Sanborn the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Murray - AND THERE'S a perfect example of what I'm talking about - sweeping rhetoric. Thank you Jim for the eloquent summation of what I'm talking about. IF it's true socialism (which by the way America is undeniably one of the least socialistic societies on the planet) - then there's no such thing as "other people's money."Sanborn - First off the government doesn't have any money, they can only get money by taking it from people who earn it. So it every penny is "other people's money."
Second, the "least socialistic societies on the planet" is undeniably bankrupting it...self by spending the vast majority of its budget on income redistribution: HUD, HHS, SSA. It has already gone beyond spending other people's money into spending money that no one has - interest payments on the national debt ($375 billion) are more than 6 times what is spent on education ($53 billion).
IF you still think America is not socialist, please explain why 50% of the people pay 97% of the taxes, and why 1/6 of Americans receive some direct benefit of a social program. This is not sweeping rhetoric, it is reality.
Murray - You can dislike socialism. Just understand that socialism by definition puts all the money made by the society into a pool for all to use. It is distributed evenly, and no one has any person income. That's socialism - but people on... TV like to shout about it like America is moving to total socialism . . . that's fear mongering.
There is a debate about what percentage of our spending should come from government - that's a healthy debate. European nations tend to be about 60% of consumption from government. We tend to be about 40% - therefore we're not that socialistic. That's not a debate, that's just fact.
Sanborn - Thank you for your permission to have my own opinion, John. What is the difference between a "socialist" country that forces you to work for the government or a "free" country that forces productive people to pay for the unproductive? How... long will it be before the two types of socialism are indistiguishable from each other? That's not fear-mongering, that is forward-looking.
There is no debate on what percentage of our spending should come from government. The government does as is pleases, without regard for public opinion, consequences, or the existing amount of wealth. Being "less socialistic" is kind of like being the last ones to die of the plague - in the end you are still dead, you just sufferend longer.
Murray - That phrase "you can dislike socialism" was not meant to be condescending - I was simply trying to say that to be against socialism is a fine opinion. It's also fine to dislike the non-productive that take advantage of government programs.... But I really don't understand the dooms-day "forward thinking."
Government DOES have a roll in a modern society. It does. It provides infrastructure, military, and law. Things get a little more sticky when you discuss needs that could also be met by the private sector - food, energy, health care, etc.
But here's the thing - we're coming out of a period of time where the private sector (specifically financial institutions banks, lenders, and the street) leveraged our entire economy against (without getting technical) gambles. I just don't see how supply-side economics gets you out of this mess. The right wants to stay true to that position, but how do you allow supply-side economics to pull you out of what supply-side economics put you into? The banks were too big to fail, there were no loans, no one was hiring regardless of tax rate, the housing market was over-saturated . . . I mean what's left? Truly, what is left to stimulate GDP? The FED already had the interest rate at zero - I mean what is left? OH - there's only one thing left. Government spending through stimulus.
If you have or had another solution, please - let me know.
Sanborn - The supply-side economics are the only way out of the mess. The fallacy that government spending "stimulates" anything is a road to nowhere - which I believe was Brian's original point.
Supply-side economics did not create the mess. People... (including groups of people called corporations) put their capital at risk (gambled) like they do every day in a free economy. The problem came when the government eliminated that risk factor by bailing them out of their bad investments. They took good money (borrowed it, actually) from the productive and erased the debts that should have been incurred by the risk-takers.
What is left to stimulate the GDP? Private enterprise and capitalism is the only thing. Government creates nothing, only the labor of a free people can create wealth and keep the economy moving. Government spending only creates the illusion of growth. Once the injection of "stimulus" runs out, there is nothing left but a line of people still waiting for a handout and higher inflation. Without the capitalists willing to put their money at risk, there is no wealth to tax and no government revenue to redistribute.
Murray - You're right - it is the illusion of growth - that's the point. If you allow the banks to fail because they took those risks, then the assets just sit while we muck about trying to establish who owns the property or asset. The banks take ...massive losses and it sucks billions out of the market. By the times thing level off - the few that remain viable have their value cut by a massive percentage. See Great Depression.
Only now you have to multiply this because now we're in a global economy. If the banks all fail, and our market plummets - who do you think buys the assets? Americans that have no money? No - property and assets are now purchased by foreign entities - you want to start discussing the end of the free world? Allow the banks to fail. You want to talk about EVERY vehicle in this country being a Nissan, Toyota or Honda - allow GM to fail. This is not a fixed game.
Corporations are outsourcing to non-American workers STILL at an alarming rate. Wal-Mart is 16% of our entire economy and they purchase almost nothing domestically.
I'm sorry - but something needs to check their shit. I hope and pray someday we are in a position where free trade and an understanding of social responsibility by our corporations is alive and well. There is nothing more wonderfully efficient than capitalism. But one of Adam Smith's guiding principles is that the market work in the best interest of it's society. The incredible greed of the private sector put us in this position, and now it's time to pay the piper.
Sanborn - I cannot allow you to corrupt Adam Smith. His guiding principle was not what you stated at all. His brilliance was in pointing out that each of us working in our own self-interest results in the improvement of all.
In fact he clearly stat...ed that an individual who "intends only his own gain" is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affect to trade for the public good."
If you are satisfied with the illusion of growth and the illusion of a free market, and the illusion of wealth and prosperity, nothing I can point out from reality will change your mind.
Murray - Here's the rest of the Adam Smith quote (I'm sure where your Googled quotables left off) - "But the conditions required to operate this invisible hand efficiently are demanding. And even if those conditions exist, the resulting allocation of resources could be hugely unequal, and unsustainable in a society in which the citizens vote and governments respond to majority opinion." He conceded that government intervention could be required if ideal free market conditions were not present.
I believe that ideal free market conditions indeed do not exist at this time. Greed to the detriment of all.
