American Socialism
63
|
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage)
Price: $3.96
List Price: $7.99 |
Do you believe socialism is good for America?
See results without voting
Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching. That, many Americans would admit, is their favorite sound. That or bling bling. Us Americans usually want nice big houses, fancy cars, designer clothes, and there's nothing wrong with that unless you hear the sound of sighs as stock numbers start plummeting or you get a notice that your company can no longer afford to pay you because they're going under. Of course, this all stems from deregulation because some people believe that capitalism in its purist form is what drives our economy to succeed.
Well, like a kid in a playground, businesses need supervision...for their good as well as everyone elses. Some peoples eyes would probably widen as blood courses through their veins in anger. These people believe in unrestrainted, unadulterated capitalism. Socialsm to them is a dirty word which they associate it with communist Russia. It's in the name of the former communist empire after all "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." But America will always have capitalism as part of its makesup because it makes us who we are and American socialism will always be different than European socialism because capitalism will continuously seep throught the veins of our economy.
With that said, I don't believe a moderate amount of socialism is something to be scared of. The government will be there to catch the business economy's fall which will inevitably prevent socialism from having a stronger hold. Think about it. After the companies were deregulated completely the housing industry tanked, then unemployment rose, then inflation increased, then bank foreclosures rose, then the government had to step in and regulate the banks so stocks wouldn't fall. In other words, complete deregulation caused socialism to rise. Complete deregulation threatens capitalism more than moderate interference from the government .
As hands of the clock ticks and investors are biting their nails for the first time since they were thirteen years old what I have to say is, I hope we all succeed to the best of our abilities. The average joes working at quarries and the CEOs plugging away in their offices. With hard work we should not be hindered from reaching our dreams but we do need be able to attain them and laws to protect everyone.
|
Oil!
Price: $6.69
List Price: $15.00 |
|
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Single Disc)
Price: $7.39
List Price: $19.99 |
|
Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise
Price: $3.70
List Price: $13.95 |
|
The Revolution: A Manifesto
Price: $9.96
List Price: $21.00 |
Richard Branson and the Role of Small Business
Porn Bailout
Greedy Much?
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/16/news/companies/madoff_fundoffunds.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008
How Bernard Madoff robbed the rich!
Oops! Jobless Claims Highest in 16 Years!
France and Germany Lead West out of Recession
- France and Germany lead the West out of recession - Telegraph
Germany and France have become the first of the major G7 powers to emerge from the Great Recession of 2008-2009, surprising markets with growth of 0.3pc in the second quarter.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Good points, though I believe any type of philosophical belief in its purist form is doom to failer. When Clinton left office he left a $5 trillion dollar surplus behind, now we have a $9.8 trillion dollar debt. I believe if we invest wisely and reinvent certain social services, such as health care, we'll be more than financially solvent as a country and business will run better. Think about it, doctors only earn $250, 000 a year whereas the insurance and pharamaceutical industries pocket more money and establish rules where the patient has to pay more for their healthcare than they would if say, the healthcare industry had to abide by stricter rules about how much they can charge for certain services and how much a pharmaceutical can charge for prescription drugs. Plus, the doctors should not be told what service they can give to patients, rather, they should decide what is good for the patient based on what they learned in medical school instead. Reform health insurance companies, then businesses won't need to spend that much money on health insurance for their employees.
Maybe social security should be reformed but I definitely don't believe it belongs in the stock market. Heaven knows, all the senior citizens would be broke today!
Sure SS belongs in the private sector. The nation of Chile ditched their SS system which was modeled after ours, switched to private sector investing, and now their citizens will have far more money than they would under the government run system. The same has happened for a municipality in Texas (I believe Corpus Christi, but I may be wrong). Their municipal employees will retire with more money coming their way than their regular salaries were under a privatization plan withdrawing them from the federal system.
In rereading some of your hub, I did find the comment, "The government will be there to catch the business economy's fall which will inevitably prevent socialism from having a stronger voice" to be self contradictory. The government catching the economy's fall is socialism, so how can a blatant act of socialism prevent socialism?
Thanks for responding Troy. Well, if you have complete deregulation it's going to falter, as is proven by the bank bailout in which case a stronger form of socialism will be injected into the business system than one which allowed moderate regulation. Think of this way-if you're going out to sea with a small hole in your boat, and it creates an even larger hole, you're going to have use more plaster (or whatever material they use to fix holes in boats) to fix the hole than you would have had you put a little plaster in the hole to begin with. Extreme "isms" never work, in my opinion.
As for SS, I personally don't believe in gambling. Sooner or later you'll have the wrong hand. There must be another way.
Socialism is not evil incarnate despite what devout capitalists would have us believe. They despise it because it denies the claim of their inherent superiority.
That being said, you can pick any ism you like and, if the wrong people take control, you get very bad results for everyone but those in charge. Eventually it will turn out bad for them as well since, when they've had enough, the people will simply rise up and kill them.
Some like to pick at small, insignificant details or specific instances in history or social events. A simplified, broad overview of human history is all that is required to recognize the repeated cycle of oppression and rebellion that has recurred since the inception of formal commerce, representative currency and the fractional reserve system, which all go back, by the way, at least to ancient egypt.
Capitalism will always fail because it ennobles wrong-doing and is, allegedly, based on the negative concept of competition rather than the positive one of cooperation. It rewards the best liars, cheats and thieves and elevates them over those who are honest and hardworking. It has a built in self destruct mechanism.
Socialism usually fails because capitalist nations, like the u.s., use all their resources, political, financial and military, overt and covert, to make sure that any socialist endeavor showing any signs of success is crushed out of existence ASAP.
