote

Since the civil war era, until FDR's adminastration, we were, for all practical purposes, a strictly capitalist economy. The Great Depression and the subsequent recovery showed us that it is necessary to temper capitalism with socialist safeguards in order to ensure a healthy economy.

I totally disagree with almost everything in that paragraph. You're drawing awfully grand conclusions, and ones that are obviously slanted to your particular preferences. I could argue, for example, that what the Great Depression really showed us was that trying to restrict trade flows (implicitly an anti-Liberty idea, but also an anti-Capitalist idea) causes global economic meltdown. I think there are many historians who would say that the root cause of the Depression was the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which was definitely not a "strictly capitalist" measure. In fact, Smoot-Hawley might be characterized as an attempt to "temper capitalism with socialist safeguards," which resulted in economic collapse.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Whether one chooses to get a PhD or not has little bearing on the fact thatr the community is better off having more Phds.

Is the community better off by having everyone get PhDs in basketweaving? .

In an economy dependent on basketweavers it would be. After the oil runs out and we've destryed the forests maybe basket weaving will be really important again.

Which particular basketweaving PhD program were you thinking of, anyhow?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

In an economy dependent on basketweavers it would be.

I still think it wouldn't. Single crop economies (be that crop petroleum or wicker based) aren't usually very stable.

My point is that if you want education to have productive (for society) outcomes, you need some kind of mechanism to encourage folks into areas of study that are of high value to society. That's why doctors get paid more than basketweavers. Although our current system is far from perfect, a system with no encouragement mechanism (everyone just gets to study whatever they want, for free) is definitely not a change for the better. In fact, it'd be likely to collapse under the weight of a huge student body, which would have to be supported by the relatively small number of people who chose to do productive work, rather than learning additional things.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ahegeman 0]

You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you? Where do you get this stuff from?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Is the community better off by having everyone get PhDs in basketweaving? If you have no financial incentive (read: no need to make money afterward) you're going to see a lot of people studying things that don't make a productive contribution to the community. In fact, many advanced degrees do not pay for themselves in terms of payback to society, in economic terms. Even some MBA programs (which ought to be best on that footing) aren't actually worth the money if you do a comparative cost-benefit analysis. You're going to have a lot of trouble convincing me that providing free PhDs in esoteric, impractical subjects is really going to make society better off. Far better to spend that money on something more comparatively useful. In short, I disagree with your underlying assumption that a nation of PhD's will necessarily be more productive than a nation with heterogenouse educational levels.

Like I said, a desire and capacity to learn must be demonstrated by the student. You do raise a good point, however, that we do not need lots of advanced degrees in just any subject; certainly some fields have greater potential to benefit society than others. I don't think that we would be overwhelmed by a bunch of underwater basket weaving PhDs, though.

Quote

Can you tell me what leads you to this conclusion? For most of my life, I've been in the bottom 50% (usually more like the bottom 25%) of income, and I've always felt that I benefited from having health insurance. Are you arguing that I would have been better off without it? That somehow I was fooled into allowing myself to be exploited while thinking I was being made better off?

How many insurance companies are you invested in, policies aside? Premiums + interest - payouts = profit. Why the need for profit? Good health is motivation enough for advances in healthcare.
I am not saying you would be better off without insurance in our current system, but rather that our current system is broken, and suits the needs of the population inefficiently at best.

Quote

This is demonstrably untrue under some insurance systems that have evolved in a relatively free market way. For example, doctors at HMO's get paid a salary regardless of the number of patients they see. It is actually in their interest to keep the patients healthy, because then they have to do less work for the same pay.

But having an HMO does not guarantee necessary healthcare if the HMO considers it prohibitively expensive.

Quote

What makes you sure the current system is focused this way? I could construct good arguments that (a) the system is in fact focused on preventing diseases, or (b) that there are sound reasons to focus on treatment (getting people back into their lives) rather than prevention (which is far more expensive, and targets lots of people who would never contract the disease anyway). Which would you like to hear?

I have always believed an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but I will happily listen to both of your arguments.

