Government spending is more beneficial than private spending

[sdduuuude]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Sorry to come to this debate a bit late… but might I offer the suggestion that yeah big govt. vs boo big govt is about as meaningless at dem vs rep. or liberal vs conservative.

Seems to me that whether govt control of things is better than corporate control of things hinges on which offers less corruption, fraud and misallocation of resources. In the end it doesn’t matter whether it’s govt sponsored corruption or corporate sponsored corruption, it’s how wisely the resources are applied to improve our lot.

Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

That is a thread-ending post, right there, X-Box.

[briansd1]

The heavy hand of government has always guided us in America: canals, rail, autos, planes, healthcare, the Internet, etc…

In my view it’s not government spending or private spending but how the money it being spent to benefit society. For that, you need the guiding hand of government to compel us to do beneficial things that we don’t want to do.

Interesting NY Times piece:

In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock.

If market forces cannot do something as simple as financing home mortgages, can markets be trusted to restore and maintain full employment, reduce global imbalances or prevent the destruction of the environment and prepare for a future without fossil fuels? This is the question that policymakers outside America, especially in Asia, are now asking. And the answer, as so often in economics, is “yes and no.”

Yes, because markets are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. No, because market investors are often short-sighted, fail to reflect widely held social objectives and sometimes make catastrophic mistakes. There are times, therefore, when governments must deliberately shape market incentives to achieve objectives that are determined by politics and not by the markets themselves, including financial stability, environmental protection, energy independence and poverty relief.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that governments get bigger. The new model of capitalism evolving in Asia and parts of Europe generally requires government to be smaller, but more effective. Many activities taken for granted in America as prerogatives of government have long since been privatized in foreign nations — even in what so many Americans view as socialistic Europe.

[briansd1]

The heavy hand of government has always guided us in America: canals, rail, autos, planes, healthcare, the Internet, etc…

In my view it’s not government spending or private spending but how the money it being spent to benefit society. For that, you need the guiding hand of government to compel us to do beneficial things that we don’t want to do.

Interesting NY Times piece:

In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock.

If market forces cannot do something as simple as financing home mortgages, can markets be trusted to restore and maintain full employment, reduce global imbalances or prevent the destruction of the environment and prepare for a future without fossil fuels? This is the question that policymakers outside America, especially in Asia, are now asking. And the answer, as so often in economics, is “yes and no.”

Yes, because markets are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. No, because market investors are often short-sighted, fail to reflect widely held social objectives and sometimes make catastrophic mistakes. There are times, therefore, when governments must deliberately shape market incentives to achieve objectives that are determined by politics and not by the markets themselves, including financial stability, environmental protection, energy independence and poverty relief.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that governments get bigger. The new model of capitalism evolving in Asia and parts of Europe generally requires government to be smaller, but more effective. Many activities taken for granted in America as prerogatives of government have long since been privatized in foreign nations — even in what so many Americans view as socialistic Europe.

[briansd1]

The heavy hand of government has always guided us in America: canals, rail, autos, planes, healthcare, the Internet, etc…

In my view it’s not government spending or private spending but how the money it being spent to benefit society. For that, you need the guiding hand of government to compel us to do beneficial things that we don’t want to do.

Interesting NY Times piece:

In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock.

If market forces cannot do something as simple as financing home mortgages, can markets be trusted to restore and maintain full employment, reduce global imbalances or prevent the destruction of the environment and prepare for a future without fossil fuels? This is the question that policymakers outside America, especially in Asia, are now asking. And the answer, as so often in economics, is “yes and no.”

Yes, because markets are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. No, because market investors are often short-sighted, fail to reflect widely held social objectives and sometimes make catastrophic mistakes. There are times, therefore, when governments must deliberately shape market incentives to achieve objectives that are determined by politics and not by the markets themselves, including financial stability, environmental protection, energy independence and poverty relief.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that governments get bigger. The new model of capitalism evolving in Asia and parts of Europe generally requires government to be smaller, but more effective. Many activities taken for granted in America as prerogatives of government have long since been privatized in foreign nations — even in what so many Americans view as socialistic Europe.

