Why do you feel socialism is bad?

[CPA2]

The United States Postal Service seems to be following Dr. Max Gammon’s Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement: An increase in expenditure of money will be followed by a fall in production. Such a system acts like a black hole in the economic universe. Costs go up and benefits decline. James Miller, director of the Office of Management and Budget said, **“The Postal Service is a monstrosity. It is overstaffed, overpriced and inefficient. Postal patrons are paying more and more and getting less and less in return (Castro, 1988).” **Postmaster General Potter (2002) wants to restructure the Postal Service into “a commercial government enterprise that would operate under more businesslike conditions than currently possible." I think that Postmaster General Potter is rearranging the deck chairs on the USPS Titanic. Why do we need the United States Postal Service?

The United States Postal Service is an example of why a hybrid between capitalism and social welfare does not work and never will! The cost is greater than the benefit. Why do we need government welfare programs? Our nation was very successful before the introduction of social welfare.

Benjamin Franklin’s beloved Post Office is in trouble, again. Postal volume is falling, and the USPS is unable to cut costs fast enough. The General Accounting Office says, “USPS’s basic business model, which assumes that rising mail volume will cover rising costs and mitigate rate increases, is increasingly problematic since mail volume could stagnate or decline further.” Its business model is “unsustainable” and its financial outlook is “increasingly dire (Krause, 2002).”

The United States Postal Service’s basic problem is its Universal Service Obligation (USO). The Postal Service USO is a positive externality that Congress wants to subsidize. “Every American – no matter who, no matter where – has a fundamental right to affordable, accessible mail service,” said John E. Potter, Postmaster General (Potter, 2002). Congress gave the USPS a monopoly over First-Class Mail in exchange for universal postal service to all areas of the United States.

**What is the cost of the Universal Service Obligation (social welfare)? The U.S. Postal Service does not know! **

**As long as the Postal Service is a subsidized quasi-government agency, we may never know the full scope and costs of the Postal Service’s universal service obligations. ** A privatized Postal Service would drop unprofitable services and products. These abandoned services and products would be a visible sign of the scope and costs of the Postal Service’s USOs.

 

[Lycorth]

Distributism and Corporatism are never considered, but they are very important economic concepts that Catholics ought to take a fresh look at.

Capitalism has many good points but requires restraint in the form of regulations and anti-trust laws, or else the pursuit of profit will lead to greed and abuses. But, without equal opportunity and a reasonably free market, there can be little to no trade or necessary commerce. Socialism has a good intention in the form of social justice and seeing to the needs of the poor, but rarely if ever can a workable socialist government be found, especially in large nations. But a state has an obligation to serve its citizens, so long as this service does not come at the expense of the very people who need help.

Seeing that the means of production are spread as widely as possible amongst the general populace and seeing that the corporate groups of society are gathered together into guilds wherein they are mandated to negotiate policies and practices in the interests of their fellows, I think, will go miles to ensure a more just society both economically and socially.

I spent a lot of time as a socialist; what I really was would be better described as a Corporate Nationalist. I think that many socialists, if not most, rather fall into this category.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Socialism by any other name is still Socialism.

 

[Lycorth]

Socialism by any other name is still Socialism.

Corporate nationalism is not socialism.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Seeing that the means of production are spread as widely as possible amongst the general populace …

The problem I have with this is that it increases inefficiency. Take the case of land redistribution in Zimbabwe under Mugabe jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100202.asp . Zimbabwe use to be a food exporter, the breadbasket of Africa; now people are starving. Obviously, some balance must be struck.

 

[Lycorth]

The problem I have with this is that it increases inefficiency. Take the case of land redistribution in Zimbabwe under Mugabe jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100202.asp . Zimbabwe use to be a food exporter, the breadbasket of Africa; now people are starving. Obviously, some balance must be struck.

Distributism is not redistributionism. Furthermore, this is Zimbabwe we’re talking about; those idiots killed the very people who fed them in the first place.

Distributism is essentially the defense of small business and the opposition of large corporations, though to be sure some products are only suited for large, mass production (munitions, medical supplies, etc). This has nothing to do with redistributing wealth or property a-la a socialist state. It was developed by anti-socialist Catholics for crying out loud.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Corporate nationalism is not socialism.

Corporate Nationalism advocates the governmental ownership of “corporations” in the name of National Good. That’s the rallying cry of Socialism: government ownership because the private sector cannot be trusted to do what is right. Socialism exploits fear to gain power and ownership.

No one is denying charity, it is a virtue – the people must be left to be individually virtuous.

