Thursday, October 23, 2008
What Socialism can lead to
This week in Argentina, the socialist government proposed to nationalize private pension funds. The huge overspending on social programs has left the government isndire straits and it seems it has found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I predict that when that cash cow runs dry, the next step will be to confiscate bank accounts above a certain amount of money. All of this is done with the good intention of 'fairness.' This is what socialism can do for you. It's a slippery slope into old eastern Europe-type socialism/communism. Once a country has arrived in the muck pit, as it were, it is near impossible to get out from such muck. The government will begin manipulating the vote (Chavez already does this) because it has absolute control over everything. So, what do I see when Acorn is making herculean efforts to cheat? I see socialism down the road when the likes of Acorn get power (Obama formily worked for Acorn, and has never distanced himself from them.). We see signs of it already with the government bailing out banks and nationalizing parts of the mortgage industry. If Obama gets elected, look for subtle or less than subtle moves to nationalize various industries (health care, banking (ongoing), and the like). We are walking into the muck pit from which is it difficult to return. Considering what socialist Argentina is proposing, are our pensions and 401ks safe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Some ransom points, I don't have a lot of time on this night to write too much that is too succinct. But as you know the subject interests me.
Your title says it all. Socialism CAN indeed lead to such situations. However, there are many socialist countries that do not resemble Argentina or the former Eastern Block countries. Democratic Socialism, real democratic socialism can work: France, England, Norway, Canada, Sweden and more. France has been all over the board nationalizing and privatizing in fits and starts for decades.
From what I have been able to ascertain from the writings of our family, most fear in some way or another the redistribution- of-wealth farce. However, the first fear on the slippery slope list to socialism is always health care. This baffles me, but I will write and respond about it at later dates.
The Republicans have been just as involved in the nationalizing of our banking institutions this past month as the Democrats. I know your post did not claim otherwise, but you didn't point it out either.
Finally, I must remind you all that capitalism also has its ills. Capitalism was first fully employed at the dawn of the industrial revolution. It took the constant battering from socialists to moderate it.
Forced child labor, exploitation of resources and people, constant growth without regard to local cultures, deplorable factory working conditions and many abuses were the hallmarks of this early and primitive capitalism. That is what unchecked and unwise capitalism CAN lead to (and it often has). Whether socialism or capitalism, the key word is 'in moderation'. Democratic socialism can and does work very well in many countries, but it is not perfect and like any form of government can be mishandled for generations.
I am happy to concede that capitalism is far from perfect. However, I think it is safe to say that capitalism has done more for the prosperity of humankind than any other system. Even the poorest of our poor do much better than the middle income citizens of third world countries. We see homeless people with cell phones, but most citizens in non-capitalist countries don't or can't have one.
Also, the Democratic socialist countries that you list are only partially successful and they would be outright failures were it not for the open US market that allows them to export their goods.
I think I have heard your viewpoint on health care. I sympathize and agree that we can and should do better. However, a full-blown nationalized health care systems have bad track records. Looking at the Canadian and UK systems provides valuable insights. If you need an important medical procedure, you must wait, sometimes up to a year, and it is often too late. Those with sufficient means in the UK never use the government health care system. The quality is poor and you have to wait for that poor quality. Sure, it is better than nothing for those of lesser means, so a limited system designed for lower income groups would be fine by me, but I am against everyone being ramrodded into a single system. If it is compulsory, I have a problem. If it is voluntary, I am willing to give it consideration.
I think that it is very debatable whether the quality of the care is poor. Poorer people also suffer here greatly by having no health care plan at all and by not having access to the best doctors.
As for the waiting lists for operations, I have heard that repeated by some and refuted by others, however, this I can say from personal experience, those from those countries to whom I have spoken would not trade their system for ours. That may not mean anything, but it does signal that they are not ready to chuck their system. I have personally experienced the French health care system three times, twice with students and once with Nick. All three times the quality was equal to that of our system and we did not wait at all. We paid nothing on one occasion and very little (compared to US prices) on the other two.
Capitalism is only effective and one of the better systems when it is tempered by socialism.
I also just don't buy the comment that the countries I cited are somewhat successful with democratic socialism because we allow them unfettered access to our market. It doesn't make sense. That's like saying our capitalism only works because some other single country allows our products to enter.
If they couldn't sell here, they would develop markets elsewhere.
What does Japan do with its health care? And does it fit the patterns you describe?