Humans are social animals. They require a social network for the survival of the species. Individuals who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion but are, nonetheless, a small, aberrant minority. Unfortunately they have managed to keep humanity in a state of constant conflict for millennia and actually impede the process of evolution.
Eventually, it seems fairly soon, natural events, which ironically, unfettered capitalism has set in motion, will force humans to adapt to a new paradigm or perish. Capitalism, socialism, communism or whateverism will be irrelevant. There will be only two options, unity or extinction.
Very true, CWB, but don't you think that competition also inspires people to excel? Capitalism does have many negative aspects but socialism also has negative aspects since, from what I know of Europe, their citizens' career paths are decided for them when they're very young (I believe it's ten years of age in Germany) which is why so many students come to the United States to study...so they can reach their full potential which is stunted in that environment. Here, at least, people can pursue any dream they have as long as they work hard and prove themselves. There is a huge discrepancy, however, between those who have have a lot and those who have very little in capitalism, especially now, with trickle down economics at the helm. We have proof of its success right now with high unemployment, bank and auto bailouts, home foreclosures, credit crisis, health care crisis...which is why I believe in a unity of the isms.
You know, I hope your wrong about the natural events. I know we've damaged mother earth but hopefully we can turn this disaster around in time.
I don't really see competition as a positive force WR. It's just a euphemism for fighting. Someone has to lose. Someone has to be defeated, beaten.
I believe it is a natural human trait to seek excellence for its own sake. The people who make the great discoveries that "advance” the human race are NOT capitalists. They are scientists, researchers, people who seek knowledge primarily for the sake of learning. Capitalists are merely the exploiters of the real innovators, those who make the great discoveries that change the world. Capitalists are not motivated by the desire to do something good or improve the world. They are motivated only by profit. Ergo, if doing something that is harmful to multitudes of people is more profitable than something beneficial for those same people the "efficient" capitalist will choose what is most profitable over what is right.
As to Gaia and what we've done to her, I think it's a little too late for a turn around. We may be able to mitigate somewhat but the tipping point is past. Nature will take her course.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=182
Good Hub. Ever since Obama was elected I have heard this cry that US is going to be a socialist country(when the bail out was started by Bush). Anyway is socialism bad? Progressive socialism as in Western Europe isn't a bad idea. Why do people only look at things in Black or White? Their could be a grey area hence an alternative to pure free market isn't necessarily socialism and vice versa. Their are certain benefits and weaknesses in every system it is up to the best minds to pick and choose what would be best for our individual circumstances.
I've written numerous references to European Socialism on various hubs, and these have for the most part been ignored, or dismissed for various spurious reasons. The Scandinavian countries in particular have a good, working, socialist/capitalist model. They do have higher taxes certainly, but they also have excellent provision for healthcare, education, child welfare, and security in old age. I'm not American, and I can only make assumptions about life in the States as I have no first hand experience. Reading these hubs, however, leads me to suspect that life for the average American must be lived on some kind of metaphorical tightrope without the benefit of a really secure safety net. Things are fine if your health holds out, if you can afford good schools, and if you stay in employment, but what happens if these things are not in place? Socialism is inevitably less palatable for those who are financially secure, but after a certain level of wealth accumulation the money in your bank account means little more than a row of numbers on your bank statement.
@ Amanda Severn.
I'm sorry I've missed your Hubs re socialism Amanda. I can definitely confirm your analysis of life in the states. The tightrope act is a perfect metaphor. Of course people who are financially secure are repulsed by the concept of socialism. It negates their self-proclaimed superiority.
Now I’m off to have a look at your socialism Hubs.
Amanda, yes. A support system is lacking unless you have the money or, in fact, even if you have the money because health insurance in the States takes into account what they called "pre-existing conditions" so a citizen has to pay for their treatment out of pocket regardless of the quality of health insurance. It's unethical really. You would think that the people without money would be the ones who subscribe to universal healthcare, but many bought into the idea that the quality of healthcare would go down as a result. And there are also many people who are well off or rich who support universal health care, it depends on the individual and party affliation here in the U.S.
CWB-I agree, some are interested in retaining self-proclaimed superiority which is sad, divisive, and delusional. Maybe we Americans need to redefine what having a piece of the pie entails.
I agree WR.
Amanda now you have quite a following even across the atlantic...hehe.
I guess I am employed and have company health insurance (although in last 4 years in US haven't even been once to a Doctor) so don't know how critical the situation is for others who don't have an insurance.
CW, good health should not be the preserve of those that can afford private health care, or who are insured through their companies. It should be available to each and every person who needs it. It should be a basic human right!
Amanda- I totally agree with you and I was just stating that I have never been in a position which others might have been hence can't imagine how bad it must be for those who don't have insurance.
My friend in US says till 50 he will work in US then migrate to Canada..LOL
CW- Your friend obviously has an eye to the future! Seriously though, even over here in the UK where we do have good healthcare, there are still cracks in the system, and before I joined hubpages and learned about how things are in the States, I was quick to criticise our National Health Service, because of the waiting lists and so on. I don't think we have a perfect system, but I do think it's a more equal approach.
Amanda- The logic of my friend was in US and Canada a single driving licence would do hence the longer the driving history the lower the insurance premium. But health insurance premium goes up after a certain age hence as & when he relocates to Canada then he would get lower vehicle insurance with their health benefits. Their was a talk about it during the elections but as of now they say 350 million is too huge a number for universal health care. As I said before the elections I was never concerned that this was such a huge issue as I haven't ever been to a Doctor in US(touchwood).
