Socialism

[Texas_Roofer]

England, France, the United States. That enough?

all produced thier best productivity with employment and welfare laws.

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

All have higher standards of living today than before the laws were imposed

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

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

Who decides what a competitive environment is? The robber barons lived in a competitive environment. Maybe increasing the minimum wage makes the environment more competitive, resulting in increased long term profits?

 

[vern_humphrey]

all produced thier best productivity with employment and welfare laws.

No, they didn’t. The United States, for example became a creditor nation around 1870 – long before welfare was introduced.

We became a debtor nation again just about the time the Great Society kicked in.

All have higher standards of living today than before the laws were imposed

Without a casual link between welfare and higher living standards, that is irrelevant.

Who decides what a competitive environment is?

Ah, I see your problem – you see economics as an on-command feature. It isn’t – you might as well ask. “Who decides what a wet or dry environment is?”

The answer is that none of those things – competitiveness, wetness or dryness – are “decided” by anyone. They are the result of the factors of the economy or the climate, and are not subject to some referee or decision-maker.

If you want to know if an area is wet or dry, put out a rain gauge!

If you want to know if a nation is compeitive, see if it is growing richer or poorer in comparison with it’s neighbors.

The robber barons lived in a competitive environment.

No, they did not – they lived in an environment that allowed monopolies or “trusts” to develop – just the opposite of a competitive environment.

Maybe increasing the minimum wage makes the environment more competitive, resulting in increased long term profits?

Actually, increasing the minimum wage prices the least skilled workers out of the market. As a result, some jobs are lost forever (gas station attendant, for example.) Other jobs are exported overseas (garment makers, for example.) And still others are done by the labor black market – the millions of illegal immigrants who work “under the table.”

 

[Orionthehunter]

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

But you said that Jesus was a socialist which requires government intervention. Jesus spoke about the individuals personal obligation to his neighbor. It is a logic leap to claim that he

From Texas Roofer: 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 maybe the laws assist the higher productivity?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Coercion.

That’s the key word for Socialism.

For, without coercion, people would abandon Socialism the next day.

Kind of an oxymoron … voluntary socialism.

Self contradictory.

Kind of what advocates of socialized medicine say … it’s wonderful insurance until you actually need medical care. They you make an appointment and wait and wait and wait. And maybe die while you are waiting.

In the UK, I understand that the socialized medical folks are no longer providing maternity services. If you need to have “child birth”, you no longer go to the hospital for it. [Can this be true???]

 

[paradoxy]

Coercion.

That’s the key word for Socialism.

For, without coercion, people would abandon Socialism the next day.

Kind of an oxymoron … voluntary socialism.

Self contradictory.

Kind of what advocates of socialized medicine say … it’s wonderful insurance until you actually need medical care. They you make an appointment and wait and wait and wait. And maybe die while you are waiting.

In the UK, I understand that the socialized medical folks are no longer providing maternity services. If you need to have “child birth”, you no longer go to the hospital for it. [Can this be true???]

Well, I certainly wouldn’t ‘abandon’ the socialized system I live in. In fact, I keep voting for the same guys.

Don’t know about UK, but here in Serbia we have socialized medicine and education.

When I was pregnant, I had monthly check-ups and ultrasounds. I gave birth in a hospital. They normally keep you for three days ‘just in case’ and so you can recuperate. My daughter was suspected to be developing an infection, so they kept the two of us for 10 days, until it was certain she was in perfect health. She has regular check-ups and vaccinations. So far, I haven’t paid a dime.

I’ll have a year of paid maternity leave for each child. My kids will have a good, safe, free education until university, and even at uni if they’re any good - among the top third or even half of students.

No coercion necessary. I don’t want to abandon this, thank you.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Coercion.

That’s the key word for Socialism.

For, without coercion, people would abandon Socialism the next day.

Kind of an oxymoron … voluntary socialism.

Self contradictory.

Kind of what advocates of socialized medicine say … it’s wonderful insurance until you actually need medical care. They you make an appointment and wait and wait and wait. And maybe die while you are waiting.

In the UK, I understand that the socialized medical folks are no longer providing maternity services. If you need to have “child birth”, you no longer go to the hospital for it. [Can this be true???]

