Socialism

[Mogrim]

I suggest everyone to read “Rerum novarum” and “QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS” where Pope Leo XIII criticize socialism. Also Pope John Paul II writes about it in “Centessimus annus”.
Socialism = high taxes. Bible condemn it too.
“4: The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.” (Proverbs 29,4)

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm - Quod Apostolici Munieris

 

[paradoxy]

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm - Quod Apostolici Munieris:

the revered majesty and power of kings has won such fierce hatred from their seditious people that disloyal traitors, impatient of all restraint, have more than once within a short period raised their arms in impious attempt against the lives of their own sovereigns
…

by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude
…

This is from 1878 and addresses nihilistic, radical, Marxist socialism. No one today is espousing that. I most certainly am not.

It is interesting to note that socialism is denounced, among other things, because it is anti-monarchistic and democratic in its principles.

Either socialism is wrong because it gives too much power to the state (which is supposed to be democratic), or because it takes power away from monarchs (and monarchy is seen as from God, and an image of the Kingdom of Heaven). It can’t go both ways.

Holland and Sweden are monarchies with wonderful welfare programs!

 

[vern_humphrey]

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm - Quod Apostolici Munieris:

This is from 1878 and addresses nihilistic, radical, Marxist socialism. No one today is espousing that. I most certainly am not.

It is interesting to note that socialism is denounced, among other things, because it is anti-monarchistic and democratic in its principles.

Either socialism is wrong because it gives too much power to the state (which is supposed to be democratic), or because it takes power away from monarchs (and monarchy is seen as from God, and an image of the Kingdom of Heaven). It can’t go both ways.

Holland and Sweden are monarchies with wonderful welfare programs!

If you’re willing to overlook a few minor things – like drugs, prostitution and their method of dealing with overcrowsing in nursing homes.

 

[paradoxy]

If you’re willing to overlook a few minor things – like drugs, prostitution and their method of dealing with overcrowsing in nursing homes.

Drugs, euthanasia, and prostitution ARE minor when discussing socialism. True, their laws are not God’s laws, and do not impose morality - but no other secular government does either, or homosexual acts, fornication, adultery and abortion would be illegal in all capitalist countries. I don’t see immoral things illegal in capitalist countires, so I don’t think this is a socialism issue.

Drugs, euthanasia, and prostitution were and are illegal in my country, which was Communist, then socialist, and now is democratic, with a strong social program.

 

[Mogrim]

This is from 1878 and addresses nihilistic, radical, Marxist socialism.

Centesimus Annus is from 1991.
Personally I hate socialism. High taxes are against Bible and Curch’s teaching… and against people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Drugs, euthanasia, and prostitution ARE minor when discussing socialism. True, their laws are not God’s laws, and do not impose morality - but no other secular government does either, or homosexual acts, fornication, adultery and abortion would be illegal in all capitalist countries. I don’t see immoral things illegal in capitalist countires, so I don’t think this is a socialism issue.

Drugs, euthanasia, and prostitution were and are illegal in my country, which was Communist, then socialist, and now is democratic, with a strong social program.

I fail to see how a system can be labeled “wonderful” when the elderly fear to go into nursing homes, knowing their lives will be cut short for the sake of “efficiency.”

 

[rlg94086]

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm - Quod Apostolici Munieris:

This is from 1878 and addresses nihilistic, radical, Marxist socialism. No one today is espousing that. I most certainly am not.

It is interesting to note that socialism is denounced, among other things, because it is anti-monarchistic and democratic in its principles.

Either socialism is wrong because it gives too much power to the state (which is supposed to be democratic), or because it takes power away from monarchs (and monarchy is seen as from God, and an image of the Kingdom of Heaven). It can’t go both ways.

Holland and Sweden are monarchies with wonderful welfare programs!

