E
ETEXAS
Guest
Nuff your momma
- Status
S
smichhertz
Guest
ditto.
Equality of opportunity is one thing, but equality of results essentially means no liberty.
L
Lui
Guest
Think again: Switzerland is neither a Socialist country nor does it have the highest suicide rate? Do you even know WHERE Switzerland is?
C
Captain_America
Guest
The corporations that run the 21st century are oligarchic, so we essentially have socialism.
We can create large, large organizations and hope that they are driven by profit, but the larger you get, the more you value stability and order. . . this goes for oil companies at least, as well as other majors.
If we actually had capitalism in the US there would have been no Texas S&L bailout, no Mexico Crisis or government help with the East Asian bubble, etc., and no help for the mega-banks that created our current depression. Instead, the banks would fail.
It would make stockholders much more studious and attentive to the market, rather than just pop money into institutions, etc., “guaranteeing” rates of return. It would make stockholders more capitalistic.
What is evolving is a kind of state-led quasi-capitalism. Certainly the government of the US is unable to handle the vast amounts of information that would be needed to “guide” or “direct” the economy.
At the same time, the free market Chicago solution fails in every place it’s been tried. Oh, I can understand the thrill of Friedman Doctrine, and know the chest-pounding its adherents have. . . but don’t forget the great Greenspan confession to Congress: markets do not regulate themselves.
We can create large, large organizations and hope that they are driven by profit, but the larger you get, the more you value stability and order. . . this goes for oil companies at least, as well as other majors.
If we actually had capitalism in the US there would have been no Texas S&L bailout, no Mexico Crisis or government help with the East Asian bubble, etc., and no help for the mega-banks that created our current depression. Instead, the banks would fail.
It would make stockholders much more studious and attentive to the market, rather than just pop money into institutions, etc., “guaranteeing” rates of return. It would make stockholders more capitalistic.
What is evolving is a kind of state-led quasi-capitalism. Certainly the government of the US is unable to handle the vast amounts of information that would be needed to “guide” or “direct” the economy.
At the same time, the free market Chicago solution fails in every place it’s been tried. Oh, I can understand the thrill of Friedman Doctrine, and know the chest-pounding its adherents have. . . but don’t forget the great Greenspan confession to Congress: markets do not regulate themselves.
L
Lui
Guest
You really have serious problems.
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that you and davidmlamb have expressed very clearly two perspectives of this argument.
In support of David, unions did indeed do much to raise the level of the working man.
In support of Ridgerunner, much of this gain was during a time (right after WW II) when the US was THE industrial power.
However Unions, like many other things, when they reached the balance point of “diminishing returns”, they couldn’t stop. The Auto industry is the great example of this. The UAW demanded and received unrealistic benefits and retirements. They were stuck in this mentality that the “Big Three” could afford whatever. Then the economics changed. Oil and Gas issues changed, Foreign car makers hit the US market in a big way, the US makers began going to Canada, Mexico and overseas for components etc…and the whole “house of cards” that the UAW had built up collapsed…
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying here, but the thing is that the above is just one example, from one perspective of the whole issue. People cannot seem to recognize that there is a point where we have to say that we can’t afford more and honestly mean it.
Most of us can see it in our personal finances, but not where government is concerned…
This is interesting stuff. Is economics your field?
Peace
James
E
exnihilo
Guest
Socialism in general is a terrible system that results in a shrinking economy and causes an overall decrease in quality of living. Jesus actually pointed out that he was like the owner of the sheep not the hired hand. Ownership causes people to care more about property and the ability to retain the fruits of your labor encourages people to work harder.
Economics used to be called Political Economy. I think this is a much better term as it points out that economics is not independent of politics.
The large corporations are driven by profit but the profit is for the few top level executives and insider shareholders. The common man can own stock but he is not privy to the insider information that allows big profits. He is the sucker the buys when he should sell and sells when he should buy. He is the other end of the trade that makes the insiders rich.
Markets do regulate themselves that is what the market is. It is the government that doesn’t regulate itself. The free market does have a history of creating independent testing (UL) and rating agencies (such as the S&P which just downgraded the US).
Socialism requires the government and thus government is a vital part of it. Capitalism does as well. Socialism can exists under many different systems but what defines it is the political power enforcing a concept of common ownership. Capitalism can also exist under many forms of government (including a monarchy) and what defines it is political power enforcing a concept of personal property.