[briansd1]

The heavy hand of government has always guided us in America: canals, rail, autos, planes, healthcare, the Internet, etc…

In my view it’s not government spending or private spending but how the money it being spent to benefit society. For that, you need the guiding hand of government to compel us to do beneficial things that we don’t want to do.

Interesting NY Times piece:

In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock.

If market forces cannot do something as simple as financing home mortgages, can markets be trusted to restore and maintain full employment, reduce global imbalances or prevent the destruction of the environment and prepare for a future without fossil fuels? This is the question that policymakers outside America, especially in Asia, are now asking. And the answer, as so often in economics, is “yes and no.”

Yes, because markets are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. No, because market investors are often short-sighted, fail to reflect widely held social objectives and sometimes make catastrophic mistakes. There are times, therefore, when governments must deliberately shape market incentives to achieve objectives that are determined by politics and not by the markets themselves, including financial stability, environmental protection, energy independence and poverty relief.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that governments get bigger. The new model of capitalism evolving in Asia and parts of Europe generally requires government to be smaller, but more effective. Many activities taken for granted in America as prerogatives of government have long since been privatized in foreign nations — even in what so many Americans view as socialistic Europe.

[briansd1]

The heavy hand of government has always guided us in America: canals, rail, autos, planes, healthcare, the Internet, etc…

In my view it’s not government spending or private spending but how the money it being spent to benefit society. For that, you need the guiding hand of government to compel us to do beneficial things that we don’t want to do.

Interesting NY Times piece:

In this climate, the market fundamentalism now represented by the Tea Party, based on instinctive aversion to government and a faith that “the market is always right,” is a global laughingstock.

If market forces cannot do something as simple as financing home mortgages, can markets be trusted to restore and maintain full employment, reduce global imbalances or prevent the destruction of the environment and prepare for a future without fossil fuels? This is the question that policymakers outside America, especially in Asia, are now asking. And the answer, as so often in economics, is “yes and no.”

Yes, because markets are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. No, because market investors are often short-sighted, fail to reflect widely held social objectives and sometimes make catastrophic mistakes. There are times, therefore, when governments must deliberately shape market incentives to achieve objectives that are determined by politics and not by the markets themselves, including financial stability, environmental protection, energy independence and poverty relief.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that governments get bigger. The new model of capitalism evolving in Asia and parts of Europe generally requires government to be smaller, but more effective. Many activities taken for granted in America as prerogatives of government have long since been privatized in foreign nations — even in what so many Americans view as socialistic Europe.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=UCGal][quote=XBoxBoy]
Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

ITA![/quote]

In The A$$ ???? what??? Oh wait you probably mean I totally agree… Gotta stop hanging out with TG on those bondage boards. I get so confused.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=UCGal][quote=XBoxBoy]
Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

ITA![/quote]

In The A$$ ???? what??? Oh wait you probably mean I totally agree… Gotta stop hanging out with TG on those bondage boards. I get so confused.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=UCGal][quote=XBoxBoy]
Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

ITA![/quote]

In The A$$ ???? what??? Oh wait you probably mean I totally agree… Gotta stop hanging out with TG on those bondage boards. I get so confused.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=UCGal][quote=XBoxBoy]
Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

ITA![/quote]

In The A$$ ???? what??? Oh wait you probably mean I totally agree… Gotta stop hanging out with TG on those bondage boards. I get so confused.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=UCGal][quote=XBoxBoy]
Given the recent history of govt and corporate collusion, I think this whole debate is a side show. The debate shouldn’t be yeah govt. or yeah corporations/free market, it should be how the heck do we control corruption, fraud, theft, and misallocation of resources?

XBoxBoy[/quote]

ITA![/quote]

In The A$$ ???? what??? Oh wait you probably mean I totally agree… Gotta stop hanging out with TG on those bondage boards. I get so confused.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale]Capitalism is bad. Socialism and Communism are much better.

The party apparatchik’s primary focus is increasing the standard of living and quality of life of the proletariat. Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class.

We’ve seen how well this superior style of government has worked several times over the last century. There’s a stunning absence of greed and corruption in socialist/communist countries where everything the government does is for the good of the people.