If you think that women in the UK can no longer go to the hospital when giving birth, that’s a sign that you should do some more investigation before forming an opinion on ‘socialism’. It’s important to find out what goes on in other countries before condemning their systems.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, they didn’t. The United States, for example became a creditor nation around 1870 – long before welfare was introduced.

We became a debtor nation again just about the time the Great Society kicked in.

I am not checking this out as it is irrelevant, the debt issue is a result of spending, not employment laws or reasonable welfare

Without a casual link between welfare and higher living standards, that is irrelevant.

Ah, I see your problem – you see economics as an on-command feature. It isn’t – you might as well ask. “Who decides what a wet or dry environment is?”

The answer is that none of those things – competitiveness, wetness or dryness – are “decided” by anyone. They are the result of the factors of the economy or the climate, and are not subject to some referee or decision-maker.

If you want to know if an area is wet or dry, put out a rain gauge!

If you want to know if a nation is compeitive, see if it is growing richer or poorer in comparison with it’s neighbors.

No, they did not – they lived in an environment that allowed monopolies or “trusts” to develop – just the opposite of a competitive environment.

the robber barrons believed they lived in a competitive envornment so they or you have to be wrong, the question is on what standard to they or you judge?

Actually, increasing the minimum wage prices the least skilled workers out of the market. As a result, some jobs are lost forever (gas station attendant, for example.) Other jobs are exported overseas (garment makers, for example.) And still others are done by the labor black market – the millions of illegal immigrants who work “under the table.”

That is fundental “supply side economics” which requires the facts of all follow up studies be dismissed

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But you said that Jesus was a socialist which requires government intervention. Jesus spoke about the individuals personal obligation to his neighbor. It is a logic leap to claim that he

I said I believe he was, I see no evidence to the contrary to you?

Definition: Productivity is a measure relating a quantity or quality of output to the (name removed by moderator)uts required to produce it. In this context, we are talking about labor productivity “which is can be measured by quantity of output per time spent or numbers employed. Could be measured in, for example, U.S. dollars per hour.” Productivity and wage paid are irrelevant and unrelated. This is basic economics.

Typically wage is the measure of productivity outside of micromanagement which typically uses units. The problem is company employees wage is reduced from productivity so we do not have an accurate measure.

Getty was never a monopoly. Now, Rockefeller did develop a business that was deemed to have too large a market share and was broken up.

'um so Rockefellow’s Standard Oil was or was not a monoploy?

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Texa Roofer: I said I believe he was, I see no evidence to the contrary to you?

Jesus is God. His mission was the salvation of souls. I see no evidence that he was a socialist.

From Texas Roofer: Typically wage is the measure of productivity outside of micromanagement which typically uses units. The problem is company employees wage is reduced from productivity so we do not have an accurate measure.

If I get paid $1 an hour or $1mm an hour, it is irrelevant to my productivity. You really need an economics class.

from Texas Roofer: 'um so Rockefellow’s Standard Oil was or was not a monoploy?

Rockefesser gained extraordinary market share by virtue of his willingness to raise capital early in the oil boom. He was ahead of his time. However, by the time he was broken up, his business had become moribound. I believe that his monopoly status was short-lived. The power of creative destruction in capitalism is powerful.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Jesus is God. His mission was the salvation of souls. I see no evidence that he was a socialist.

governments are of men, by men, for men, so if the man believes in caring for his neighbor this action is reflected in his government

If I get paid $1 an hour or $1mm an hour, it is irrelevant to my productivity. You really need an economics class.

:bounce: So teach me an economics lesson

Rockefesser gained extraordinary market share by virtue of his willingness to raise capital early in the oil boom. He was ahead of his time. However, by the time he was broken up, his business had become moribound. I believe that his monopoly status was short-lived. The power of creative destruction in capitalism is powerful.

I see no reason his business was ‘moribound’. It seems you now except monopolies were generated in the free market? So how does the monopoly oppose capitalism?

 

[vern_humphrey]

governments are of men, by men, for men, so if the man believes in caring for his neighbor this action is reflected in his government

The problem is most men don’t believe in caring for their neighbors – they believe in making someone else care for the neighbor.

So teach me an economics lesson I see no reason his business was ‘moribound’. It seems you now except monopolies were generated in the free market? So how does the monopoly oppose capitalism?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit, in a competitive environment. Therefore neither monopolies nor monopsies are forms of capitalism, since they suppress competition.

