"Socialism always fails, even so-called democratic socialism"

[JamesCaruso]

I believe capitalism is easier to rein in and serve the people, but I agree that if we are not forever watchful, things easily go south. OTOH, I believe socialism is an easy slide into atheism and autocratic forms of government by the fact that it places so much power into the hands of the ruling elite. Also, I have noticed in countries that are more heavily invested in socialism than we are, that upward mobility seems to come to a standstill. I met a finance officer at Enterprise Car Sales and asked him why he was in America instead of staying at home with his family in the England. He said, in England, there is no upward mobility. If you are born poor, you stay poor, with rare exceptions. He came to America to make his mark and later he will retire to England with his family. I know it’s anecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth. Also, some European countries that initially went socialist have largely gone back to capitalism citing that for all its good, socialism is not a good engine for wealth creation. Many socialist countries are built on the wealth created by their former capitalistic selves, but its a socialism that is not self-sustaining. Just my two cents.

 

[Dan123]

He said, in England, there is no upward mobility. If you are born poor, you stay poor, with rare exceptions. He came to America to make his mark and later he will retire to England with his family. I know it’s anecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth.

This is a topic which is studied, so we don’t need to just go on anecdotes.

Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia

It’s a complex topic with lots of studies giving mixed results largely depending on how they measure mobility, but it doesn’t seem like we’re particularly better about mobility, though we also don’t seem worse.

 

[JamesCaruso]

And I have read some of the studies and as I recall the US was once among the leaders in upward mobility but over time have fallen to a mediocre position. I would argue that too much unnecessary regulation, which seems to be a hallmark of America’s brand of creeping socialism, has been responsible for this.

 

[Rau]

That actually has more to do with government red tape and oligopoly than market mechanisms.

Were the major players not highly profitable, there might be something in that. However, reality is that even in a most efficient health system, many procedures are beyond all but the quite well off. Personally, I think a “socializing” of health care is a great idea. It needs to be properly managed, but I have no problem with all of us sharing the reasonable health care needs of all of us.

 

[Rau]

And I have read some of the studies and as I recall the US was once among the leaders in upward mobility but over time have fallen to a mediocre position.

That well could be so. Nowadays what is observed is a enormous gap between the incredibly wealthy and very large numbers of folks on struggle street. The wealth distribution in the US is incredibly skewed.

 

[arvo]

The wealth distribution in the US is incredibly skewed.

I wonder about 3 things:

• Is it bad that wealth distribution is skweded? I think that it is not bad as long as the poorest ones have sufficient resources to have education and skills building. If such resources are lacking then wealth redistribution is must. Lack of resources should not determine the fate of people who would like to grow, learn and create value;
• why such skewing has happened? Is it due to 1) the globalization (workforce pool from Asia); 2) the declining force and capabilities of the unions and the Left; 3) digitisation, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics that reduce the bargaining power of workers and all the profit from the machine works goes to the owners of the machines and not to those to create or serve machines;
• should be do anything about this status of wealth distribution. Or maybe it is OK to let the market forces and technological development to drive this further?

How Church can respond to this?

 

[Maximian]

If the taxpayer has no money, neither does the government.

 

[Rau]

If the taxpayer has no money, neither does the government.

We are not referring to tax payers on the whole, but rather an instance(s) of tax payers.

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe capitalism is easier to rein in and serve the people, but I agree that if we are not forever watchful, things easily go south.

I tend to see capitalism more as a phenomenon like weather which human beings try to cope with in various ways.

He said, in England, there is no upward mobility. If you are born poor, you stay poor, with rare exceptions.

If the car he was trying to sell you was as much a clunker as his worldview might suggest, I hope you didn’t buy it.

 

[Socrates92]

The main issue I’d take it not moral, but pragmatic. Capital is much more mobile than people. Therefore, it is much easier to drive capital away from an area through taxation than it is for labour.

 

[Socrates92]

However, reality is that even in a most efficient health system, many procedures are beyond all but the quite well off.

What example would you give of an efficient health system?

 

[Hume]

The main issue I’d take it not moral, but pragmatic. Capital is much more mobile than people. Therefore, it is much easier to drive capital away from an area through taxation than it is for labour.

The threat that carries to most Americans is already gone - most companies treat them as consumers rather than a workforce. The production aspect of the product is likely already in China or Mexico.

As such, the business can’t leave unless they simply want to stop selling to Americans.

Fat chance.

 

[Mister_Friscus]

From my perspective Catholic teaching is directed at the heart of the individual, not at government systems. Taxes aren’t charity. Individuals give freely of their own will. To use a government to achieve charity is by definition not charity… as non-compliance is punished by fines, jail, or worse.