Quote

I totally disagree with almost everything in that paragraph. You're drawing awfully grand conclusions, and ones that are obviously slanted to your particular preferences. I could argue, for example, that what the Great Depression really showed us was that trying to restrict trade flows (implicitly an anti-Liberty idea, but also an anti-Capitalist idea) causes global economic meltdown. I think there are many historians who would say that the root cause of the Depression was the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which was definitely not a "strictly capitalist" measure. In fact, Smoot-Hawley might be characterized as an attempt to "temper capitalism with socialist safeguards," which resulted in economic collapse.

That goes against everything I have read by even conservative economists.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Feel free to correct me, if you believe you know more about what I am talking about than I do. Otherwise, I will take that as un unsubstantiated, uninformed opinion, which you are, in fact, free to express.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Let's just start here. I'll come back to the other points in a bit:

Quote

Quote

{Smoot-Hawley Discussion}

That goes against everything I have read by even conservative economists.

Which economists are those?

Not that Google is an authority, but a quick Google shows the following support for my view that Smoot-Hawley was a leading contributor (at least) to the Great Depression:

StocksandNews.com

Quote

When the causes of the Great Depression are debated, at the top of the list is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

Stephen Lai

Quote

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised U.S. tariff barriers to their highest levels, which provoked foreign retaliation resulting in a disastrous plummet in international commerce. As Ronald Reagan stated, the tariff "helped plunge this nation and the world into a decade of depression and despair."

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Quote

...steel executives firmly supported the passage of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which pushed duties to nearly 60 percent for a number of iron and steel products. (More than 1,000 economists signed a letter pleading with President Herbert Hoover not to sign Smoot-Hawley, but Hoover ignored their sound advice.) After the U.S. economy was further depressed and President Franklin Roosevelt continued Hoover's "New Deal," the steel industry lobbied for the internal protection of a cartel.

Roosevelt responded by giving business executives the National Industrial Recovery Act, which after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was probably the worst single piece of economic legislation in U.S. history.

Encyclopedia Brittanica

Quote

United States Tariff Act of 1930 , also called  Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act  U.S. legislation (June 17, 1930) that raised import duties to protect American businesses and farmers, adding considerable strain to the international economic climate of the Great Depression.

The United States State Department

Quote

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies (policies designed to improve one’s own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.

Wikipedia

Quote

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised US tariffs on over 20,000 dutiable items to record levels, and, in the opinion of many economists, protracted the Great Depression. U.S. President Herbert Hoover signed the act into law on June 17, 1930.

The act was championed by Senator Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, and Congressman Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon. President Herbert Hoover had asked Congress for a downward revision in rates, but U.S. Congress raised rates instead. While many economists urged a veto, Hoover thought he could finesse the law through the U. S. Tariff Commission, and signed the bill.

Opponents of the measure organized a petition signed by 1,000 economists who expressed concern about anticipated tariff reprisals from other nations.

Although the tariff act was passed after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, many economic historians consider it a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Some economists also view the stock market crash as being a pre-emptive revaluation of stocks based on the news that the tariff act would most likely pass into law. This view is based on the concept that stock markets respond primarily to news about the future.

As nations resorted to protectionism, the general amount of international trade decreased, causing the world economy to slow.

Columbia Encyclopedia

Quote

Hawley-Smoot: 1930, passed by the U.S. Congress; it brought the U.S. tariff to the highest protective level yet in the history of the United States. President Hoover desired a limited upward revision of tariff rates with general increases on farm products and adjustment of a few industrial rates. A congressional joint committee, however, in compromising the differences between a high Senate tariff bill and a higher House tariff bill, arrived at new high rates by generally adopting the increased rates of the Senate on farm products and those of the House on manufactures. Despite wide protest, the tariff act, called the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act because of its joint sponsorship by Representative Willis C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot, both Republicans, was signed (June, 1930) by President Hoover. The act brought retaliatory tariff acts from foreign countries, U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified.

In your reading of the conservative economists, you appear to have missed such minor figures as Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard and FA Hayek. If you'd like, I can recommend some supplemental readings, so that you can investigate the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, specifically, or protectionism, more generally, on economic prosperity.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ahegeman 0]

I don't have time to go through your entire post, so I'll just pick my favorite point and work on that one.

Quote

How many insurance companies are you invested in, policies aside? Premiums + interest - payouts = profit. Why the need for profit? Good health is motivation enough for advances in healthcare.