And neither monopolies nor monopsonies are “generated in the free market.” They are generated by government, with corrupt politicians passing and enforcing laws that further non-competitive economic activities.

 

[Peregrino]

Coercion.

That’s the key word for Socialism.

For, without coercion, people would abandon Socialism the next day.

Kind of an oxymoron … voluntary socialism.

Self contradictory.

Go read the Rule of St. Benedict and then form an opinion about “voluntary socialism” (I hate using these terms as they are so value laden):

CHAPTER XXXIII
Whether Monks Ought to Have Anything of Their Own
The vice of personal ownership must by all means be cut out in the monastery by the very root, so that no one may presume to give or receive anything without the command of the Abbot; nor to have anything whatever as his own, neither a book, nor a writing tablet, nor a pen, nor anything else whatsoever, since monks are allowed to have neither their bodies nor their wills in their own power. Everything that is necessary, however, they must look for from the Father of the monastery; and let it not be allowed for anyone to have anything which the Abbot did not give or permit him to have. Let all things be common to all, as it is written. And let no one call or take to himself anything as his own (cf Acts 4:32). But if anyone should be found to indulge this most baneful vice, and, having been admonished once and again, doth not amend, let him be subjected to punishment (emphasis mine*).*

Monastic life is a voluntary endeavor last time I checked. I find it interesting that such strong language is used, especially by a Saint of the Church…

 

[Brendan]

Monastic life is a voluntary endeavor last time I checked. I find it interesting that such strong language is used, especially by a Saint of the Church…

Yep, each person makes a personal choice to give up their personal belonging. Each person chooses to give up what they deem necessary for their own spiritual journey. For example they could choose to give up everything and become a vowed brother, or they could live in an house with an Xbox and SUV and be a 3rd Order. Either one is fine with the Benedictines.

This differs from Socialism, where the Benedictines would not only grab all the 3rd Order’s belonging, but would also take the Dominican’s stuff as well.

 

[Peregrino]

This differs from Socialism, where the Benedictines would not only grab all the 3rd Order’s belonging, but would also take the Dominican’s stuff as well.

You are EXACTLY correct in emphasizing the voluntariness of the Benedictine approach. In my opinion, it is the concept of voluntariness that makes it work and is the only conditions under which it would probably work given our selfish nature. The early Christian’s choice to give up all to the community and follow the Lord and the apostles as we see in Acts is a perfect example of this voluntary distribution of goods to the community.

 

[rlg94086]

Yep, each person makes a personal choice to give up their personal belonging. Each person chooses to give up what they deem necessary for their own spiritual journey. For example they could choose to give up everything and become a vowed brother, or they could live in an house with an** Xbox and SUV** and be a 3rd Order. Either one is fine with the Benedictines.

This differs from Socialism, where the Benedictines would not only grab all the 3rd Order’s belonging, but would also take the Dominican’s stuff as well.

Hey now…no Xbox or SUV here!

but…I guess my big screen HDTV would probably count in that category.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I have come to the decision that medicine, should be seperated out when we speak of eco-political systems. It’s getting confused with other sectors, and creating the illusion of Soviet communism in American minds. I have come to view health and medicine apart from most other aspects of civilized society. I wish a hybrid system in the U.S. that begins to regard medicine as a human and civil right, and while capitalism must be allowed to flourish in most sectors of society, it is cruel and inhumane for a Government, not to provide birth to death medical to it’s citizens.

Why can’t we accept National Health in the U.S., and still allow free enterprise for other sectors and businesses? Aren’t we ingenious enough for that? We used to be. The U.S. doesn’t even seem to want to discuss the benefits of National health. We’ve been snowed for so long that we’ve convinced ourselves that even in health care people must be on their own. We seem to view health as a luxury. Where is the love and charity of Christ in that?

I just don’t understand anymore. I thought the other way my whole life. Now that I’ve seen the heart of Jesus Christ, I can’t buy into our health system anymore. It’s a lie. It’s cold, unloving, and greedy, and the propaganda machine that we don’t want to admit exists in the U.S. has convinced us that National Health is some kind of horrid, monstrous, marxist, red commie, tyranist concept. It is not. Pure and simple. It is the way that most of the world conducts business. And don’t start with all the stories about how it doesn’t work out in other countries. That’s propaganda too. Yeah you can find some grumbling. It’s nothing compared to what you can drum up in a pair of seconds here in the U.S., I guarantee it. Everybody has a horror story in this country if they’re honest with themselves, and don’t let American pride get in front of everything. Pride comes before a fall.