Japan has nationalized health care that works fairly well, but the caveat is that they have a minuscule defense budget, so they are able to funnel extra resources into social programs. That being said, Japan also runs a deficit because of its social spending. Also, if Japan did not have access to the US market, it would be no better than Vietnam at this point (considering the 60+ post war years), especially if we simply left Japan after the war without occupation (Historical evidence that we should occupy Iraq until it's political and economic systems have stabilized). Books have been written about this topic, so there is much more to be said, but just consider where Finland and Japan would be without a US market for their phones and cars. Sure there are other markets, but the US market absolutely dwarfs other markets. The world as a whole is much more prosperous because of the US market
I don't know alot about this subject, but I do know that I lived in Venezuela for 3 years under Chavez's rule. He of course is establishing a socialist state there. My experience was that living in a socialist regime is a hardship. He decided that he needed to help the poor. So he put a price cap on certain foods like, milk, eggs, and meat products saying to the producers, you can't sell these items for more than what ever the government capped the price at. The producers then said, we can't sell for that or we can't turn a profit or in some case even make overhead. So instead of selling for less that what they could afford to produce it, they stopped producing. Then there were food shortages. It forced even the elite to go looking for these produtcts on the black market. So neither the poor nor the wealthy could get these products. It was a hardship for all. In the end, some producers went out of business and the people struggled to find even these basic items. I being one of them. It was truly a hardship. We set up a phone tree system at the embassy so that if someone was at a store and they happened upon a small delivery of something in shortage...they would start the phone tree and people could drop everything and run to the store to try and buy some of it before it was gone.
We often had a limit of only being able to purchase 1 liter of milk or the like. That was no fun! If price capping mandated by the government is an example of the socialist ideal of "spreading the wealth", I am not sure I like it.
I do beleive that national basic health coverage for the poor is a great a idea making it a universal option for even the wealthy, but I think the that private insurace should be available to whom ever wants to pay for it and it's upgraded services. I am even willing to be taxed to fund it as long as the tax amount isn't so extravagant that I can't contribute to a higher level of coverage if I want it for myself. I would love to see all Americans with basic coverage.
Teresa's experience in Venezuela is a good example of the harm that pure socialism/communism can do.
I think what Doug is hoping for (correct me if I am wrong) is Western European style democratic socialism without the militaristic nature of pure socialism/communism. In a future post that I am mulling over, I will make the case that soft democratic socialism, while laudable in its goals, is unsustainable in the end. One of the points that I will/might make is that the birth rate of such countries is miserably low. The birth rate is not sufficient to replace those that pass on, and the resulting burden on the younger generation grows heavier and heavier. For example, the birth rate of subgroups such as Muslims in Europe is outpacing that of 'indigenous' Europeans. Sooner or later, this will become major problem. Consider the car-burning riots in France a few years ago. What will happen when Muslims become the majority (far down the road perhaps)? I think the democratic socialist utopia would not survive it.
Alan, uhhhh, China? China will overcome our market in time. Finland and Japan have established marketing networks here, but it is the nature of companies to work to survive and prosper. Of course the world is a more prosperous because of our market, but I maintain that our capitalist market is not one of the primary reasons that there socialism works.
You are right about our presence in Japan and I have nothing to say about it, however I must add that in regards to Iraq that this war is a different war: unconventional and very guerilla. Staying on and attempting to succeed like in Japan is just a different ball of wax.
Regarding Venezuela, I am not saying that socialism is perfect, their are many reasons for shortages. A free market is not antithetical to socialism. After all, price controls in the form of subsidizing all kinds of agriculture is about the same thing and is a common practice perpetuated by Republicans and Dems alike. We have a lot, a lot of socialism already in this country. The free market is certainly not without government meddling, often to our benefit.
I am indeed thinking of Western European countries, but also, and mostly about Canada.
I am very interested in Alan's upcoming new post.
I think it will be very difficult to make of socialism a primary or perhaps even contributing factor to demographic changes and fluctuations.
"Alan, uhhhh, China?" I am note sure what point you are referring to, the birth rate point or the economic question.
China's GDP is currently only 25% of that of the EU or the USA, so China may indeed surpass the EU and the US in GDP in the future, but it doesn't need to be that way. Under a SocDem USA, it surely would happen.
The advantage of capitalism that it encourages other countries to share in our good fortune. Soft socialism doesn't do that. Soft socialism spends its energy on sharing resources. Capitalism spends its resources on creating wealth. So perhaps a certain amount of both would be ideal, but the relationship between the two is not a weighing scale that can be finely balanced. Once you place a weight on the Soc side of the balance, you can't take it off (as you have mentioned in other terms in another post), so it's wise to do it in small increments rather than large (as was done in the New Deal, Great Society, and recent cultural changes).
Post a Comment