Socialism: Maybe not such a bad idea?

[synthesizer-patel]

There is also the issue of incentives. In a pure capitalist system it's sink or swim so everyone has a strong incentive to bust their ass. In a pure communist system, there's very little incentive to work since effort and pay are completely separated.

A more esoteric issue is emergence. The tendency of complex systems to self organize naturally in ways that are often superior to what we can achieve through a careful top down approach. What Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

“As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to the direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it (Wealth of Nations. VI, ii. P.456).​

Neither global capitalism nor the economic system of the US (although the 2 are probably interchangeable) follow the model of economic nationalism that Smith is describing in this quote (note the clear references to domestic industry and the preference of it towards investment in foreign industry).

Furthermore note the usage of the word frequently - which does not mean the same as always.

Smith was clearly far more in favour of regulated markets than his more staunch supporters ever care to admit

 

[iceaura]

The taxpayers in the US already pay for a completely socialized, First World system - they pay as much in taxes for various forms of taxpaid medical care as the French pay for their whole system, per capita.

Then they buy insurance, pay medical bills, etc, on top of that. Meanwhile, they deal with the chronic problems and costs and hassles and downsides of lack of delivered care - at one of my jobs, every single person working there had a chronic and worsening medical problem he couldn't afford to take to the doc, that was going to cost triple or more when it became intolerable down the line - and meanwhile was blighting lives and costing money (down time, palliatives, missed opportunities, the costs of poor health) all along. Everything from dislocated collar bones and torn knee ligaments and herniated discs to sleep apnea and bad teeth and diabetes.

The dumbest system on the planet - boneheaded self-parodying idiocy. And all to coddle the corporate insurance and care business, using "socialism" as the bogeyman to keep the rubes from revolting.

The tendency of complex systems to self organize naturally in ways that are often superior to what we can achieve through a careful top down approach.

Like in Pharoah's Egypt or Caribbean sugar plantations or the coal towns of Appalachia - where complex economies are left to "self" organize, as they have for thousands of years.

Iceaura's are directed towards those who have, not towards the system that keeps them from having. As a matter of fact they seem to blame all the ills on those who have

? Is there something wrong with the blame I have assigned? Is it inaccurately placed?

The KEY to success is not so much where you came from but how much attention you pay to details and how much effort you put into cultivating the right contacts. Most people are just like you - far to lazy to do either of those right and content to just hang out with others who are just like you: those who are lazy, just killing time and who have no ambition. They usually do poorly in school and NEVER set goals for themselves or bother to plan long-range for their future. It actually takes WORK to rise above the crowd and lots of people have managed to do so - because they have drive and ambition. Period.

The key to success is rising above the crowd? First, get born in the right country, to the right parents. That multiplies your chances by ten or more. Then, be lucky - do not suffer a concussion in an eighth grade playground fight, don't get any of the chronic disease or handicaps of the poor (such as high lead exposures), don't get raped or harmfully assaulted, don't have bad teeth, etc. Then, work hard enough to make up for substandard schooling, starting at age six or earlier - if you can't career plan by age ten, your future is your own fault. Given that, you can almost match the odds the rich people's kids can take for granted - all of them.

Meanwhile: What about the crowd? What's in it for them, this setup?

Except Smith's model has turned into a nightmare

Don't blame Adam Smith, that isn't his model - Madanthony is not presenting his model accurately. Smith was no supporter of Ayn Rand bs.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Iceaura: Is there something wrong with the blame I have assigned? Is it inaccurately placed?

Yes. Having wealth does not make one the enemy, its the system that is creating the problem and should be the focus. You seem to advocate a simple measure of 'take from the rich' as if this could somehow solve all of societies woes and that's not true. You will always have the wealthy and what's more you will always need the wealthy, ESPECIALLY within a socialist-democrat model.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Iceaura

The american people have been living off of credit for a long time and in some sense have a feeling of entitlement as if they somehow deserved to live that way. They were fleeced through their living off of credit lifestyle, so they had a hand in their own undoing. Spending minimum monthly payments for the rest of your life for an item worth $2000 is fiscally naive, stupid, absurd and shows a lack of wisdom and economic common sense. Why buy a house with no money down when you know you cannot afford the house and you haven't saved the money for the purchase? Sure the banks sucked for lending something to someone when it was obvious they would default but that doesn't absolve the buyer of responsibility either.