I’m listening to the right and left both drop the ball on this to such a degree that I think the U.S. just might be permanently brainwashed and ruined by the cold war. Sad sad sad. This country is in deep crisis.

What are we saying with the way we act now? Are we failing to understand how many people we’re killing in our own country by denial of decent health care? This is not a communist idea. This is human necessesity. The survival of our country depends on our compassion, love, openness and diplomacy. We need to be Christlike to each other, and it would be nice if that included our Government. We need to USE our Democracy.

These ideas about medicine are new to me in the sense of belief, but not in concept. I’m not naive. I know the pros and cons. The pros far outweigh the cons. Period. I never believed it before, and now I can’t un-believe it. It’s as clear as my faith in the Lord.

There is nobody. Nada. No right and no left wing, nor independent offering to even propose National Health. We’re so entrenched that it’s probably not even possible anymore. The ship may have sailed, but I’m going to sure try until I can’t anymore. I love this country. It is not anti-American to want change. The change I seek is reasonable, although it will be far beyond my life time, (if ever), that we sort it all out. Part of the problem of only being a couple centuries old as a country, I suppose. I’m just hoping to plant seeds out of my compassion and love for my God, my family, and believe it or not, your family too. You’re the neighbors I’m supposed to love.

Thank you for letting me vent. It’s been an important exercise for me. If you disagree, which I expect you all do, that’s fine. It’s what I expect. I just need to keep hammering at it whenever I get a chance until one American agrees enough to talk to another American about it heart to heart. The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step after all. A few generations from now, who knows, if Jesus hasn’t come back already, than we finally might change our prevailing thought. Most of our experiment of the U.S. has been pretty good. Free trade (vice FAIR trade), and globalization of enterprise are a pretty big bummer, but the whole world is going to have to grapple with that over the next couple hundred years. That’s not just an American problem. They are products of unbridled, raw capitalism to the point of being something a bit more mean and greedy than some of the things we always used to stand against!

In the mean time,

Don’t fear. Be not afraid. Challenge and question everything that the Government tells you, if it doesn’t involve helping it’s poorest and weakest citizens. Period.

Imitate Christ.

Peace be with you all,

Steven

 

[Brendan]

Why can’t we accept National Health in the U.S., and still allow free enterprise for other sectors and businesses? Aren’t we ingenious enough for that? We used to be. The U.S. doesn’t even seem to want to discuss the benefits of National health. We’ve been snowed for so long that we’ve convinced ourselves that even in health care people must be on their own. We seem to view health as a luxury. Where is the love and charity of Christ in that?

I depends on what you are talking about. If you mean that the poor should have good health coverage, I think we all can agree with you.

If you mean that the government should control all of health care, then that is wrong, and actually rather un-Catholic.

Cathoilic Social teaching involves a concept know as Substidary. That the State or upper classes should not do for the lower classes what they can do themselves.

The Poor cannot provide their own health insurance, so it falls to the State to provide it for them.

But for all those who CAN provide their own insurance, the State has no moral right to provide it for them.

This includes those who are capable for purchasing insurance, but choose not to. I’m not saying that they choose to buy reasonable food or shelter, but those who choose to spend money on non necessary material goods.

You mentioned the 'heart of Jesus Christ", the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit instructed Paul to write ( 1 Thes 3)

We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, **we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” ** We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

That is the heart of Catholic Social Teaching, to help those who cannot help themselves. But those who can should earn their own way.

In addition, since I live in a border town with Canada, I see what a full National Health system does. It denies the medical professionals their just wage. A social system produces waste ( as St. Paul noted, there are always freeloaders). So a national system has to have a form of rationing. Which means that some people don’t get the care they need in the time they need it. In order to drive down the costs, the nation system in Canada short changes the doctors and nurses. They have no place else to go, its illegal for them to work in Canada outside of the national system.

So they come to work in Detroit. One of the nurses in our kid’s doctors office lives in Canada, but drives in. The Canadain system decided her town had more hospitals than the government could pay, so it closed one down. She got a job in the Detroit area, and makes significatly more than she did in Windsor.