I don’t know Sweden’s circumstances, but my company is Dutch. The Netherlands has been cutting back on their welfare programs and labor laws because they were excessive and effecting the economy. Also, their property right laws are so cumbersome, that people will buy in Germany and commute (one of my co-workers said, if he could be approved to buy the piece of property he wanted in Holland, it would take 1-2 years to build on it and the taxes are higher.)

Also, I would note from a religious standpoint both countries are very secular. I don’t think they are an ideal from a Church standpoint.

One thing Holland does do better is retirement programs. IIRC, everyone has to put 10% into their retirement account. It is government-managed but not one big, corrupted pot of money like Social Security. I would love to see a privatized version of Holland’s method in the US.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Marxism is not the automatic equivalent of socialism as you first post stated. There exist many strains of socialism that are theistic. Some might easily argue that Jesus was a socialist. At the very least he was no Adam Smith…

The only people who argue that Jesus was a socialist are those who advocate socialism as an eocomic system. Unfortunately for socialists, they can’t reference a single time that Jesus made such a statement that the government was responsible for caring for neighbors. It is a projection of their own PERSONAL beliefs onto Jesus which is in itself grave matter.

 

[rlg94086]

The only people who argue that Jesus was a socialist are those who advocate socialism as an eocomic system. Unfortunately for socialists, they can’t reference a single time that Jesus made such a statement that the government was responsible for caring for neighbors. It is a projection of their own PERSONAL beliefs onto Jesus which is in itself grave matter.

I agree. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus advocating or discouraging any particular economic system.

 

[paradoxy]

I agree. I don’t see any evidence of Jesus advocating or discouraging any particular economic system.

I also agree

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The only people who argue that Jesus was a socialist are those who advocate socialism as an eocomic system. Unfortunately for socialists, they can’t reference a single time that Jesus made such a statement that the government was responsible for caring for neighbors. It is a projection of their own PERSONAL beliefs onto Jesus which is in itself grave matter.

How about the reverse? Can you post a comment from Jesus against a social society? Personally I do not think Jesus was talking about governments or economics so interpreting his statements as such is a stretch. When looking at " The Wicked Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16) " you certainly do not see capital principles being rewarded, however I do not believe the parable is about capitalism. I do believe Jesus was a socialist because of many Bible passages. It seems odd you would ask for Jesus to address the pagan Roman government to help the Jewish poor?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I do accept it. This is why there is a short-term gain in GDP. This is the primary measurement that models that support a minimum wage (and usually occassional increases). I just pointed out that when the model begins to incorporate assumptions regarding capital formation, productivity issues, future job skills, and future job opportunities, the effect becomes less clear and sometimes negative.

We can make a model do anything by changing the assumptions. I am curious how increasing demand, expanding the economy, increasing employment would result in a capital shortage! could you expand this?

This is probably your weakest argument because of the reality that certain people will lose their job or not get hired.

Is this common to expansion?

Additionally, because the minimum wage increase is a factor determining welfare eligibility, it doesn’t reduce benefits to those who retain their jobs but get a wage increase. But it does increase the amount of benefits that those who lose their jobs or don’t get hired.

This is very hard to follow, how does the expanding economy create job loss and increased welfare? One of the fundamentals of Reaganomics was to expand the economy and cut welfare, thus forcing the welfare to work condition

Despite being your weakest argument, this is probably the least economically significant issue as well. Most economists deem the impact on welfare (in the near-term) negligible.

See above. Negligible in the near-term. However, I believe it is significant over time because failure to get that first job (or to lose it) can lead to a systemic dependence on welfare that might last a lifetime.

well I guess first we should define welfare. If you look at retires receiving government checks the wage change will not effect their employment rate. If you look at the unemployed then the economic expansion will reduce their government unemployment checks. This is because many will participate in the expansion

And in my opinion, this issue is what usually pushes me over the top on efforts to increase the minimum wage too close to prevailing local wages for unskilled experienced workers. Training costs for inexperienced unskilled workers is quite high no matter how it is measured. Because these are “employment costs” borne by the employer because the employee is untrained, I believe that it being too close to experienced unskilled workers becomes a significant long-term detriment to job opportunities for the inexperienced.