I'm glad you keep good health CW. I do too, mostly, but things start seizing up as we approach old age, and I'm a little ahead of you on that one!!
Amanda- I pray that you have long health and happy life. I don't know when I get cold or something I just have warm milk & honey then go to bed. My parents tell me some naturopathy treatments like a little turmeric in milk to cure common ailments. I have never seriously ever gotten ill so I would assume my guardian angel has a full time job of keeping me safe and healthy.
I'm glad to hear it! I use lemon and honey when I have a cold, but I have a friend (Anglo-Indian) who swears by turmeric for sundry ailments. She says that it is Ayervedic?
According to my parents having Turmeric with milk helps improve immunity as per Ayurveda. There are so many things they tell me to do and I don't follow all of them. I guess I am too lazy most of the times and feel they worry too much unnecessarily even if I sneeze on the phone...LOL
Capatalism is what makes this country great. This is why we were able to be so powerful. Capitalism works, it is part of the supply and demand economic laws. The American Dream! Socialism doesn't work. Why did communist Russia fall. It didn't work. Most of the European countries are turning more capitalistic. Why, because socialism if failing them and capitalism works.
Supply and demand rules everything. If you try to change it by controlling it, you become socialistic. Free markets regulate themselves. You screw up, you lose money. You obey the laws, you make money.
When you try socialism, this means everyone will get a piece of the pie, even if they do not earn it. People become lazy and do not produce, because big brother will take care of them, while those that do produce are layed with a heavier burden. This is part of our problem today. 10% of the people bay 90% of the taxes, while 40% pay no taxes at all. Instead of bettering themselves and get better paying jobs, they become complacent in the current situation, because big brother will make up for what they do not have.
The European and Asia countries have been after us for centuries. To England, all of our great leaders, i.e. Washington and Jefferson are traitors. So is it with most of the other countries.
But what do we do? A percentage of the our country think we have to apolize to the rest of the world. We pollute to much, our armies kill babies, while the same people who say this are for abortion rights, which kill more children that our armies ever did or will. And what are the other countries trying to do? They are helpoing build up China, so they can be a superpower, and control us. They(and us too) are sending all of our jobs there. We let them pollute worse than any country ever. No one is putting restrictions on them!
I say shame to those people who are not proud of the US. i.e. Michelle (my belle) Obama. She has never been proud of our country. Well I am. Everytime there is a natural disaster. Which country is the first country there? US. Everytime another country has financial problem, who's there to give them billiions of dollars. US.
Well, if it wasn't for capitalism and people who can live the American dream (Make lots of money) this country would be broke. They supply to money to the country. Instead we have a President elect who whats to punish those who can make money, a reward the lazy bums who do not want to work.--This is socialism.
Socialism has always been a bad word in the American language until education experts like Bill Eyers ( A convicted murder who is leading education reform for our children!) has been trying to change it. Only in American can we have a murderer teaching our children. Sex offenders can't but murderers and terrorist can.
We do not need the government to take care of us. Especially Dingy Harry and Mrs (the pope supports abortion) lier Pulosi. I earn my wage. I take care of my responsibilities. I do not a socailistic government to provide for me.
@ eovery.
I repeat:
Anyone who can voice any defense whatever of "free" market capitalism at this point is beyond delusional. Try completely psychopathic.
"The proof of the pudding" as they say. We've had this trickle down b.s. shoved down our throats long enough.
It's true that government interference is largely responsible for the current disaster we’re facing. Deregulation has allowed the criminals that run corporate amerika and wall street to do whatever the hell they please with absolutely no thought of any consequences. Even after driving the country into bankruptcy they are being handed something like $2.5 trillion to make sure they won’t suffer any undue inconvenience for the catastrophe they caused.
After virtually millennia of repeating the same mistakes you might expect rational beings to “get it”. Apparently this isn’t true. The human race seems content to keep repeating the same cycle of exploitation, oppression and bloody revolution over and over ad nauseam.
A species as destructive, arrogant and self-serving as homo sapiens should not have survived even this short time. Our extinction is overdue. Just keep on with business as usual. Nature will see to it that we are dispensed with in due course.
Socialism is not evil incarnate despite what devout capitalists would have us believe. They despise it because it denies the claim of their inherent superiority.
That being said, you can pick any ism you like and, if the wrong people take control, you get very bad results for everyone but those in charge. Eventually it will turn out bad for them as well because, when they've had enough, the people will simply rise up and kill them.
A simplified, broad overview of human history is all that is required to recognize the repeated cycle of oppression and rebellion that has recurred since the inception of formal commerce, representative currency and the fractional reserve system, which all go back, by the way, at least to ancient egypt.
Capitalism will always fail because it ennobles wrong doing and is, allegedly, based on the negative concept of competition rather than the positive one of cooperation. It rewards the best liars, cheats and thieves and elevates them over those who are honest and hardworking. It has a built in self destruct mechanism.
Socialism usually fails because capitalist nations, like the u.s., use all their resources, political, financial and military, overt and covert; to make sure that any socialist endeavor showing any signs of success is crushed out of existence ASAP.
Humans are social animals. They require a social network for the survival of the species. Individuals who believe otherwise are entitled to their opinion but are, nonetheless, a small, aberrant minority. Unfortunately they have managed to keep humanity in a state of constant conflict for millennia and actually impede the process of evolution.
Eventually, it seems fairly soon, natural events, which ironically, unfettered capitalism has set in motion, will force humans to adapt to a new paradigm or perish. Capitalism, socialism, communism or whateverism will be irrelevant. There will be only two options, unity or extinction.