Same thing goes for the US government, sure the Chinese know they have you by the balls and there's nothing you can do about it but the US has no self-control and cannot face reality.

Don't you see its not just the rich its the culture you have provided for yourselves, the feeling of entitlement and greed without taking into account any fiscal responsibility had become a value to live by. Something for nothing and the chicks for free. You must admit that of all the people who would say no to universal health care its not the people like Bill Gates or William Buffet who object to paying their share, hell they feel better providing for those lesser folk and it doesn't affect their lifestyle one bit. Its the middle class and working class earner who is out there banging their fists in the air screaming about socialism and government spending.

 

[iceaura]

Yes. Having wealth does not make one the enemy, its the system that is creating the problem and should be the focus.

And I have failed to focus on the system where, exactly?

The american people have been living off of credit for a long time and in some sense have a feeling of entitlement as if they somehow deserved to live that way. They were fleeced through their living off of credit lifestyle, so they had a hand in their own undoing.

Blaming the victim is always an attractive option, for some political factions.

The American people do feel entitled, and why not? They did, after all, set up a pretty good system and run it well for many years. Meanwhile, they have been trying to maintain an already attained lifestyle on declining hourly incomes. That's part of the borrowing. Much of the rest of what they borrow for is provided without the necessity of debt in other countries - or even, used to be provided in the US. College educations, for example. Trade apprenticeships. Pensions in retirement. Even medical care, in many cases.

But to blame the American people for the hogwild behavior of Wall Street financiers and the insurance business since Reagan, is not reasonable. The crash of '08 was not caused by people putting Christmas presents on their credit cards. And it was not caused by irresponsible people voluntarily overbuying housing, either - this

Why buy a house with no money down when you know you cannot afford the house and you haven't saved the money for the purchase? - -

is irrelevant.

 

[pjdude1219]

Nope, it's YOU who are perpetuating a myth.

no its you. the difference between my and you is I don't lie about the advateges wealth gives.

The KEY to success is not so much where you came from but how much attention you pay to details and how much effort you put into cultivating the right contacts.

than why is family wealth when your born the best indicater of success? oh that's right because you myth is bullshit. success is about connections and not hard work.

the rest of drivel designed to insult based on baseless assumptions deleted.

 

[pjdude1219]

But why? Why would they be more successful? If you are born into a family of doctors I would assume you may have had a good education which would lead to better job possibilities. This will be true forever.. Even in communist countries you will have those who are better off than others.

which is my point. they get advantages

No one here has put forth that the rich are better than everyone else except you.

no you and read are pushing the idea. when you claim that its hard work your saying the wealthy are more willing to work harder inp;y that non wealthy people are lazy. hell look at read who flat out says that I'm lazy with out knowing anything about me, my life, or the area I live why. and why does he do this. the wealthy sense of entitlement.

The problem isn't that there are wealthy people PJ, the problem is creating a society where offer enough social welfare programs so that society is humane (decent education, health care, housing and access to the political process) if you live in a society where there are no wealthy people then you're living in a society where there are no middle-class and you only have the poor. Just look at Denmark, they have a very good social welfare program, the better off you are the more taxes you pay and yet they still have wealthy people and a monarchy to boot!

None of this has anything to do with what I said. it just the same preachy nonsense I hear from people who don't want to do anything to fix the economic mess of the US.

Really? 20 or 30? Care to show how you know this for sure?

I don't that's why I used the word probably. and there is no way to show unless you highness you have found away to travel to alternate timelines. you asking me to prove things that didn't happen. isn't that a little arrogant to demand?

 

[pjdude1219]

Yes but still you have to see there is no equal playing field. If someone is smart and driven and gets a good education they will leave the lower ranks of the poor and enter what is known as the middle or upper classes. Even in socialized countries you have a lower, middle and upper its just that the gap is not as wide as it is here in the States which is what needs to be addressed. PJ's resentment as well as Iceaura's are directed towards those who have, not towards the system that keeps them from having. As a matter of fact they seem to blame all the ills on those who have. Its their fault, they did it, etc etc

Meanwhile wealthy can be anything from upper middle class to filthy rich.

god you conceited little twit. I don't resent the wealthy people. I resent the useless little people like your self you defend the advantages they have and repeat the lie that if you work hard you can be there too. No there is no upwards income mobility. you reach upper middle class and make like 150k year and that's it.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

which is my point. they get advantages no you and read are pushing the idea. when you claim that its hard work your saying the wealthy are more willing to work harder inp;y that non wealthy people are lazy. hell look at read who flat out says that I'm lazy with out knowing anything about me, my life, or the area I live why. and why does he do this. the wealthy sense of entitlement. None of this has anything to do with what I said. it just the same preachy nonsense I hear from people who don't want to do anything to fix the economic mess of the US.