 

[Lycorth]

Corporate Nationalism advocates the governmental ownership of “corporations” in the name of National Good. That’s the rallying cry of Socialism:

It advocates the *regulation *of corporations and this can lead to nationalization, especially in the cases of corporations that harm the national good. Corporations that do more harm than good ought to be nationalized (though this assumes a proper form of government in the first place as opposed to the abomination we have now); the good of the nation is more important.

… government ownership because the private sector cannot be trusted to do what is right.

It can’t be - that’s why there are laws and regulations in any economy. People are not naturally self-regulating.

Socialism exploits fear to gain power and ownership.

Anyone can argue that about anything, even the Church.

No one is denying charity, it is a virtue – the people must be left to be individually virtuous.

Regulation and control are necessary to prevent abuses. Human nature is not self-correcting, especially when money and power are involved.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

It advocates the *regulation *of corporations and this can lead to nationalization, especially in the cases of corporations that harm the national good. Corporations that do more harm than good ought to be nationalized (though this assumes a proper form of government in the first place as opposed to the abomination we have now); the good of the nation is more important.

Then the people can vote with their pocketbook to support a morally just corporation. People can choose to work for a morally just corporation.

It can’t be - that’s why there are laws and regulations in any economy. People are not naturally self-regulating.

We are each born with original sin but by the Grace of God and education through His Church self-regulation can be striven for and taught. It may be tough and there may be abuses – all the more reason for individuals to try harder. If the government fails or is defeated for whatever reason, the people still have the God given gift to choose right from wrong rather than depending upon the government.

Anyone can argue that about anything, even the Church.

About humans, but not His Church, The Catholic Church. Not Truthfully.

Regulation and control are necessary to prevent abuses. Human nature is not self-correcting, especially when money and power are involved.

(see above concerning self-regulation)

 

[CPA2]

Surprise! Surprise! The government has no idea what a cost/benefit analysis is. They see a fly and they use a sledge hammer to kill it!

“In fact, ever since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley 22 months ago, corporations have been girding for a tough new internal controls standard from PCAOB. But now that they’re getting an inkling of how burdensome the compliance process can be, many executives are loudly complaining that the cost far outweighs the potential benefits to investors. Of the 98 comment letters on Audit Standard No. 2 that PCAOB has received from corporate executives or business groups, almost all say the standard is too burdensome. “[It] will result in far too much redundant, valueless effort by the auditors,” wrote Steven Root, director of finance administration and process at Northrop Grumman Corp. AT&T controller Nick Cyprus suggested that “external auditors should have the ability to rely more heavily on the work of independent internal audit departments.” And Robert Brust, CFO of Eastman Kodak Co., put the issue in a global context. “The proposal has the potential to place U.S. companies at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors,” he wrote.”

 

[Lycorth]

Then the people can vote with their pocketbook to support a morally just corporation. People can choose to work for a morally just corporation.

People can, but people don’t. That’s why Walmart is still in business and the mom-and-pops are being swept aside; just offer cheap products and people will indeed vote with their wallets - and buy where things are cheapest.

We can do better than that.

We are each born with original sin but by the Grace of God and education through His Church self-regulation can be striven for and taught. It may be tough and there may be abuses – all the more reason for individuals to try harder. If the government fails or is defeated for whatever reason, the people still have the God given gift to choose right from wrong rather than depending upon the government.

I agree with much of this; however, the government has a responsibility to act in a Catholic fashion and defend the interests of the nation over and above both mass profit and the interests of international finance.

Self-regulation is a great idea on paper but that’s why we have laws - because it usually doesn’t happen. Heck, that’s why we have confession; we would not sin if we were self-correcting.

About humans, but not His Church, The Catholic Church. Not Truthfully.

Not truthfully, to be sure - but they do it, anyway. My point is that socialism must be judged according to its faults, not with vague phrases.

(see above concerning self-regulation)

(see above response)

 

[tjm190]

People can, but people don’t. That’s why Walmart is still in business and the mom-and-pops are being swept aside; just offer cheap products and people will indeed vote with their wallets - and buy where things are cheapest.

We can do better than that.

When people want Walmart gone, it will be gone. There’s no reason to legislate against companies that have won and are winning fair and square. If they’re cheating, then address the way in which that is happening.

 

[John21652]

Distributism and Corporatism are never considered, but they are very important economic concepts that Catholics ought to take a fresh look at.

Capitalism has many good points but requires restraint in the form of regulations and anti-trust laws, or else the pursuit of profit will lead to greed and abuses. But, without equal opportunity and a reasonably free market, there can be little to no trade or necessary commerce. Socialism has a good intention in the form of social justice and seeing to the needs of the poor, but rarely if ever can a workable socialist government be found, especially in large nations. But a state has an obligation to serve its citizens, so long as this service does not come at the expense of the very people who need help.