Workers of the World Unite![/quote]

Why, oh why, is the ultraconservative’s response to any criticism of corporations immediately reduced to “Capitalism versus socialism and communism”?

In fact, all of these systems work – in theory. In actual practice, ummmmmm…not so good sometimes.

Theories always work. Theories are words, set down in black and white. Can’t talk back, or make claims, or deny anything on their own. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of scientific theories here, which have a completely different meaning. So, please, no outrage from the scientific community or language purists).

The problem with applying theories is that you need people involved. And when you get people involved, they bring normal human emotions and weaknesses as baggage.

I’m not speaking directly to you, meadandale, because I don’t know you outside of your Piggs posts. But most individuals throwing around the words “communism” and “socialism” these days have no clue as to their meaning (and often demonstrate this when they are unfortunate enough to run up against someone who asks them). I’m sorry, but many of the public figures that are being branded with these labels don’t even remotely qualify as such. It is clearly evident, from their voting records and from their bank accounts, that they believe firmly in the capitalist system.

There appears to exist a startling deficiency in knowledge of history among many of our citizenry. There was a time when the words, “Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class,” was not an exercise in sarcasm by ultraconservatives, but common practice. There were the rich, many whose holdings would put those of Buffett and Gates in the shade, an extremely small middle class, and huge masses of working poor. Prior to corporate recognition of the UMWA, a coal miner made around $15 per 60 hour week from which he had to pay mining expenses (oil, blasting powder, etc.). In addition, his debts from the company-owned stores and services (which, prior to the strike of 1900, he was forced to use) and rent for his company-owned house were deducted from his wages. The conditions of the mines were unspeakable, and if a miner was injured or died, there was no compensation from the mine owner. Even under such deplorable conditions, most miners and their families would not seek or accept any form of public assistance.

I use miners as only one example, but labor conditions were generally the same across the board. The formation of the labor unions, and their eventual recognition by the corporations, led to the creation of the large middle class in this country. This improvement in the quality of laborers’ lives ultimately led to the post-WWI and post_WWII economic booms, and America’s rise as a world power. The Great Depression occurred between these two periods; however, go to the history books and find the parallels between the lead-up to that and to our current economic crisis.

I repeat that there’s nothing wrong with capitalism, in and of itself, and I am firmly convinced that virtually all Americans are aligned in that belief. However, when human weaknesses (like greed for money and power) enter the picture, and are uncontrolled by any sort of legislated oversight, the basic theory of capitalism becomes distorted. Capitalism, like any other economic system, requires balance, and I challenge anyone to show me where that balance existed in our system over the last 15 or 20 years.

I’m not saying that the unions don’t share blame in any of this, because there’s no question that they have their problems. However, if you examine their history, you’ll find that it’s the same things that have plagued corporations: greed for money and power by a relative few who are in charge of many. Many union leaders don’t appear to be up on their history, either: men and women died so that their fellow laborers and their children and grandchildren could earn a fair living wage and decent working conditions. Their vision was based on creating equilibrium in the system: the company will pay us a fair wage and a safe workplace, and we’ll work hard for the company so that it will make a good profit that will keep us employed. Instead, as the years went by, it became a case of union officials trying to stick it to the company officials, at the expense of further growth and prosperity for their members. Sort of reminds me of the struggle going on now between what the pundits have deemed “the little people” against “the intellectual elite”. That’s helpful: creating antagonism against education in this country is a great way for us to stay internationally competitive in technology and science. Which, for the uninformed, means a threat to our national security and our economy.

For a long time following WWII, corporations seemed to want balance as well. Prior to 1980, there existed something termed “job security” if you were a good employee. It was possible to work for the same company from the day after you graduated from high school or college until you retired at age 65. And it WAS the same company: it hadn’t merged, or been absorbed, or broken off, or spun off. And corporations were paying a maximum 50% tax rate for much of that time. But major changes took place during the 80s: both in public policy regarding regulation and in attitudes by corporations. Companies were bought up and broken apart, plants were shut down and reopened in India and China, and unskilled and skilled jobs were shipped overseas with alarming frequency. Oh, and corporate income tax rates changed to a range of 15% – 35% , where they remain today. For those corporations that pay income tax at all. Some 60% do not, thanks to an increasingly lax and confusing internal revenue code (and cooperative members of congress – BOTH parties).