Individualism is Catholicism, not Socialist policies.

Capitalism allows far more economic freedom for those who wish to be charitable to do so. It’s not perfect and has its risks and evils, but it’s far superior morally than Socialism and Communism, who I would say have good intentions but horrible results every time. A wise person looks beyond intentions and takes into account results. I’m not saying I"m some wiseman, but it’s foolish to only look at intentions, as they can lead to disaster.

 

[arvo]

The production aspect of the product is likely already in China or Mexico.

This is large misunderstanding that is converted by some right-wing hawks into anti-China rehtoric. In reality - the most job losses (in manufacturing sectors, other sectors can even experience a growth of jobs) in America has been from the automation & robotics & artificial intelligence and not from the outsourcing to the China.

Hence - there is nothing to on-shore, to bring back from China, as jobs have been automated. And even returning factories are more automatic and with less labour demand than in the past.

This is very important when policy towards China is determined and when the policy is considered generally - more investments in education and skill building is necessary. And that means that social component of the policy is required - if there is social background, then people can learn, build skills and move into any jobs or move into better jobs and become autonomous and contributing citizens.

That is why the social-liberalism is the best policy: social component gives the basic means for basic existence and growth and risk taking and liberal component determines the further road ahead (beyond the basic) - free competition in market and unlimited opportunities in non-basic sectors.

 

[arvo]

Individual is not the isolated island. Man is the social animal according to Aquinas and that determines the necessity to collaborate - to compete or to cooperate - with others. And if man is required to interact with the other, then Church is required to issue some guidance for this interaction. And hence - all socialism vs capitalism issue is back.

 

[Hume]

Hence - there is nothing to on-shore, to bring back from China, as jobs have been automated. And even returning factories are more automatic and with less labour demand than in the past.

I disagree, but even so - you still present Americans as a consumption group rather than a work group.

If the robot moves to China there’s little human-effect as the great incidence of it has already occurred; when the laborers were fired to make way for the machine.

 

[arvo]

you still present Americans as a consumption group rather than a work group

No, America is the greatest country for innovation and science. There is no company beyond Alphabet (and it child companies like DeepMind, Google Brains, Calico, all those ventures), look at the quantum computing in Microsoft and Rigettig, look at the nuclear fusion commercialization at Tri Alpha and Simons Foundation, and Allen Foundation and OpenAI. All this drives the future and it is so exciting to see all this and try to participate in this. Europe is lacking this energy, although Europe is still very good, but a little out-dated. China is catching up.

The problem is all this talk about manufacturing in America, about blue collar jobs. All that is the past. If someone wish normal life, then high school and blue collar job will never ever be sufficient for this. That is why social component is absolutely necessary. As child requires some safe space for nurturing and growth, similarly the adolescents and in-transition adults require some safe space for education and re-education. Social component is a must in modern society, without it the growth is not possible.

 

[Hume]

The problem is all this talk about manufacturing in America, about blue collar jobs. All that is the past.

Sure. Those jobs left.

What it created was an enormous class of Americans who are either not smart enough or not monied enough to place themselves in a competitive position to pursue all these Silicon Valley tech jobs.

And thank goodness. You think the pay for those positions would be what it is if there were 1,000 or 10,000 more applicants for each job?

When your economy doesn’t provide an opportunity for your average dullard to make a livable wage then you’re in for substantial social problems.

That was the nice thing about many of these blue collar jobs that went to Mexico and China. Your average Joe Blow could do them and make a decent wage.

---

And make no mistake, that’s what happened to most in the last 30 years. My area had 6 or 7 very sizable manufacturers. After NAFTA got passed, literally all of them either left or radically scaled down as primary operations were moved elsewhere. Of the two that still own the plant, it’s just out of a hedge that if foreign conditions deteriorated they still had a semi-serviceable plant “back home” that could spin-up in a few weeks if need be. They employ a handful of people to keep the rust and rats and thieves away rather than the hundreds prior.

 

[Socrates92]

The threat that carries to most Americans is already gone - most companies treat them as consumers rather than a workforce. The production aspect of the product is likely already in China or Mexico.

As such, the business can’t leave unless they simply want to stop selling to Americans.

Fat chance.

I guess that might depend how much you plan to raise the taxes. Also, in terms of actual consumption, I’m not sure there’s much potential for growth in the USA anymore. Consumer demand in places like China is growing much quicker.

 

[Hume]

I guess that might depend how much you plan to raise the taxes. Also, in terms of actual consumption, I’m not sure there’s much potential for growth in the USA anymore. Consumer demand in places like China is growing much quicker.

That’s very true.

The American economy has matured. The latest innovation (that can push off economic maturity) of social media was well-monetized by a disappointingly narrow segment of society.