Seeing that the means of production are spread as widely as possible amongst the general populace and seeing that the corporate groups of society are gathered together into guilds wherein they are mandated to negotiate policies and practices in the interests of their fellows, I think, will go miles to ensure a more just society both economically and socially.

I spent a lot of time as a socialist; what I really was would be better described as a Corporate Nationalist. I think that many socialists, if not most, rather fall into this category.

You would do well to go back and consider some first principles. Ask yourself why capitalism needs regulation in the first place. Whilst asking yourself that question, don’t forget to ask yourself what gave rise to trusts and corporations in the first place. Your answer should lead you back to what you call 'distributism.

Proponents of Corporate Nationalism always make the same mistake. They forget to include human nature in their deliberations. They think that corporations wont behave as individuals do, when in fact they do.

Socialism gives rise to state corporatism. Big government, big business, big unions. Bureacracies grow and become self serving. Rank, power and prestige are given by the buraucracy. Efficiency is lost because of a plethora of checks and balances put into place to control the bureaucratic decision making process. Quasi government agencies run peoples lives and decide on people’s societal arrangements without recourse to the strings of the representative process. Democracy is eroded because the decision making process is more and more prescribed. Government is through regulation, not legislation. Governments no longer listen to constituents, but to large lobby groups who can afford the expense of long and costly submissions. Unionism becomes more and more coercive and has the ear of big government and a say in the running of government departments. Seek out and read what Anne O Krueger wrote in a landmark paper entitled ‘The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society’ published in 1974 in the American Economic Review. Rent-seeking theory explains a range of corrupt or otherwise objectionable behaviour commonly observed in the interface between markets, governments and statutory laws and regulations, Managers regiment life across the board through the promulgation of rules and regulations. Personal decision making is subverted. Personal responsibility is likewise subverted. People are rendered servile. Society becomes soulless. It is common in all socialist economies and was grossly manifest in Communist Russia. Personal responsibility in government is subjugated by rules and regulations. Committees make decisions based on consensus and leadership is forgone in the name of consensus. Croneyism runs rampant and people rise and thrive through largesse, through who they know.

Welfare is the central component of a managed state, because it exploits and cultivates a class of beneficiaries or pensioners who are dependent on the government, not to mention an apparatus distributing these benefits which has, of course, an interest in its continuance and expansion, that is, a self serving bureaucracy. Government as bringer of justice as fairness complements an assumption about government implicit in the entire conception of the managed state. It is that governments are not only wiser than their citizens, but also morally superior. They take the wider view. They help the poor, whereas the citizens are engaged in pursuing selfish pleasures.

Coirporatism allows for behaviours that even individuals would baulk at, because the corporatists hide behind their rules and regulations and committee-made-decisions. Personal responsibilty is subjugated.

 

[Lycorth]

When people want Walmart gone, it will be gone. There’s no reason to legislate against companies that have won and are winning fair and square. If they’re cheating, then address the way in which that is happening.

The people won’t want it gone. That’s my point; as long as cheap objects keep rolling in, who cares that they are imported mostly from a hostile nation and of shoddy quality?

As long as quantity is held superior to quality, I don’t suppose anything will change, though.

You would do well to go back and consider some first principles. Ask yourself why capitalism needs regulation in the first place. Whilst asking yourself that question, don’t forget to ask yourself what gave rise to trusts and corporations in the first place. Your answer should lead you back to what you call 'distributism.

How did distributism lead to trusts and mega-corporations? Unless you mean to say that big businesses all began from a world of small ones, then I see what you mean, but since distributism is protectionist in nature, an actual distributionist society would not permit the rise of trusts and mega-corps to begin with.

Proponents of Corporate Nationalism always make the same mistake. They forget to include human nature in their deliberations. They think that corporations wont behave as individuals do, when in fact they do.

I’d make this claim of those who favor unrestrained capitalism. I support what are basically national capitalist/corporate nationalist ideas precisely because human nature is what it is (ie, sinful and fallen) and nothing therefore is self-regulating, including the market.