So the upshot of all of this is: Please don’t move from Point A to Point Z when someone dares to voice criticism of corporations, or wants to penalize them because they insist on taking advantage of American largesse, in bailouts, tax breaks, and in income from American consumer goods and services, while also taking advantage of much lower labor costs overseas. Being pissed off at corporate officials and their antics, and wanting government officials to police these fatcats when they are willing to hurt our nation’s people and security because of their inability to control their greed, does not mean I want to follow Socialism or Communism. And it does not mean that I hate capitalism. I just want someone to bring it back. In practice as well as in theory.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale]Capitalism is bad. Socialism and Communism are much better.

The party apparatchik’s primary focus is increasing the standard of living and quality of life of the proletariat. Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class.

We’ve seen how well this superior style of government has worked several times over the last century. There’s a stunning absence of greed and corruption in socialist/communist countries where everything the government does is for the good of the people.

Workers of the World Unite![/quote]

Why, oh why, is the ultraconservative’s response to any criticism of corporations immediately reduced to “Capitalism versus socialism and communism”?

In fact, all of these systems work – in theory. In actual practice, ummmmmm…not so good sometimes.

Theories always work. Theories are words, set down in black and white. Can’t talk back, or make claims, or deny anything on their own. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of scientific theories here, which have a completely different meaning. So, please, no outrage from the scientific community or language purists).

The problem with applying theories is that you need people involved. And when you get people involved, they bring normal human emotions and weaknesses as baggage.

I’m not speaking directly to you, meadandale, because I don’t know you outside of your Piggs posts. But most individuals throwing around the words “communism” and “socialism” these days have no clue as to their meaning (and often demonstrate this when they are unfortunate enough to run up against someone who asks them). I’m sorry, but many of the public figures that are being branded with these labels don’t even remotely qualify as such. It is clearly evident, from their voting records and from their bank accounts, that they believe firmly in the capitalist system.

There appears to exist a startling deficiency in knowledge of history among many of our citizenry. There was a time when the words, “Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class,” was not an exercise in sarcasm by ultraconservatives, but common practice. There were the rich, many whose holdings would put those of Buffett and Gates in the shade, an extremely small middle class, and huge masses of working poor. Prior to corporate recognition of the UMWA, a coal miner made around $15 per 60 hour week from which he had to pay mining expenses (oil, blasting powder, etc.). In addition, his debts from the company-owned stores and services (which, prior to the strike of 1900, he was forced to use) and rent for his company-owned house were deducted from his wages. The conditions of the mines were unspeakable, and if a miner was injured or died, there was no compensation from the mine owner. Even under such deplorable conditions, most miners and their families would not seek or accept any form of public assistance.

I use miners as only one example, but labor conditions were generally the same across the board. The formation of the labor unions, and their eventual recognition by the corporations, led to the creation of the large middle class in this country. This improvement in the quality of laborers’ lives ultimately led to the post-WWI and post_WWII economic booms, and America’s rise as a world power. The Great Depression occurred between these two periods; however, go to the history books and find the parallels between the lead-up to that and to our current economic crisis.

I repeat that there’s nothing wrong with capitalism, in and of itself, and I am firmly convinced that virtually all Americans are aligned in that belief. However, when human weaknesses (like greed for money and power) enter the picture, and are uncontrolled by any sort of legislated oversight, the basic theory of capitalism becomes distorted. Capitalism, like any other economic system, requires balance, and I challenge anyone to show me where that balance existed in our system over the last 15 or 20 years.