Again I am struggling to follow you. I would say welfare reduces the drive to higher skills by separating income and work. While a well placed minimum wage combined with a sliding scale welfare system installs incentive to develop skills.

I think we both understand the issue that makes this more complex than just saying we want to improve the lives of the working poor.

As one who generally advocates for more unfettering of the economy and economic decisions, it is odd that I will make this argument. If we remove morality totally from the equation, in the end the only rational economic policies will be increasingly less government intervention in all facets. Despite being a general advocate of capitalism as the best mechanism for ensuring the best lifetime opportunities for the poor, there is justification for limited intervention to protect from egregious exploitation. Worker safety standards is one such area because of the long-term affect on their life. But, on introductory workforce wages, I believe morally we are doing more harm than good for the people we intend to help.

It seems to me all leading economic countries have welfare and strict employment laws, while countries free of welfare and employment laws are struggling. I do not think this is accidental. The “transfer” of power to reduce disparity feeds opportunity, while [truly] free societies tend to become oligopolic.

Do you think the loss of the US “robber barons” was tragic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

We can make a model do anything by changing the assumptions. I am curious how increasing demand, expanding the economy, increasing employment would result in a capital shortage!

I think some of us are mercantilists at heart, who believe the supply of capital is limited and economics is a zero-sum game.

I still treasure a post where somone informed me a “rich man” had offered to leave his stock portfolio to his home town, to be held for 500 years before spending the money. But the town turned it down after figuring that the value of the porfolio would exceed the value of the entire economy by that time.

Sadly, no matter how I tried, he couldn’t understand why this was impossible.

 

[whatevergirl]

I know the Church is very much in favor of labor unions, but what about other aspects of socialism? Are we required to vote for people who will spend more to help the poor, even if that means raising taxes, reducing private property rights, and bigger government?

I am only in favor of labor unions, if they are being used in the original intent they were formed–to save people from being taken advantage of by their employer, etc. All too often, labor unions are nowadays pricing the workers they are supposed to be advocating for, right out of a job. In a parking garage back in PA, (office building where I worked), they were striking because they wanted more money (the people who sit in the booths, giving change, to people who park in the garage) The unions were asking for $15 an hour for these workers. $15 to make change? Ok…the owner of the garage fired everyone, and put in machines that made change, and one could even use a credit card to park there, now. So, in such a case, the unions did nothing but ask for an unreasonable wage, whereby the workers lost their job, and the union lost their contract with the building.

I just wanted to share that, because I don’t think unions, in many cases nowadays, are really doing much good for who they are trying to ‘protect.’

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think some of us are mercantilists at heart, who believe the supply of capital is limited and economics is a zero-sum game.

I still treasure a post where somone informed me a “rich man” had offered to leave his stock portfolio to his home town, to be held for 500 years before spending the money. But the town turned it down after figuring that the value of the porfolio would exceed the value of the entire economy by that time.

Sadly, no matter how I tried, he couldn’t understand why this was impossible.

There is a retirement exercise in which 2 children are born the same day. One child’s grandparent places $2,000 that day into an investment for the child. Additionally the grandparent does the same for the next 4(?) birthdays, then stops adding money. This child never adds a dime to the investment. The second child grows up to be a good worker and invests $2,000 on his 21st birthday and every birthday thereafter. The projection is the child who never contributed always has a larger portfolio balance! even at age 66 when one child has made 45 contributions and the other child has made zero contributions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is a retirement exercise in which 2 children are born the same day. One child’s grandparent places $2,000 that day into an investment for the child. Additionally the grandparent does the same for the next 4(?) birthdays, then stops adding money. This child never adds a dime to the investment. The second child grows up to be a good worker and invests $2,000 on his 21st birthday and every birthday thereafter. The projection is the child who never contributed always has a larger portfolio balance! even at age 66 when one child has made 45 contributions and the other child has made zero contributions.