@ Oevery-I can't believe you'd compare a terrorist to a sex offender. Of course being a sex offender is worse. Bill Eyers was not even dangerous to the U.S population so why would you even compare him to al quaeda which, you know as well as I, is where your going. Can't you get your point across without defaming someone's character for absolutely no reason whatsoever, eovery. And about supply and demand, if you were to chart it on a supply and demand chart, you know that there were be a dead weight loss in which taxes who have to be risen because there are not enough rich people in this country to support the trickle down effect. That leaves it wide open to tax the poor so those in charge could have more power. Tsk, tsk.
Fascinating stuff Oevery.
I'm a British person living in the UK, so forgive me if my understanding of this scenario is faulty. You say in your comment that supply and demand rule everything, and then later you say that 'They are helping China, so they can be a superpower and control us'.
China exports, the USA imports. Fact. China makes goods that are cheaper than the those available in the USA. The USA demands cheap goods. China supplies them. This is the law of economics in action. Supply and Demand. The manufacturers of goods in the USA competing with the Chinese manufacturers cannot make goods at the same cheap rate because of high labour costs. Those manufacturers fail because the orders books are empty. The jobless numbers rise. Who is making China into a superpower? The answer is everyone who ever chooses a cheap import over a home-manufactured item.
Excellent points, Amanda. I think I've unfortunately contributed to our problem once or twice. What can I say, recession.
I know what you're saying WR, and yes, I've bought cheap goods too. The temptation is just too great, and the alternatives are becoming scarcer and scarcer. The thing is that people like Oevery fail to see that it's not just about "lazy bums who do not want to work". Sure there are freeloaders in every society, but we're talking about a situation where the jobs are just not there to be had. People in their fifties and sixties who get laid off now may never work in their chosen professions again. I believe in rewarding those who work hard, but I don't believe in punishing those whose lives are being blighted by government mismanagement!
WR, Amanda.
I've worked for the big box retailers here in amerika. My job, at Target, included off-loading semi trailers full of boxes and stocking product in the back room steel from 11PM to, sometimes, 9 or 10 AM the next morning. Virtually every box I stocked in that steel and rolled out on the floor for the stockers there was stamped MADE IN CHINA.
It isn’t easy to buy anything made in the USA today.
CWB
Perhaps it's time for import duties and restrictive practices, but then of course China will call the financial cards that they are holding. It's a mess, but it's one that has been caused by the same wiinner takes all mentality that many Americans hold dear.
Amanda, I don't think Oevery is failing to see anything. I think it's an excuse he and other people like him use to excuse hording profits at all costs. There is a little bit of a greed mentality here, but at the same time, there are also a ton of good hearted people willing to help others out...like Bill Gates.
CWB,
I don't like Chinese products but American products can improve as well. I refuse buy an American car, for example, because they break down all the time. There needs to be more of an emphasis on quality rather than mass production.
WR, you get no argument from me regarding quality. Real advances and achievements come through cooperation, not competition and are not motivated by profit.
WR- I am glad you mentioned about the good hearted people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who are setting aside almost all their wealth for charitable foundations.
I would certainly never knock the efforts of philanthropists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, but are they the exception? I read about the salaries being paid to your auto industry execs on Pam Grundy's UAW hub. Pam compared them to the generous, but not unrealistic, salaries of their Japanese counterparts, and the difference was staggering.
Ok, I'm back
CWB-true, but competition also makes the prize look that much worthwhile. Though, yes, I do believe people should be motivated by their passion for what they do more than competition or capitalist reasons.
CW-Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give us someone to look up to and follow. It also makes me more hopeful for and happier with our business community which was riddled with corruption these last eight years.
Amanda, I'm going to have read Pgrundy's UAW hub then get back to you.
Hi Amanda, I just read her hub. Though we're in a recession, I'm somewhat pleased that it brought their corruption to the forefront which, unfortunately, could only happen in a depression-like environment. I admit, I took a few business classes in the past and it seems to me that there is too much of an emphasis on profit and not enough emphasis on ethics in business education which is one of the reasons why I bailed (that and it just didn't feel like me). Those pilfering salaries should have been filtered, instead, into the salaries of the UAWs and production costs so we could get better performing American cars. It certainly shouldn't be given to idiots who don't know how to manage. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett....yes they're, unfortunately, the exception.
I think I'm equally afraid of both extremes. While I do not advocate a totally free market, nor do I ever support global one, I still understand that capitalism exists in successful communist states as well. I think the balance of the two is a good thing, since IMHO we've become far to affluent and lazy for our own good. Ive always worked my arse off doing things to make money, and I expect Joe Blow to do the same even if daddy earns 56 million a year. I think each member of society ought to have 100% equlity in starting out and from there we'd see very quickly who rises to the top. Certain tenets of socialism are good, and I don't expect that America will notice them for a very long time.
Yes, t.keely, I agree with you 100% which is what my hub propagates...a stray from extremeism and a blending of the best aspects of various economic philosophies. We can learn from them all. You have to remember that Joe Blow who inherited 56 million dollars a year has parents who have failed in the parental roles. The problem with a lot of rich parents is they neglect their children for their jobs sake and throw money at the problem, hoping their childrens' needs are fulfilled by money instead of their invested effort. As a result they take comfort in money, become greedy, and incompassionate to other people's plight. We all should try to do everything ourselves-rich, poor, and middle class. It's good for the soul (feeling wise).
And, actually, every ism has something positive about it like communism. I'm not saying that I believe in communism, but there are more instances in that climate than in a socialist climate where people can become whatever they want based on their abilities than social standing (similar to America).