Why the need for profit? The old commie "profit is evil" argument that I've heard so many times before. Profit is nothing more than compensation for assuming risk. Who's going to invest the billions that healthcare advances require if they can't earn a good return from them? Why is there this perception among so many people that the more important a thing is to society the more it somehow becomes evil to earn a profit on providing that thing?

If you believe that there is excess profit, i.e. the profit provides a return at a greater level than is justified by the amount of risk assumed by those providing the capital, I'd like to see an example. If somehow you do find an example, I'm willing to bet the excess profits are sustained through limitations on competition enforced by the state, a distinctly non-capitalist force.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Should I make up a story that i just saw the old version of The Wizard of Oz, then comment on how much some on the left sound like the tin man before he got a brain?

That was the scarecrow, the tin man didn't have a heart, just like us folks on the right

Quote

When a man's an empty kettle,
He should be on his mettle.
And yet I'm torn apart.
Just because I'm presumin'
That I could be kind-a human,
If I only had a heart.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

In an economy dependent on basketweavers it would be.

I still think it wouldn't. Single crop economies (be that crop petroleum or wicker based) aren't usually very stable.

My point is that if you want education to have productive (for society) outcomes, you need some kind of mechanism to encourage folks into areas of study that are of high value to society. That's why doctors get paid more than basketweavers. Although our current system is far from perfect, a system with no encouragement mechanism (everyone just gets to study whatever they want, for free) is definitely not a change for the better. In fact, it'd be likely to collapse under the weight of a huge student body, which would have to be supported by the relatively small number of people who chose to do productive work, rather than learning additional things.

I think that was the point. Right now getting into a PhD program in chemical engineering is more difficult than one in medieval history, which makes no sense for society as a whole.

[jcd11235 0]

Lots of things did not help the Depression. That does not mean that they single handedly caused the Depression. It can also be argued that financed consumer goods such as cars contributed significantly to the Depression. that does not make it the underlying cause. The fact of the matter is the Depression was caused because people quit spending. When someone saves a dollar, instead of spending it, it costs the economy seven. When no one spends due to a fear of job loss, the actions, or, more accurately, the lack of action, cause the very unemployment that is feared.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

What risk are you referring to? Do you think suddenly people will completely stop getting sick and being injured? Are we going to eliminate the need for education? What risk is there for the investors?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

So, savings is bad? Sounds like the Bush economic plan: "Everyone, spend more money!"

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

What risk are you referring to? Do you think suddenly people will completely stop getting sick and being injured? Are we going to eliminate the need for education? What risk is there for the investors?

You're taking a DE's class, right? An intro to finance class should be a breeze for you then. We can continue this discussion after you pick up a rudimentary understanding of corporate finance principles. Until then, anything further along these lines of argument will be a waste of my time.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but seriously, if you don't understand basic principles such as risk-based returns and the time value of money, then I'll never be able to explain why profit is necessary in the healthcare system.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jcd11235 0]

I am well aware of investment risks.

Again, I am not completely against Capitalism, I merely acknowledge the fact that it is not best suited for all industries. Nor do I believe socialism is suited to all industries. I do believe that a wise combination of the two could draw upon the strengths of both systems, while also helping to eliminate each system's weaknesses.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Except Shrub wanted to give the majority of the tax money back to the wealthy, who will save some of it, putting less money back into the economy than if he had given all the money back to the poor, who would have spent nearly all of it, which would have eventually still resulted in profits for corporate shareholders, only a little bit later. Shrub's plan does nothing but increase the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, which ironically, is the very thing that increases the liklihood of socialism ever being implemented in this country.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ahegeman 0]

So then you think the healthcare industry should be nationalized? Run by the government? Because that'll make it more efficient?

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jcd11235 0]

As opposed to HMOs? Is this a trick question?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[ahegeman 0]

No, its not a trick question. So answer it. Do you think the healtcare industry should be nationalized, and run by the government? The industry is more than just HMOs, too.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[jcd11235 0]

Yes, I do believe we should have a national healthcare system. It can work efficiently, much more so than our current system. Compare our healthcare to Cuba's, where everybody is covered, and expenses are higher due to economic sanctions. But, their infant motality rate is significantly lower, and they live longer.

Just think, if not for the embargo, we could have a vaccine for menengitis.

I guess the liberal media must have missed that story.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Compare our healthcare to Cuba's...

Have you been to Cuba?

I'll take American healthcare over Cuban, any day of the week.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com