That’s the Time Value of Money. But no portfolio can exceed the value of the economy (as the poster thought) since the stocks in the portfolio are valued by the economy – they don’t have an independent value of their own.

Let me comment on something you said earlier, about all leading economic countries having welfare and strict employment laws, while countries free of welfare and employment laws are struggling. That’s not quite true – some of the most heavily socialized countries are among the poor nations – including Cuba, many of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations, Burma and so on.

There’s no correlation between welfare and employment laws on the one hand, and prosperity on the other.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That’s the Time Value of Money. But no portfolio can exceed the value of the economy (as the poster thought) since the stocks in the portfolio are valued by the economy – they don’t have an independent value of their own.

Let me comment on something you said earlier, about all leading economic countries having welfare and strict employment laws, while countries free of welfare and employment laws are struggling. That’s not quite true – some of the most heavily socialized countries are among the poor nations – including Cuba, many of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations, Burma and so on.

There’s no correlation between welfare and employment laws on the one hand, and prosperity on the other.

So name a few, name a few countries which have produced top productivity without welfare or employment laws.

I think you will find in the absence of the “transfer” the economy becomes unbalanced. So looking at unbalanced economy may confuse the issue. The issue is: born in to a monopolistic state how does one obtain incentives?

 

[Orionthehunter]

How about the reverse? Can you post a comment from Jesus against a social society? Personally I do not think Jesus was talking about governments or economics so interpreting his statements as such is a stretch. When looking at " The Wicked Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16) " you certainly do not see capital principles being rewarded, however I do not believe the parable is about capitalism. I do believe Jesus was a socialist because of many Bible passages. It seems odd you would ask for Jesus to address the pagan Roman government to help the Jewish poor?

Name just one that gives you the idea that he was a socialist (meaning that the delegation of the allocation of goods and services is the responsibility of the government. You are treading on concepts of the “historical Jesus” which diminishes the fact He is the Son of God.

From Texas Roofer: We can make a model do anything by changing the assumptions. I am curious how increasing demand, expanding the economy, increasing employment would result in a capital shortage! could you expand this? Is this common to expansion? This is very hard to follow, how does the expanding economy create job loss and increased welfare?

With regard to what I bolded, are you saying that all models are just complex efforts to support a preconcieved bias?

It is the nature of the increased demand. It is an allocation of resources to wages from profits without regard to productivity gains. Because profits result in savings (resources for capital formation), the allocation unrelated to productivity diminishes long-term opportunity.

From Texas Roofer: One of the fundamentals of Reaganomics was to expand the economy and cut welfare, thus forcing the welfare to work condition well I guess first we should define welfare. If you look at retires receiving government checks the wage change will not effect their employment rate. If you look at the unemployed then the economic expansion will reduce their government unemployment checks. This is because many will participate in the expansion Again I am struggling to follow you. I would say welfare reduces the drive to higher skills by separating income and work. While a well placed minimum wage combined with a sliding scale welfare system installs incentive to develop skills.

You are opening a wide can of worms that is difficult to discuss in this format. I was only addressing the fact that impact of the minimum wage has short-term effects on the economy that is slightly stimulative. However, the introduction of other factors to assess long-term effects, the results are significantly less clear and more debatable. CAF just doesn’t afford the capacity to fully discuss these items. I am not trying to avoid the issue. It is just a fact. And, probably not a meaningful exercise that will convince two amateurs like ourselves.

From Texas Roofer: It seems to me all leading economic countries have welfare and strict employment laws, while countries free of welfare and employment laws are struggling. I do not think this is accidental. The “transfer” of power to reduce disparity feeds opportunity, while [truly] free societies tend to become oligopolic.