I’m not saying that the unions don’t share blame in any of this, because there’s no question that they have their problems. However, if you examine their history, you’ll find that it’s the same things that have plagued corporations: greed for money and power by a relative few who are in charge of many. Many union leaders don’t appear to be up on their history, either: men and women died so that their fellow laborers and their children and grandchildren could earn a fair living wage and decent working conditions. Their vision was based on creating equilibrium in the system: the company will pay us a fair wage and a safe workplace, and we’ll work hard for the company so that it will make a good profit that will keep us employed. Instead, as the years went by, it became a case of union officials trying to stick it to the company officials, at the expense of further growth and prosperity for their members. Sort of reminds me of the struggle going on now between what the pundits have deemed “the little people” against “the intellectual elite”. That’s helpful: creating antagonism against education in this country is a great way for us to stay internationally competitive in technology and science. Which, for the uninformed, means a threat to our national security and our economy.

For a long time following WWII, corporations seemed to want balance as well. Prior to 1980, there existed something termed “job security” if you were a good employee. It was possible to work for the same company from the day after you graduated from high school or college until you retired at age 65. And it WAS the same company: it hadn’t merged, or been absorbed, or broken off, or spun off. And corporations were paying a maximum 50% tax rate for much of that time. But major changes took place during the 80s: both in public policy regarding regulation and in attitudes by corporations. Companies were bought up and broken apart, plants were shut down and reopened in India and China, and unskilled and skilled jobs were shipped overseas with alarming frequency. Oh, and corporate income tax rates changed to a range of 15% – 35% , where they remain today. For those corporations that pay income tax at all. Some 60% do not, thanks to an increasingly lax and confusing internal revenue code (and cooperative members of congress – BOTH parties).

So the upshot of all of this is: Please don’t move from Point A to Point Z when someone dares to voice criticism of corporations, or wants to penalize them because they insist on taking advantage of American largesse, in bailouts, tax breaks, and in income from American consumer goods and services, while also taking advantage of much lower labor costs overseas. Being pissed off at corporate officials and their antics, and wanting government officials to police these fatcats when they are willing to hurt our nation’s people and security because of their inability to control their greed, does not mean I want to follow Socialism or Communism. And it does not mean that I hate capitalism. I just want someone to bring it back. In practice as well as in theory.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale]Capitalism is bad. Socialism and Communism are much better.

The party apparatchik’s primary focus is increasing the standard of living and quality of life of the proletariat. Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class.

We’ve seen how well this superior style of government has worked several times over the last century. There’s a stunning absence of greed and corruption in socialist/communist countries where everything the government does is for the good of the people.

Workers of the World Unite![/quote]

Why, oh why, is the ultraconservative’s response to any criticism of corporations immediately reduced to “Capitalism versus socialism and communism”?

In fact, all of these systems work – in theory. In actual practice, ummmmmm…not so good sometimes.

Theories always work. Theories are words, set down in black and white. Can’t talk back, or make claims, or deny anything on their own. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of scientific theories here, which have a completely different meaning. So, please, no outrage from the scientific community or language purists).

The problem with applying theories is that you need people involved. And when you get people involved, they bring normal human emotions and weaknesses as baggage.

I’m not speaking directly to you, meadandale, because I don’t know you outside of your Piggs posts. But most individuals throwing around the words “communism” and “socialism” these days have no clue as to their meaning (and often demonstrate this when they are unfortunate enough to run up against someone who asks them). I’m sorry, but many of the public figures that are being branded with these labels don’t even remotely qualify as such. It is clearly evident, from their voting records and from their bank accounts, that they believe firmly in the capitalist system.

There appears to exist a startling deficiency in knowledge of history among many of our citizenry. There was a time when the words, “Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class,” was not an exercise in sarcasm by ultraconservatives, but common practice. There were the rich, many whose holdings would put those of Buffett and Gates in the shade, an extremely small middle class, and huge masses of working poor. Prior to corporate recognition of the UMWA, a coal miner made around $15 per 60 hour week from which he had to pay mining expenses (oil, blasting powder, etc.). In addition, his debts from the company-owned stores and services (which, prior to the strike of 1900, he was forced to use) and rent for his company-owned house were deducted from his wages. The conditions of the mines were unspeakable, and if a miner was injured or died, there was no compensation from the mine owner. Even under such deplorable conditions, most miners and their families would not seek or accept any form of public assistance.