Economics used to be called Political Economy. I think this is a much better term as it points out that economics is not independent of politics.
I think the word oligarchy is best for what we have. The oligarchs have capitalism in that they are able to retain their property and profits but the common man lives under a more socialist economy.
The large corporations are driven by profit but the profit is for the few top level executives and insider shareholders. The common man can own stock but he is not privy to the insider information that allows big profits. He is the sucker the buys when he should sell and sells when he should buy. He is the other end of the trade that makes the insiders rich.
Friedman believed in the Federal Reserve which is a terrible thing and completely incompatible with a truly free market. Greenspan recently pointed out the US will never default because they will simply print more money. This is true. But this is a terrible truth. Anyone who knows anything about the Weimar Republic or Argentina knows that money printing grinds an economy to a halt and robs savers of the value of their hard work.
Markets do regulate themselves that is what the market is. It is the government that doesn’t regulate itself. The free market does have a history of creating independent testing (UL) and rating agencies (such as the S&P which just downgraded the US).
C
CMatt25
Guest
Good point Robert. And as the saying goes, actions speak even louder than words. God bless you and peace.
J
jam070406
Guest
Actually, Christ has spoken through His Church and condemned socialism as an evil that robs the masses of human dignity.
Personal alms giving is a whole seperate issue altogether.
J
jam070406
Guest
Jesus said when you give don’t let your one hand see what the other is doing. We are not to make a spectacle of our giving so why would you expect to see the action at all?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Economics is no more my field than it is the field of anyone else who is trying to survive in this nut-case governmental crisis we have, and to simultaneously live according to the REAL teachings of the Church.I think that you and davidmlamb have expressed very clearly two perspectives of this argument.
In support of David, unions did indeed do much to raise the level of the working man.
In support of Ridgerunner, much of this gain was during a time (right after WW II) when the US was THE industrial power.
However Unions, like many other things, when they reached the balance point of “diminishing returns”, they couldn’t stop. The Auto industry is the great example of this. The UAW demanded and received unrealistic benefits and retirements. They were stuck in this mentality that the “Big Three” could afford whatever. Then the economics changed. Oil and Gas issues changed, Foreign car makers hit the US market in a big way, the US makers began going to Canada, Mexico and overseas for components etc…and the whole “house of cards” that the UAW had built up collapsed…
I’m sure I’m oversimplifying here, but the thing is that the above is just one example, from one perspective of the whole issue. People cannot seem to recognize that there is a point where we have to say that we can’t afford more and honestly mean it.
Most of us can see it in our personal finances, but not where government is concerned…
This is interesting stuff. Is economics your field?
Peace
James
What gets lost in most policy discussions is the fact that there is absolutely no way any individual, or even nation, can truly eliminate poverty among mankind. If the U.S. divided its income wealth evenly around the world, it would mean everyone would have an annual income of about $2,000, and NO modern economy would survive that. They would all collapse.
What also gets lost is that we somehow expect government to solve individuals’ problems when it is a very blunt instrument for doing that. It scatterguns benefits according to broad-based rules that don’t necessrily fit anyone. Individual “transfers”, however, are far more efficient because they’re precisely targeted and balanced against other needs. And, unfortunately, every dollar the government absorbs for its “distributive” programs is taken from the “distributive” capabilities of individuals and families. This is never taken into account, it seems, by most politicians (certainly not the current administration).
A kind of neat demonstration of this is what is sometimes called “The Mother’s Dilemma”. Mother has, say, $25. Her family needs bread and milk. She would also like to give something to charity. She has a baby, two older children, a husband and a cat. When it comes to the distribution of milk, she will likely balance both needs and the importance of the potential recipients to her. So, likely, the baby gets enough to get full. The older kids get enough to balance out a diet, but no more. Her husband likes milk in his coffee, so he’s next, and might get some or none. She would like to make her favorite pudding, so she’s next and may have to postpone that pudding. Last is the cat, which might get no milk at all. But she also needs bread, and for every dollar she spends on bread, she loses a dollar available for milk. So she rebalances again in order to target the greatest needs, her preferences among the baby, the older kids, her husband, herself and the cat, as well as the particular need of each for bread and milk alike. What’s left over, if anything, is entirely discretionary for her, and she may well drop all or a portion of it into the collection plate. What she does not put into the collection plate she might save against hazard to the next week’s paycheck.