Writer Rider,
The thing that I always struggle with in regard to Communism, is the concept of competition. Human beings are naturally competitive, and that's where the desire for greed and power come from. If you deny people the opportunity to gain a better lifestyle through their own efforts, do you stifle achievement?
Communism in it's purest form appears to work best in small units. If you are brought up to believe from day one that your efforts bring honour to your community, and that you are working for the wider good, maybe then it can be successful. The problem is that there are two many forbidden fruit moments in life. temptation and corruption are everywhere, even in Communist states!
Amanda,
True, communism looks a bit like capitalism in that light. In capitalism people have the freedom to do whatever they want but without the help from the government and people can move into positions of power that subverts the freedom of the people. A form of totalitarian dictatorship, like that in communism, with everyone clammoring their free instead. Reganomics in particular leaves it up to honor to work for the people. And, yes, corrupt people could use it to their advantage.
Communism is not automatically a totalitarian dictatorship by default WR. That knee-jerk response is the residue of decades of capitalist dogma. As I've said before, no ism is any better than the people who take charge. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. An absolute monarchy could be a virtual utopia as long as the emperor was a truly benevolent despot.
Amanda, the idea that people are competitive by nature is true only to a very limited degree. We can always get a lot more done a lot faster when we cooperate. We are primarily social creatures who seek cooperative, productive groups. This is one of the main things that have kept us alive as a species this long. The idea that we are primarily predatory, confrontational and combative is also the result of so many generations of capitalist indoctrination. Any innate competitiveness arises directly from the need to reproduce; survival of the species. That lingering instinct has been exploited by those who worship wealth and power. Now it is just another weapon of divisiveness, like racism, nationalism and religion, in their arsenal of deceit.
Well, everyone is made to live equally and obey the government which controls almost every facet of their lives which can give rise, and did, to a dictator (Stalin for example) who governs everyone's lives. I believe Sadam Hussein was another product of this school of thought. How can a utopia exist, CWB, if a monarchy is absolute? A benevolent leader is also a wise leader and a wise leader knows that if he were to have absolute control of people's lives, he'd be twarting their free-will to exist according to their own beliefs, abilities, and passions and forced into a lifestyle which goes against their grain. Furthermore, a dictator won't bring about a utopia like state/country by the mere fact that there would be factions rising up to topple him/her thus embroiling the country in political chaos.
You're quibbling over semantics WR. Hypothetical is hypothetical.
CWB, perhaps we need a new (old) ism: Village-ism. My personal belief is that we work best in smaller communities where we know our neighbours, and all benefit from seed-time through harvest in whatever form that might take. I've read elsewhere within hubpages about the benefits of belonging to a credit union over having a regular bank account in the USA, and I suspect the same principles hold true when worker's co-operatives buy out failing industries which have traditionally been top-heavy with expensive management. A quiet revolution, born of necessity, is already happening, and can only gather pace as the old order grinds to a halt.
I hope you don't mind my butting into your conversation, Amanda. I belong to a credit union and I don't have to worry about it collasping, but I can't help feeling that they're under financial pressure as well. They don't let me withdraw as much money as I used to.As for a quiet revolution, it is definitely happening within the gen-y generation, from what I can tell, at least the teenagers who are into the environment and are politically involved. Plus Obama will definitely change the structure of the U.S. government which, in my opinion, is in dire need of changing. Gone are the Reagan years. Fun times they were but financially and morally costly as well (that was the decade that started the whole Gordon Gecko philosophy of greed being good).
A student asked a professor of economics:
- What is the difference between socialism and capitalism ?
The professor answered
- Capitalism is the exploitation of humans by humans
The Student:
- And socialism ?
The professor:
- It's the inverse of course.
TMG
Late to this discussion, just following TMG! Interesting Hub.
Just one point for you, Writer Rider.
Europeans do not have their career mapped out from age 10. Not sure where you got that from. We have a flexible education system and Europeans have choice in the jobs they choose. Many Americans come to Europe to study, too.
Eovery - I can think of nobody in the UK who believes that Washington and Jefferson were traitors. Quite the opposite. Until 4 or 5 years ago, Britain was very pro-US, so please get your facts right before throwing accusations and abuse.
Thanks for your comment Sufi. Are you sure you're European Sufi? In Germany, for example, kids attend primary school (Grundschule) together till the age of 9. Then they're separated into trades schools (Hauptschule), buisness high schools (Realschule), high schools which prepares them for the University (Gymnasium), or comprehensive high schools (Gesamtschule) that are a combination of Realschule and Gymnasium. Only those who have gone to a Gymasium or Gesamtschule can attend universities. I believe Greece's own school system is separated into technical and university schools as well, am I right? So, you see, at least in Germany kid's futures are chosen for them before the ripe age of 10.
TMG,
Thanks for your comment as well. I'm sure there's a way in which neither humans nor the government are exploited but the government still works efficiently.
I have too many thoughts and Ideas on the subject to give a comment justice, so I settled for some humor.
Good hub, only your numbers about the surplus debt thing are a little out to lunch. Our Country has carried a National debt since Alexander Hamilton invented the concept. Budget Surplus and National Debt are two entirely different concepts.
A trillion Dollar Budget Surplus is completely impossible because the Government only collected around a trillion dollars in Taxes each year of the Clinton Years. It is well known and documented the Surplus of the Clinton Years was a small lie as it really was actually a couple of billion dollars of deficit spending after everything was tallied.
You just don't get any press on that, but that is the number the IRS will give it to you if you ask I have, just to see if they would and they do after about 6 months.
Don't look at that as an attack as you have very valid Ideas, just when you use wildly off number statement that can easily be disproved it detracts people from your main and much better points.