At least in a market environment, Doctors and nurses are paid what they are worth, not by how much the government has budgeted.

, I can’t buy into our health system anymore. It’s a lie. It’s cold, unloving, and greedy, and the propaganda machine that we don’t want to admit exists in the U.S. has convinced us that National Health is some kind of horrid, monstrous, marxist, red commie, tyranist concept.

I fail to see what you are talking about. The most common Healt Care provider in Blue Cross, which is a non-profit corporation. Can you please explain exactly how they are greedy?

In addition, 3 of the 7 major hospitals in my area are Catholic, could you explain how a Church owned hospital is unloving?

What I DO see is the trial lawyers who bay at the heels of the doctors. Doctors, in order to prevent malpractice suits, now have to order tests and procedures that they would mostly consider to be unneccesary. That, or course, drives up the costs that the insurers have to pay.

If you want to see more affordable health care, work to limit med mal suits.

 

[milde]

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?

Everyone walks off the job in unison and threatens to destroy their employer unless they get what they want. But the law won’t let you fire them for not coming into work.

The church supports this? Why don’t they just support finding a different employer instead? This is what mature and well adjusted people do. They don’t threaten their current employer if they don’t feel like the relationship isn’t working for them.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I depends on what you are talking about. If you mean that the poor should have good health coverage, I think we all can agree with you.

If you mean that the government should control all of health care, then that is wrong, and actually rather un-Catholic.

Cathoilic Social teaching involves a concept know as Substidary. That the State or upper classes should not do for the lower classes what they can do themselves.

Brendan:

I don’t know you, or your motives, etc. I admit, I am still learning Catholic social teachings since my conversion. I don’t believe you’d intentionally lie to me about the Church’s teachings, and I will admit that Christ’s econmic ideas are unknown to me after just RCIA, and what I’ve been able to glean from my Bible and Catechism, but you do make a good point that I’m speaking with an opinion that is possibly outside my faith. If that turns out to be the case, I of course go with the Church. I’m going to go research this as deeply as I can with only Church resources. If you are telling the truth here, and Jesus was a capitalist, and that’s where our Church ended up, I’ll have to accept that. I’m one of the most vocal people about cafeterial Catholicism, and I’ve probably already stuck my foot deeply in my mouth here, so I’ll cease and desist for now. If I find that you’re proof texting or drawing conclusions then I’m going to stick with my belief, regardless of your interpretation, if I find it is in fact consistent with our Church.

In any event, we are sincerely not seeing even similar systems in place in the U.S… Blaming a problem as deep and convoluted as the U.S. health care system the single element of malpractice lawyers is every bit as naive as my statements I’d wager. If you find the modern version of BCBS to be humane, (I’ve been a member several times through my FEHB), then I’m really missing something. I know from research that most countries with national health do much better than we do in overall care. We’re falling pretty low on the list here in the U.S. these days.

I’m not saying it’s always been that way, or that something else wouldn’t work. (single payor, perhaps?), but then that still leaves insurance companies in the Health Care business, and I’m afraid the corruption level has gone too far in that to continue. Hey…like you, or any other American, I can only vote. You’ll be happy to know that no politician in the U.S. will ever bring up national health and be taken seriously without a revolution, and I DO deeply know that Christ views revolution as wrong, so, there we are. You win by default on the U.S. reality issue, but as for the Church teachings, I’m going to take a very close look before I get back into this with you or anyone else on this. With full context. I can’t believe that the Church’s teaching would be in favor of out and out Capitalism, OR shaky “not for profits”. I don’t have a beef with any Catholic Hospitals that I’m aware of.

I know the Church didn’t approve of Soviet style communism, of course, but I wouldn’t think they’d be against socialzed medicne. I just can’t believe that. It doesn’t fit with the perponderance of evidence from our other teachings. In the mean time, I give this round to you, sir.

Peace to you,

Steven

 

[milde]

I know the Church didn’t approve of Soviet style communism, of course, but I wouldn’t think they’d be against socialzed medicne. I just can’t believe that. It doesn’t fit with the perponderance of evidence from our other teachings. In the mean time, I give this round to you, sir.

Peace to you,

Steven

My understanding is that socialized medicine is where you seize property from others by force (or the threat of force) and use the money taken to provide health care for others. Is this what you feel the church supports? Clearly government does not create wealth on its on. It only takes wealth from others and redistributes it.