I use miners as only one example, but labor conditions were generally the same across the board. The formation of the labor unions, and their eventual recognition by the corporations, led to the creation of the large middle class in this country. This improvement in the quality of laborers’ lives ultimately led to the post-WWI and post_WWII economic booms, and America’s rise as a world power. The Great Depression occurred between these two periods; however, go to the history books and find the parallels between the lead-up to that and to our current economic crisis.

I repeat that there’s nothing wrong with capitalism, in and of itself, and I am firmly convinced that virtually all Americans are aligned in that belief. However, when human weaknesses (like greed for money and power) enter the picture, and are uncontrolled by any sort of legislated oversight, the basic theory of capitalism becomes distorted. Capitalism, like any other economic system, requires balance, and I challenge anyone to show me where that balance existed in our system over the last 15 or 20 years.

I’m not saying that the unions don’t share blame in any of this, because there’s no question that they have their problems. However, if you examine their history, you’ll find that it’s the same things that have plagued corporations: greed for money and power by a relative few who are in charge of many. Many union leaders don’t appear to be up on their history, either: men and women died so that their fellow laborers and their children and grandchildren could earn a fair living wage and decent working conditions. Their vision was based on creating equilibrium in the system: the company will pay us a fair wage and a safe workplace, and we’ll work hard for the company so that it will make a good profit that will keep us employed. Instead, as the years went by, it became a case of union officials trying to stick it to the company officials, at the expense of further growth and prosperity for their members. Sort of reminds me of the struggle going on now between what the pundits have deemed “the little people” against “the intellectual elite”. That’s helpful: creating antagonism against education in this country is a great way for us to stay internationally competitive in technology and science. Which, for the uninformed, means a threat to our national security and our economy.

For a long time following WWII, corporations seemed to want balance as well. Prior to 1980, there existed something termed “job security” if you were a good employee. It was possible to work for the same company from the day after you graduated from high school or college until you retired at age 65. And it WAS the same company: it hadn’t merged, or been absorbed, or broken off, or spun off. And corporations were paying a maximum 50% tax rate for much of that time. But major changes took place during the 80s: both in public policy regarding regulation and in attitudes by corporations. Companies were bought up and broken apart, plants were shut down and reopened in India and China, and unskilled and skilled jobs were shipped overseas with alarming frequency. Oh, and corporate income tax rates changed to a range of 15% – 35% , where they remain today. For those corporations that pay income tax at all. Some 60% do not, thanks to an increasingly lax and confusing internal revenue code (and cooperative members of congress – BOTH parties).

So the upshot of all of this is: Please don’t move from Point A to Point Z when someone dares to voice criticism of corporations, or wants to penalize them because they insist on taking advantage of American largesse, in bailouts, tax breaks, and in income from American consumer goods and services, while also taking advantage of much lower labor costs overseas. Being pissed off at corporate officials and their antics, and wanting government officials to police these fatcats when they are willing to hurt our nation’s people and security because of their inability to control their greed, does not mean I want to follow Socialism or Communism. And it does not mean that I hate capitalism. I just want someone to bring it back. In practice as well as in theory.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=meadandale]Capitalism is bad. Socialism and Communism are much better.

The party apparatchik’s primary focus is increasing the standard of living and quality of life of the proletariat. Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class.

We’ve seen how well this superior style of government has worked several times over the last century. There’s a stunning absence of greed and corruption in socialist/communist countries where everything the government does is for the good of the people.

Workers of the World Unite![/quote]

Why, oh why, is the ultraconservative’s response to any criticism of corporations immediately reduced to “Capitalism versus socialism and communism”?

In fact, all of these systems work – in theory. In actual practice, ummmmmm…not so good sometimes.

Theories always work. Theories are words, set down in black and white. Can’t talk back, or make claims, or deny anything on their own. (Disclaimer: I am not speaking of scientific theories here, which have a completely different meaning. So, please, no outrage from the scientific community or language purists).

The problem with applying theories is that you need people involved. And when you get people involved, they bring normal human emotions and weaknesses as baggage.

I’m not speaking directly to you, meadandale, because I don’t know you outside of your Piggs posts. But most individuals throwing around the words “communism” and “socialism” these days have no clue as to their meaning (and often demonstrate this when they are unfortunate enough to run up against someone who asks them). I’m sorry, but many of the public figures that are being branded with these labels don’t even remotely qualify as such. It is clearly evident, from their voting records and from their bank accounts, that they believe firmly in the capitalist system.