TMG
Oh, I forgot you can't compare the German system to the rest of Europe. They are in a class of their own. The Prussians started their system and it was a very effective system of indoctrination. So successful the US sent Horace Mann to copy its finer points in making our own system and Hitler used it to create a near world dominating force. The difference in systems is the heart of the difference in Socialism and Capitalism used as the means for Fascism.
It makes it impossible to compare the systems, as our system produces the best product to our system, and theirs produces the best product for theirs. It boils down to you get what you pay for.
The People who pay for our education system are very happy with the product, a nice easily controlled dumbed down society that goes to work every day and doesn't ask a lot of questions. People who think we live in a Democracy and that George Washington didn’t burn corn fields in order to starve Indian Towns.
TMG
TMG,
I'll answer the rest later but I want to mention that I took offense to what Sufidreamer said. He's suggesting that I'm spinning information to give Europe a bad image or because I harbor prejudice, which I don't. I was stating a fact. I wasn't saying their university or school system is poor. America has a lot of its own issues.
Sorry if you took it that way, Writer Rider. It was not meant in that way, and I did not suggest that you were 'spinning' information. Nowhere did I accuse you of prejudice - I pretty much agree with everything you have written. I was merely trying to correct what I believed to be a misconception about the European education system - we have flexibility, too. That was all.
I apologise for any offence caused.
Sufi, you don't need to apologize. I misunderstood your intent, my apologizes. Europeans are very flexible by nature so it's no surprise to me that you guys would have flexibility in your education system. Perhaps even more so than here. After all, there must me a reason why our students are often not as educated.
No worries, Writer Rider. I am an academic writer, so I probably come across as a little 'blunt' sometimes.:) You creative types express things much better!
Elaborating upon your point, there is flexibility, but there are many other problems within European education, too. TMG has hit the nail on the head there. Without going into too much detail, as I have to pick olives today, they seem to have this idea that producing more graduates is a good thing - there are no more graduate jobs, so it is common to leave university and work as a team leader at MacDonalds for the rest of your life.
As for the class driven private schools in the UK.........Things are not perfect over here!
I think that we can all look forward to Obama taking office - will anything change, or is he really the Anti-Christ? ;)
I disagree that deregulation caused the economic failures of the past year. Reality is that government interference in the economy allowed companies to take advantage of that lack of regulation without the associated risks. Furthermore, by favoring certain companies and segments of industry, the government allowed companies to become complacent and avoid competitive pressures that should have prevented them from becoming stagnant.
That's why banks were tripping over themselves to give loans to people they knew (or should have known) were bad risks and Detroit kept cranking out SUV's even as the fuel prices soared. It had nothing to do with free markets or deregulation. In order for a true free market to exist, the government must be completely removed from the markets and allow business to stand or fall on their own merits. That's what encourages competition and innovation and that's the theory behind capitalism. Problem is that, in practice, capitalism encourages people to seek outside (i.e. governmental, collusive, and often illegal) advantages which actually eliminates legitimate competition.
The answer isn't more governmental influence, it's a TRUE free market devoid of governmental influence and favoritism.
Thanks for your comments TMG and EM, I'll respond later.
Take all the time you need. :-)
TMG
I have had this education debate earlier with Lita who feels the European higher education system is slightly better. But since I am from India I would just say this that when most of us who are good in studies consider a English speaking country for higher education(except for Cambridge/Oxford) then 9/10 it would be United States. Having completed my Masters here in US I feel United States has wonderful Research facilities coupled with excellent professors where real scientific contributions come from as far Technological innovation is concerned. If we take in IT field all the Operating systems like MS Windows, Unix flavors (IBM AIX, HP-UX, Sun Solaris and others), Apple Mac are from US then coming to Databases MS SQL server, IBM DB2, Sybase, Informix and so many others are again US based companies which had invested lots of money in university research.
I feel the best resources aren't appreciated by some people when they take them for granted (sorry I have no sympathy for those who don't make use of the facilities that the US Universities have) rather they should go to my under grad college where for even computer lab we had to book slots. Successful people are not the people who have the most rather they are the people who make the most of what they have.
TMG,
I'll finish this later but I want to point out that unless you have conclusive proof that at 2 trillion dollar surplus was unattainable then, I'm afraid, you can't make that assessment. That's just a hunch. At the end of the Clinton administration I was taking economic classes and we had so much money in the economy, that it was threatening to cause inflation. Allen Greenspan cut or raised interest rates accordingly to prevent a looming recession.
EA4A,
In theory, yes, deregulation could improve the economy. In practice, however, it relies on the decency of human nature but quite a number of homosapiens are greedy and ruthless and will take advantage of any holes in laws or will out right break them in order to fulfill their monetary ambitions (and at any cost). Take Madoff for example. Frankly, I wouldn't trust most homosapiens with my wallet or life let alone the market.
CW, It's not as easy as that. Unfortunately, it depends on where a student lives and the amount of money assigned to that school system. The majority of the adult American population are not learned and I believe that is a reflection of our public school system k-12. When I went to Germany, for example, even sales associates knew impressive details about the history of their country. As for universities, yes, we are renown for being better than the European system. Don't take the tone of my previous hub about our university system seriously. Yes, profs are often arrogant, but I wrote it that hub the way I did to attract readership and debate.
Here is what I have:
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
FiscalYearYearEndingNational DebtDeficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion
Deficit $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion
Deficit $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion
Deficit $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion
Deficit $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion
Deficit $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion
Deficit $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion
Deficit $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion
Deficit $133.29 billion
To check these numbers for yourself follow these links.
Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.ustreas.gov/Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/Look in the paragraph "Data and information on the Public Debt Moves to Treasury Direct" and click on the link "government section of TreasuryDirect.gov": Takes you to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/govt.htmClick on "The Debt of the United States" on the left side of the page: Takes you to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.h click on "Debt to the Penny (Daily History / Search Application" which takes you to the link I originally provided: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat
As always it is pleasure to discuss things with you as you are a very competent debator and writer.
TMG
TMG, You'll also notice the surplus on this part of the website http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/po36.htm. Or even this part of the website http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/debt.p . Cheers. Yes, I'm much to competent of a writer to write here.
I have read that press release, a very well crafted piece of deception. It is referring to the public portion of the debt.
It is a little shell game likened to that of AIG. Basically the National Debt has three components.
Intergovernmental Debt (Debt held by foreign Governments)
Intragovernmental Debt (Debt the government owes itself created by borrowing from other pots of money like Social Security)
Public Debt (That stuff they pass off as investments Treasure bonds, notes, and bills the stuff American companies and citizens own)
They shifted public debt to intragovernment debt in order to cook the books, but didn't change the outlay owed by the taxpayer the debt is still the debts. Just cause you pay off visa with mastercard doesn't mean you paid off your bills.
As for the money supply yes there was a lot in the economy then as our money supply is directly tied to the debt, the more debt the country carries the more money that is in circulation. Since all money that comes into the economy comes from the fed at a price known as the Fed rate. It is the same as having a thousand dollars in the bank and a credit card with a 3000 limit. If you spend it all you put 4000 into the economy. Basically what our Buddy Greenspan did over his tenure.
:-)
TMG
"The European and Asia countries have been after us for centuries. To England, all of our great leaders, i.e. Washington and Jefferson are traitors. So is it with most of the other countries."
I don't mean to be rude, but that's just daft. I have never heard anyone refer to Washington etc. as a "traitor"!
LG I didn't read that comment earlier(you do have a keen legal eye to spot minute details). Yes it seems to be a massive amount of generalization/assumption since I am from India(Asia). I don't know why some people even GWB (who didn't know who the PM of India was earlier) have such a limited world view. When people have certain gaps in their understanding then it shouldn't be filled with their own perceptions but should be supplemented with more research or should be left as open ended questions. We don't always have to have answers to every question.
WR- Ok no worries sister. I was just stating my opinion about the US University system about which we in India have a very high opinion and especially after studying here it has been even further strengthened. But yes there would be certain people who are arrogant but then there would be such people everywhere and on the whole US has a good system which I hope more people appreciate(especially the Americans) and make use of the benefits like many of us foreigners do.
Thanks for posting Londongirl. Yes, I don't know what to say in that regard. There's a problem with the U.S being a large landmass with a body of water separating it from the continental Europe and Asia.
CW, your opinion is very welcome. The U.S university system is said to be the best in the world. The problem is our secondary education which needs restructuring. Yes, there are arrogant people everywhere in every profession across the board. To me it's seems a waste of time and energy that could be used to do something productive. And profs. come in all sorts, I've had angels and I've had devils (though mostly angels which is encouraging).
We could debate the wisdom of having greedy and corrupt homo sapiens, with no genuine stake in business regulating other greedy homo sapiens, who have access to enormous sums of bribe money, but my point was that deregulation wasn't the underlying cause of the economic problems of the last year.
As popular as that claim has become, it's the lack of risk that brought this economy to where it is.
"The problem is our secondary education which needs restructuring."
Don't get me started...
I see what you're getting at Eye. There's some truth to that but I do believe we need rules for everything, including the markets, because some companies might not fail regardless of what is supposed to be the effects of their ruthlessness or their crappy products (can't believe they were still cranking our SUVs these last few years). Plus, why should people be laid off because President Sin of Company X decided to move his business to China? Those businesses will, of course, fail but not until they increase unemployment and poisoned our children with lead ridden products.
TMG-
The debt is to the people because the surplus means the government has quite a lot of our money.
In regard to your original post:
The housing industry did NOT tank because of government DEregulation. The housing industry tanked because of government REGULATION of the lending institutions. The government FORCED banks to loan money to people who obviously could NOT pay it back--for housing. The govt. set up loan institutions that made very risky loans, guaranteed by the govt (TAXPAYERS). Those two institutions are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two don't need a bail out, they need to be shuttered. Whenever the government forces private industry or sets up a mimic of private industry to do something Politically Correct like this, the results are always bad. The loans failed, the property repossesed, the loan institutions dumped the property and the prices plummeted. Consumers lost value in their property, hence they lost confidence in the market and crash went the market. 2 trillion dollars won't fix this mess. Time and the restoration of consumer confidence will.
But, Obama is coming out with a New 2 trillion dollar New Deal. Woe to America.
Obama is on the path of repeating all of FDR's economic mistakes. Our country's businesses don't need a bail out, they need to file for Ch. 11 bankruptsy. Have the lawyers and courts and CEO's hammer out solutions for making their businesses competitive and profitable again. General Motors needs that kind of discipline most of all, especially where the UAW and retirements are concerned. But the Unions won't have it, hence the pressure on the Federal govt. for the bail out. 2 trillion in taxpayer money that the taxpayer will never get to see...
The behavior of the Federal govt. (regulatory control and taxpayer bailouts) won't, by the way, lead to socialism. This kind of behavior is more insidious than socialism. You better look up what fascism is. The govt. owns businesses under socialism: the govt only controls businesses under fascism--A SITUATION WE CURRENTLY FIND OURSELVES MORE AND DEEPER INTO TODAY THAN EVER BEFORE.