Most popular economic theories cannot predict or explain the “Mother’s Distribution” except by positing selfishness or radical altruism. In the first case, she would consume everything, or be presumed to do so when she doesn’t. In the last, she would split it up among as many people as she could find, in which case everyone, including her family, gets essentially nothing, and does not take into account that the others to whom she distributes may well have resources and needs different from her own, and about which she knows nothing.
But, however faulty her judgment might be, the mother’s distribution, if it’s what she wants it to be, is the most efficient means of distribution. It is also the best for the economy at large because the end result of her efforts will most likely result in an addition to productive “human capital” (the children).
Bottom line: While I do believe there are human needs that only government can provide for, I also believe that governmental “distribution” in lieu of human decisionmaking in families is the least effective and least natural way of ordering distribution in a society.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I should have added this. I have tried to make it my policy to study the papal Social Encyclicals, which, to me, are very helpful. Also, I will strongly recommend a book written by John D. Mueller entitle “Redeeming Economics”. It is his proposition that most modern economic theories are wrong in at least some respects, and that the real basics were worked out by Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas a long time ago.
I’ll warn that it’s a demanding book to read.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Thead pruned and returned.
Try to learn from the poster who is no longer here and post with charity.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Try to learn from the poster who is no longer here and post with charity.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
D
Debora123
Guest
Haha, wow… looks like I just missed all the drama!
Anyway, my 2 cents:
I think neither side is perfect. The Democratic ideologies have their flaws, as do the Republicans.
I tend to vote republican because I am a conservative and I am pro life, but I am far from saying that I’m a hardcore fan of the Republican party.
Anyway, my 2 cents:
I think neither side is perfect. The Democratic ideologies have their flaws, as do the Republicans.
I tend to vote republican because I am a conservative and I am pro life, but I am far from saying that I’m a hardcore fan of the Republican party.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
Well I think you have made some good points here Ridgerunner. The point I was trying to make is that I promote a just society and I think that a just society has to have some socialism in it. I don’t believe people should be taxed at 90% but I am for a fair a just tax system that brings in enough revenue to support social programs like Social Security, Medicare (for all) and our infrastructures and public schools. I believe in the free market but the free market has to serve all of human society and not just the few. I think unions can work but they must represent the best interest of all parties involved. A just wage is the legitmate fruits of work and to undermine this is a grave evil and leads to many economic disorders in our country including perpetual welfare.
Although I am pro life from cradle to grave I am not so sure I agree with your point regarding human capital. I would say that a large part of the problems with our society is too many people and not enough jobs. But that is based on what I have observed and I have no facts to back up the hypothesis. Recently I was unemployed for two years and it was degrading and undignified. I don’t see how anyone would not want to work. Work is what defines us individually…John the Cook, Dave the Engineer… Work gives us value and dignity. I don’t think there are any significant amount of liberals out there that do not want to work or who support a welfare system that does not encourage people to improve their lives and become employable. So when someone lumps in the left with the likes of Karl Marx, Joseph Stallin, Adolph Hitler, I think they have resorted to propaganda.
Here is the crux of the matter, everyone has to be responsible for what they have been entrusted with and that we should not be identified with liberal or conservative but be identified with being Catholic and faithful to God.
Peace,
David
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
This.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Possibly the greatest thing government has ever done…for government. Not quite so great for the citizens. There are many, many good reasons the number of parents homeschooling their children continues to grow. Public education “teaches” children to wait in line, do busy work, move around when the bell rings, raise their hand to be called on, not think about science in math class or math in science class, and not to ask questions that don’t have answers in the answer key. That sounds pretty harsh. That’s because the system is pretty harsh. The goal isn’t intelligent, thinking citizens. The desired product is obedient, dumbed down serfs.
Pax.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Regarding the “Jesus was a socialist” school of thought:
The Church has always taught that there are TWO kinds of communism.
The Church has always taught that there are TWO kinds of communism.
- Voluntary Communism. This is when people voluntary share all that they have in community. This is what the early Church did that we hear about in acts. It’s also something we see in a monastic setting. This is perfectly fine, and can lead to the growth of great virtue.
- Involuntary Communism. This is when people are FORCED to give up their property that it might be redistributed among others. This is what we see in communist countries like the USSR, China, etc. The Church condemns this form of communism as evil.
- Status