I don't that's why I used the word probably. and there is no way to show unless you highness you have found away to travel to alternate timelines. you asking me to prove things that didn't happen. isn't that a little arrogant to demand?

Where in this thread or any other did I say YOU were lazy? Where?

I hate to tell you something but some poor people ARE lazy, and the chances are that if you have passed your bar exam or worked your way through school, sacrificed or diverted pleasures for a future date, you will be more successful than the guy hanging out on the corner drinking brew with his mates. You will also be more successful than the person who squanders their money instead of saving it and using it wisely.

Well then don't make assumptions.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

god you conceited little twit. I don't resent the wealthy people. I resent the useless little people like your self you defend the advantages they have and repeat the lie that if you work hard you can be there too. No there is no upwards income mobility. you reach upper middle class and make like 150k year and that's it.

Ha! That's a laugh! You calling anyone here a 'twit' is amusing at best

Now listen up sweet-pea, one has to take advantage of the advantages that are given to them. If someone is born into a family of means and they don't study while at school, do drugs or loaf around, just don't give a shit or what-have-you they too will not reap the rewards of the advantages they have at their disposal.

Someone making 150k a year can live comfortably. BUT YOU WON'T MAKE IT SITTING ON YOUR DUFF ALL DAY!

 

[Randwolf]

No there is no upwards income mobility. you reach upper middle class and make like 150k year and that's it.

Geeez, PJ. That's certainly a falsehood in some cases and you know it very well. You may call them exceptions or extraordinary, but you can't possibly categorically deny that some people do, in fact, move beyond that mark - even without the benefit of "old" money or a formal degree.

Or maybe I just don't exist?
(Actually, that would explain a lot... )

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

And I have failed to focus on the system where, exactly?
Blaming the victim is always an attractive option, for some political factions.

The American people do feel entitled, and why not? They did, after all, set up a pretty good system and run it well for many years. Meanwhile, they have been trying to maintain an already attained lifestyle on declining hourly incomes. That's part of the borrowing. Much of the rest of what they borrow for is provided without the necessity of debt in other countries - or even, used to be provided in the US. College educations, for example. Trade apprenticeships. Pensions in retirement. Even medical care, in many cases.

But to blame the American people for the hogwild behavior of Wall Street financiers and the insurance business since Reagan, is not reasonable. The crash of '08 was not caused by people putting Christmas presents on their credit cards. And it was not caused by irresponsible people voluntarily overbuying housing, either - this is irrelevant.

Well there are victims and there are fools. Many who ran around buying homes they couldn't afford were fools. People who live off of their credit cards are fools. You are not entitled to anything unless its payed for. Social welfare states pay their due through taxes and its those who work who provide those taxes so everyone in society can enjoy decent schooling, health care and subsidized housing if they need it. Wall street did engage in hogwild behaviour but so did a lot of everyday folks. You used to be a nation of savers and then you because a nation of consumers. Its a mentality Iceaura, its a way of life and now they everyone in society is suffering for it.

 

[chimpkin]

Yes. Having wealth does not make one the enemy, its the system that is creating the problem and should be the focus.

Ms Lucy, you're drawing an artificial distinction here, because the rich have bought the system.
It caters to them because they have bribed it.
And they get richer because it caters to them.
This means they can bribe it more.

It's a self-reinforcing process, spiraling upward.

You used to be a nation of savers and then you because a nation of consumers.

We were, but our wages didn't keep pace with inflation. First families went from one to two incomes, then that wasn't enough and they included debt.

Now you really need two jobs to get ahead...and those of us who can't hack those hours are SOL.

 

[parmalee]

How does anyone find happiness without money for food, or healthcare or housing? Are you going to inundate us with your stories of the happy poor who find love and friendship through their deprivation? Even a socialist program needs money. Don't believe me just ask the North Koreans. N.Korea has no money, no real currency and they starve. I bet that experience really has made them feel oh so 'successful'.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs...