I have no idea why a slight majority of Americans have become willing to trade their rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for government handouts. Are they lazy? Blind? Or just plain stupid?
Thanks for the comment Jim. I'll respond later today.
Like the Avatar. :-)
TMG
Jim, thanks for the great comments. People couldn't pay their mortages because the gasoline prices were so high that noone could afford to pay for anything else. At least in my opinion. I'm just making a wild guess that the gas companies were deregulated because they had a huge net profit, for example Exxon made a net profit of 40.6 billion in 2007 while Shell made a net profit of 31.3 billion. Seems to me that deregulation had a role right there. And everyone, and I mean "everyone" is paying the price.
I agree the banks don't need a bailout but I trusted people like Susie Norman who claimed that it would benefit the economy. Obviously, if they're not lending any money and only answering around 23 questions out of 40 concerning how they spent their money, then there's a big problem. I'm also fickle about giving the GM and other fledgling American car companies any bailout, but mass unemployment could be even more harmful to the economy.
Personally, I'm not 100% sure what the answer is, this hub is just an idea. I don't believe in government handouts for myself, personally, but I do believe it could help out the economy to have universal health coverage. First of all, it could help lower crime if criminals had adequate health care (imagine how much less we'd have to spend on law enforcement) and if preventative measures taken by the health industry. I hear stories all over the place about people having good insurance through their employment but going broke because the insurance companies won't pay for expensive treatments such as chemo therapy (those insurance companies should be out of business in my opinion). And, basically, it's just my principle that all kids should be insured. In general, if not socialism, then I believe that there should at least be more accountability on behalf of corrupt industries.
Jim, thanks for the great comments. People couldn't pay their mortages because the gasoline prices were so high that noone could afford to pay for anything else. At least in my opinion. I'm just making a wild guess that the gas companies were deregulated because they had a huge net profit, for example Exxon made a net profit of 40.6 billion in 2007 while Shell made a net profit of 31.3 billion. Seems to me that deregulation had a role right there. And everyone, and I mean "everyone" is paying the price.
I agree the banks don't need a bailout but I trusted people like Susie Norman who claimed that it would benefit the economy. Obviously, if they're not lending any money and only answering around 23 questions out of 40 concerning how they spent their money, then there's a big problem. I'm also fickle about giving the GM and other fledgling American car companies any bailout, but mass unemployment could be even more harmful to the economy.
Personally, I'm not 100% sure what the answer is, this hub is just an idea. I don't believe in government handouts for myself, personally, but I do believe it could help out the economy to have universal health coverage. First of all, it could help lower crime if criminals had adequate health care (imagine how much less we'd have to spend on law enforcement) and if preventative measures were taken by the health industry. I hear stories all over the place about people having good insurance through their employment but going broke because the insurance companies won't pay for expensive treatments such as chemo therapy (those insurance companies should be out of business in my opinion). And, basically, it's just my principle that all kids should be insured. In general, if not socialism, then I believe that there should at least be more accountability on behalf of corrupt industries.
TMG-Thanks. That's when I was eighteen.
I don't think that was that long ago. :-)
This hub has had some great comments, by that I mean very thought provoking I appreciate that. Thank you.
TMG
Thanks TMG. It was and I'm using it hoping that it disguises what I look like in real life because I'm much younger in the photo but I guess my face hasn't changed.
Thanks, I appreciate your contributions as well.
While I believe it would be a good step in the right direction, it would never work there. You'd have states seceding right and far right.
Good Point Ivan. However, I feel we have no other choice at the moment. Capitalism has shown it's weakness during the Bush administration and if we continue down the capitalistic road we will no longer be the world's superpower. I'm certain of this.
Socialism sucks. I lived it!
Really? In the former U.S.S.R or East Germany? Personally, I believe the extremes of both socialism and capitalism will lead to extreme drawbacks. Plus, slavery exists in under both systems.
Writer Rider, I like your post, I would like to see this flame rekindled...
The socialism issue has been a nuisance for years simply because it has been the excuse for bad government management.
If the economics of commerce was fair and equitable the need for social intervention would subside.
As long as there is disparity in the economic model there will be imbalance in social economic parity.
Thanks Ioua, yes it is a nuisance especially when people start equating ficiton/lies with facts. Frankly, I don't get why people feel they need to help the insurance companies defeat the bill. The real reason for the outrageous expense is due to the insurance companies and the profits they're raking in. You bet they're going to attempt to fight back but I hope people are wise enough to read between those lies. And I agree with you regarding social economic parity---such fictitious (and it always seemed fictitious to me though I went to elite schools)ideals won't produce anything and never fails to fall apart when attempted.
President Obama, if you're reading this, please don't back down on the government option! Don't let the bullies have success now! Once you give up, they'll always know that they can win. Be strong please...that's why we hired you. The mounting pressure means nothing...ignore it.
President Obama, if you're reading this, please don't back down on the government option! Don't let the bullies have success now! Once you give up, they'll always know that they can win. Be strong please...that's why we hired you. The mounting pressure means nothing...ignore it.
troylaplante says:
15 months ago
It is quite the opposite. It is not that "this all stems from deregulation". It was precisely government regulation, pressure, and threats of further regulation that brought on most of the financial woes we have today. It is socialism that brought us a system like Social Security that brings a paltry 1.5% approximate return on investment while we have slaughtered millions of payees who would help keep the system solvent in the womb. It is the fractional banking system of a government entity like the Federal Reserve that has given us our economic puffery instead of a true tangible asset system like we had with the gold standard. Socialism in various forms has failed every time it has been tried, then it gets reinvented. It is what has been killing our nation financially for years. It is just now starting to manifest itself.