Socialism gives rise to state corporatism. Big government, big business, big unions. Bureacracies grow and become self serving. Rank, power and prestige are given by the buraucracy. Efficiency is lost because of a plethora of checks and balances put into place to control the bureaucratic decision making process. Quasi government agencies run peoples lives and decide on people’s societal arrangements without recourse to the strings of the representative process. Democracy is eroded because the decision making process is more and more prescribed. Government is through regulation, not legislation. Governments no longer listen to constituents, but to large lobby groups who can afford the expense of long and costly submissions. Unionism becomes more and more coercive and has the ear of big government and a say in the running of government departments. Seek out and read what Anne O Krueger wrote in a landmark paper entitled ‘The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society’ published in 1974 in the American Economic Review. Rent-seeking theory explains a range of corrupt or otherwise objectionable behaviour commonly observed in the interface between markets, governments and statutory laws and regulations, Managers regiment life across the board through the promulgation of rules and regulations. Personal decision making is subverted. Personal responsibility is likewise subverted. People are rendered servile. Society becomes soulless. It is common in all socialist economies and was grossly manifest in Communist Russia. Personal responsibility in government is subjugated by rules and regulations. Committees make decisions based on consensus and leadership is forgone in the name of consensus. Croneyism runs rampant and people rise and thrive through largesse, through who they know.

Sounds a lot like much of American economic society as well.

I fail to see why business should not be regulated (assuming this is what you are saying; if not, forgive and ignore me) so as to prevent abuses and profiteering. Since when do we serve Mammon?

Welfare is the central component of a managed state, because it exploits and cultivates a class of beneficiaries or pensioners who are dependent on the government, not to mention an apparatus distributing these benefits which has, of course, an interest in its continuance and expansion, that is, a self serving bureaucracy. Government as bringer of justice as fairness complements an assumption about government implicit in the entire conception of the managed state. It is that governments are not only wiser than their citizens, but also morally superior. They take the wider view. They help the poor, whereas the citizens are engaged in pursuing selfish pleasures.

To explain myself a little better, I certainly favor collective bargaining as proscribed by Rerum Novarum before any legal intervention by the state. However, a Catholic state would have different goals than a secularist one, so last resort intervention by such an entity would not be objectionable.

After all, we permit the government, via the police, to regulate our civil behavior. To fail to apply this basic approach to business doesn’t make sense. The almighty dollar is not that important.

Coirporatism allows for behaviours that even individuals would baulk at, because the corporatists hide behind their rules and regulations and committee-made-decisions. Personal responsibilty is subjugated.

Such behavior happens in non-corporatist economies as well. It happens in American economic society all the time. Personal responsibility is a nice mantra but an untenable fantasy.

 

[tjm190]

The people won’t want it gone. That’s my point; as long as cheap objects keep rolling in, who cares that they are imported mostly from a hostile nation and of shoddy quality?

As long as quantity is held superior to quality, I don’t suppose anything will change, though.

Then what right do we have to tell people they can’t shop there? What has walmart done wrong?

 

[CPA2]

You would do well to go back and consider some first principles. Ask yourself why capitalism needs regulation in the first place. Whilst asking yourself that question, don’t forget to ask yourself what gave rise to trusts and corporations in the first place. Your answer should lead you back to what you call 'distributism.

Proponents of Corporate Nationalism always make the same mistake. They forget to include human nature in their deliberations. They think that corporations wont behave as individuals do, when in fact they do.

Socialism gives rise to state corporatism. **Big government, big business, big unions. Bureacracies grow and become self serving. **Rank, power and prestige are given by the buraucracy. Efficiency is lost because of a plethora of checks and balances put into place to control the bureaucratic decision making process. Quasi government agencies run peoples lives and decide on people’s societal arrangements without recourse to the strings of the representative process. Democracy is eroded because the decision making process is more and more prescribed. Government is through regulation, not legislation. Governments no longer listen to constituents, but to large lobby groups who can afford the expense of long and costly submissions. **Unionism becomes more and more coercive and has the ear of big government and a say in the running of government departments. **Seek out and read what Anne O Krueger wrote in a landmark paper entitled **‘The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society’ **published in 1974 in the American Economic Review. Rent-seeking theory explains a range of corrupt or otherwise objectionable behaviour commonly observed in the interface between markets, governments and statutory laws and regulations, Managers regiment life across the board through the promulgation of rules and regulations. Personal decision making is subverted. Personal responsibility is likewise subverted. People are rendered servile. Society becomes soulless. It is common in all socialist economies and was grossly manifest in Communist Russia. Personal responsibility in government is subjugated by rules and regulations. Committees make decisions based on consensus and leadership is forgone in the name of consensus. Croneyism runs rampant and people rise and thrive through largesse, through who they know.