Sheesh, throwing the Maslow at me! Well, I could come right back at ya with some Sahlins, Clastres, or Diamond and put all that "barter economy" nonsense to rest--they're freakin' gift economies for fuck's sake, i.e. rendering notions of "capital" irrelevant. (Why do anthropologists always get shafted when it comes to the study of economics?)

But I won't. I'll clarify instead:

I was referring more to the notion of equating more money with more success; obviously, in a market economy some money is essential to survival and having one's basic needs met--but why must success be measured by how far one goes beyond simply having one's needs met?

Most of the people I choose to associate with are "employed" in one or more of the following ways: as musicians, artists, educators, academics, artisans (a broad term--I mean here everything from cabinet makers to, well, agriculturalists of a sort). (I also know people in medicine, law, and a few other fields as well, I'm just less inclined to choose to associate with them--nothing personal, just that "common interests" thing.)

None of these people are pulling six or more figures annually, and yet most are successful in some manner, to some degree. In fact, most couldn't care less about their prospects even for pulling six or more figures. And of course, with some few exceptions, if you're an artist or musician who is making that kinda money, you're more than likely producing shit.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

but why must success be measured by how far one goes beyond simply having one's needs met?

Most of the people I choose to associate with are "employed" in one or more of the following ways: as musicians, artists, educators, academics, artisans (a broad term--I mean here everything from cabinet makers to, well, agriculturalists of a sort). (I also know people in medicine, law, and a few other fields as well, I'm just less inclined to choose to associate with them--nothing personal, just that "common interests" thing.)

None of these people are pulling six or more figures annually, and yet most are successful in some manner, to some degree. In fact, most couldn't care less about their prospects even for pulling six or more figures. And of course, with some few exceptions, if you're an artist or musician who is making that kinda money, you're more than likely producing shit.

No one said having one's needs met isn't enough. You were the one who said:

"Interesting how even the folks who disagree with one-another here all seem to define "success" in monetary terms."

Who here has been speaking of anything but health care, education and housing for all? Where did you see anyone claim otherwise?

In principle there isn't anything wrong with people having more than their basic necessities as long as they can afford it. The monetary system is the global system and until that changes its what everyone needs to survive. Even the terms of a socialist system is based on the monetary system and what you will find is that although there are social safe-guards you will still have those who have more than others and those who have an advantage over others.

Who you choose to hang with is your own business.:shrug:

 

[John99]

And of course, with some few exceptions, if you're an artist or musician who is making that kinda money, you're more than likely producing shit.

Correction.

Not producing music Parmalee likes...big difference because people like different things. Sure if Parmalee was the king...but when will we get past this?

I always say: in the heart of every man\woman beats a dictator. Live and let live and mind your own business is not that difficult to do.

 

[John99]

PJ, we all have certain advantages. You have certain advantage over another and so on. Just being born into a wealthy family is no guarntee of happiness or an easy life either. Many face failure, hardship, addictions rejection from family and friends, disease, suicide etc. otoh, many poor rise above adversity hell many millionaires come from poor backgrounds.

 

[pjdude1219]

PJ, we all have certain advantages. You have certain advantage over another and so on.

I know it pisses me off though when people act like these advantages don't matter or don't exist.

Just being born into a wealthy family is no guarntee of happiness or an easy life either. Many face failure, hardship, addictions rejection from family and friends, disease, suicide etc.

that is why it is a predictor and not a rock solid guarntee.

otoh, many poor rise above adversity hell many millionaires come from poor backgrounds.

being a millionaire in this day and age is not that much of an accomplishment unless of course you mean a million dollars in the bank. but even than very few people reach that.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

being a millionaire in this day and age is not that much of an accomplishment unless of course you mean a million dollars in the bank. but even than very few people reach that.

There are 3,100,000 millionaires in the US.

The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more, not including first homes, fell by 2.5 million to 6.7 million in 2008, according to the Spectrum Group report, as reported by Reuters.

After the 27 percent drop, the number of millionaires is at the lowest level since 2003, when the millionaire population stood at 6.2 million.

The S&P 500 stock index has lost over half its value since the stock market peaked in October 2007, wiping billions from savings, while wealthy households also saw declines in the value of other assets such as property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

 

[phlogistician]

Interesting how even the folks who disagree with one-another here all seem to define "success" in monetary terms. Well, more sad than interesting...

I find it only tends to be people in lower income brackets who disagree.