“Seems” is certainly not a scientific word, is personally anecdotal (makes it meaningless), and dismisses other factors which can dominate. For instance, name a country that has a developed political environment and economic system which also is free of employment laws and welfare? The struggling is more a function of not having an organized political and economic system than the fact they don’t have welfare.

From Texas Roofer: Do you think the loss of the US “robber barons” was tragic?

They never should have existed in an organized capitalistic system. The problem was not too much capitalism but too little. Again, you are attempting to just throw out a premise which is simplistic and not conducive to debate on CAF.

From Texas Roofer: So name a few, name a few countries which have produced top productivity without welfare or employment laws.

Poor question: Name a single developed country which has no welfare or employment laws. It is possible that such countries would have increased productivity without these laws. By the way, the fastest two economies in the world are doing so because they have virtually no employment protection or welfare: China and India.

From Texas Roofer: I think you will find in the absence of the “transfer” the economy becomes unbalanced. So looking at unbalanced economy may confuse the issue. The issue is: born in to a monopolistic state how does one obtain incentives?

I think otherwise. It is the creative destruction of the US economy that insures incentives. Monopolies only occur because of government intrusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So name a few, name a few countries which have produced top productivity without welfare or employment laws.

England, France, the United States. That enough?

All those nations were industrialized well before they had welfare laws anyhting like those they have today.

I think you will find in the absence of the “transfer” the economy becomes unbalanced. So looking at unbalanced economy may confuse the issue.

What do you mean by “unbalanced?” How is it bad?

The issue is: born in to a monopolistic state how does one obtain incentives?

Monopoly is not capitalism. Capitalism is “the private ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive environment.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Name just one that gives you the idea that he was a socialist (meaning that the delegation of the allocation of goods and services is the responsibility of the government. You are treading on concepts of the “historical Jesus” which diminishes the fact He is the Son of God.

Not at all. My guess is, it is the word “government” which this is hinged on, thus avoiding all relevant teachings concerning giving

With regard to what I bolded, are you saying that all models are just complex efforts to support a preconcieved bias?

Well those are your words, mine are closer to “Until you have a theory there is nothing to build a model on.”

It is the nature of the increased demand. It is an allocation of resources to wages from profits without regard to productivity gains. Because profits result in savings (resources for capital formation), the allocation unrelated to productivity diminishes long-term opportunity.

Theatrically wage equals productivity however that reduces capitalism to the self employed only. In the real world productivity has return on equity subtracted plus certain taxes the remainder is available as wage. So there is a gap between productivity and wage. Yet the assumption of the gap remaining constant is an error

You are opening a wide can of worms that is difficult to discuss in this format. I was only addressing the fact that impact of the minimum wage has short-term effects on the economy that is slightly stimulative. However, the introduction of other factors to assess long-term effects, the results are significantly less clear and more debatable. CAF just doesn’t afford the capacity to fully discuss these items. I am not trying to avoid the issue. It is just a fact. And, probably not a meaningful exercise that will convince two amateurs like ourselves.

“Seems” is certainly not a scientific word, is personally anecdotal (makes it meaningless), and dismisses other factors which can dominate. For instance, name a country that has a developed political environment and economic system which also is free of employment laws and welfare? The struggling is more a function of not having an organized political and economic system than the fact they don’t have welfare.

maybe the laws assist the higher productivity?

They never should have existed in an organized capitalistic system. The problem was not too much capitalism but too little. Again, you are attempting to just throw out a premise which is simplistic and not conducive to debate on CAF.

They did exist, so who screwed up? maybe they were a natural progression of capitalism?

Poor question: Name a single developed country which has no welfare or employment laws. It is possible that such countries would have increased productivity without these laws. By the way, the fastest two economies in the world are doing so because they have virtually no employment protection or welfare: China and India.

So one will not be named. My guess is China & India will have to install the proper infrastructure to catch up

I think otherwise. It is the creative destruction of the US economy that insures incentives. Monopolies only occur because of government intrusion.

Do you really believe no man made monopoly as “Getty Oil” existed?