There appears to exist a startling deficiency in knowledge of history among many of our citizenry. There was a time when the words, “Capitalists are greedy and just want to get rich on the back of the working class,” was not an exercise in sarcasm by ultraconservatives, but common practice. There were the rich, many whose holdings would put those of Buffett and Gates in the shade, an extremely small middle class, and huge masses of working poor. Prior to corporate recognition of the UMWA, a coal miner made around $15 per 60 hour week from which he had to pay mining expenses (oil, blasting powder, etc.). In addition, his debts from the company-owned stores and services (which, prior to the strike of 1900, he was forced to use) and rent for his company-owned house were deducted from his wages. The conditions of the mines were unspeakable, and if a miner was injured or died, there was no compensation from the mine owner. Even under such deplorable conditions, most miners and their families would not seek or accept any form of public assistance.

I use miners as only one example, but labor conditions were generally the same across the board. The formation of the labor unions, and their eventual recognition by the corporations, led to the creation of the large middle class in this country. This improvement in the quality of laborers’ lives ultimately led to the post-WWI and post_WWII economic booms, and America’s rise as a world power. The Great Depression occurred between these two periods; however, go to the history books and find the parallels between the lead-up to that and to our current economic crisis.

I repeat that there’s nothing wrong with capitalism, in and of itself, and I am firmly convinced that virtually all Americans are aligned in that belief. However, when human weaknesses (like greed for money and power) enter the picture, and are uncontrolled by any sort of legislated oversight, the basic theory of capitalism becomes distorted. Capitalism, like any other economic system, requires balance, and I challenge anyone to show me where that balance existed in our system over the last 15 or 20 years.

I’m not saying that the unions don’t share blame in any of this, because there’s no question that they have their problems. However, if you examine their history, you’ll find that it’s the same things that have plagued corporations: greed for money and power by a relative few who are in charge of many. Many union leaders don’t appear to be up on their history, either: men and women died so that their fellow laborers and their children and grandchildren could earn a fair living wage and decent working conditions. Their vision was based on creating equilibrium in the system: the company will pay us a fair wage and a safe workplace, and we’ll work hard for the company so that it will make a good profit that will keep us employed. Instead, as the years went by, it became a case of union officials trying to stick it to the company officials, at the expense of further growth and prosperity for their members. Sort of reminds me of the struggle going on now between what the pundits have deemed “the little people” against “the intellectual elite”. That’s helpful: creating antagonism against education in this country is a great way for us to stay internationally competitive in technology and science. Which, for the uninformed, means a threat to our national security and our economy.

For a long time following WWII, corporations seemed to want balance as well. Prior to 1980, there existed something termed “job security” if you were a good employee. It was possible to work for the same company from the day after you graduated from high school or college until you retired at age 65. And it WAS the same company: it hadn’t merged, or been absorbed, or broken off, or spun off. And corporations were paying a maximum 50% tax rate for much of that time. But major changes took place during the 80s: both in public policy regarding regulation and in attitudes by corporations. Companies were bought up and broken apart, plants were shut down and reopened in India and China, and unskilled and skilled jobs were shipped overseas with alarming frequency. Oh, and corporate income tax rates changed to a range of 15% – 35% , where they remain today. For those corporations that pay income tax at all. Some 60% do not, thanks to an increasingly lax and confusing internal revenue code (and cooperative members of congress – BOTH parties).

So the upshot of all of this is: Please don’t move from Point A to Point Z when someone dares to voice criticism of corporations, or wants to penalize them because they insist on taking advantage of American largesse, in bailouts, tax breaks, and in income from American consumer goods and services, while also taking advantage of much lower labor costs overseas. Being pissed off at corporate officials and their antics, and wanting government officials to police these fatcats when they are willing to hurt our nation’s people and security because of their inability to control their greed, does not mean I want to follow Socialism or Communism. And it does not mean that I hate capitalism. I just want someone to bring it back. In practice as well as in theory.

[Author]

Posts