Welfare is the central component of a managed state, because it exploits and cultivates a class of beneficiaries or pensioners who are dependent on the government, not to mention an apparatus distributing these benefits which has, of course, an interest in its continuance and expansion, that is, a self serving bureaucracy. Government as bringer of justice as fairness complements an assumption about government implicit in the entire conception of the managed state. It is that governments are not only wiser than their citizens, but also morally superior. They take the wider view. They help the poor, whereas the citizens are engaged in pursuing selfish pleasures.

Coirporatism allows for behaviours that even individuals would baulk at, because the corporatists hide behind their rules and regulations and committee-made-decisions. Personal responsibilty is subjugated.

Congratulations! You show a very good understanding of social economics and the role of self-interest to explain human behavior.

 

[CPA2]

An unjust law is no law at all. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

The first question that I would have is, “Is this man-made law valid?” If the law violates divine law or natural law, the man-made law is invalid. No one needs to obey an invalid law; in fact, you have a moral obligation to oppose it. That is why jury members have the right to judge the law, not just the facts. By a process called jury nullification jury members can refuse to uphold an unjust law.

Second, we never get everything that we want when we elect a candidate, even if we voted for him. When you go to the grocery store you vote with your dollars and you get exactly what you want.

 

[CPA2]

I have ambivalent feelings about trading with Communist China. I am one of those who think that Wal-Mart is Communist China’s factory outlet. Communist China is not India. I trust India as a trading partner. I do not trust Communist China. Therefore, I will make two arguments. The first argument will be the economic argument against protectionism. The second argument will be about trust, and the role that trust plays in the buyer-seller relationship.

The United States cannot produce everything cheaper than Communist China. Neither can Communist China produce everything cheaper than the United States. Every country should specialize in those products and services that they do best. If the United States specializes in those products and services where we have a comparative advantage, there will be gains from trade. It is a win-win situation.

I want to decrease the demand for food products from Communist China and other communist countries. Therefore, I want to influence your expectations about the food from these countries. Communists have no business ethics!

Communist China has been shipping contaminated honey into the United States and Canada for a long time. By some miracle Canada found out about it.

Communist Vietnam sends us catfish that are raised in cages. Most of these caged catfish are diseased. When you buy the catfish filets in the supermarket, you do not know the country of origin, and you cannot spot the diseased catfish. I get my catfish from Mississippi.

I refuse to eat crayfish at Piccadilly. The crayfish come from Communist China. I only eat Louisiana crayfish.

The Role of Trust

It is my opinion that trust is one of the greatest challenges a business faces. I once asked a retail jeweler how he could sell so many loose diamonds when other jewelers could not sell one diamond. His one word answer was trust. Trust is so important that there should be a place for it on a firm’s financial statements. It is neither easy nor inexpensive to build customer trust, but stronger buyer-seller bonds are worth the time and expense.

The focus of trust is on the future. Trust is an important ingredient in long-term customer relationships. Firms with a long-term orientation rely on good buyer-seller relationships to maximize their profits. Trust increases the likelihood that buyers will want to do business with a supplier in the future.

I do not trust the Chinese Communists. It is my opinion that we will not have a long-term business relationship with Communist China. I have heard that if a company wants to trade with Communist China, it must build a factory in China and train the Chinese to run the factory. That is not free trade. That is blackmail. Americans have a short-term view of trade. The Chinese take a long-term view. Lenin said that the West would sell him the rope that he would use to hang the West. Lenin was right.

 

[sedonaman]

When people want Walmart gone, it will be gone. There’s no reason to legislate against companies that have won and are winning fair and square. If they’re cheating, then address the way in which that is happening.

In all “fairness”, I’m sure there are legal ways to drive competition out of business, although they might not be moral by Catholic [or other Christian] teaching. So “fair and square” has to be defined.

 

[CPA2]

Economy Lesson…

It’s a slow day in Mamou, Louisiana . The sun is beating down, and the
streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody
lives on credit in 2010.

On this particular Friday a traveling salesman from Shreveport is driving
through town. He stops at the Hotel Cajun and lays a $100 bill on the desk
saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one in which
to spend the night.

As soon as the man walks upstairs, Pierre , the owner, grabs the bill and
runs next door to pay his debt to Boudreaux the butcher.

Boudreaux takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to
Trosclair, the pig farmer.

Trosclair takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at T-Boy’s Farmer’s
Co-op, the local supplier of feed and fuel.

T-Boy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the
local prostitute, Clarise, who has also been facing hard times and has had
to offer her “services” on credit.

Clarise rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with Pierre , the
hotel owner.

Pierre then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveling salesman
will not suspect anything.

At that moment the salesman comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill,
states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves
town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town
is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, my friend, is how the United States Government is conducting
business today!!!