next »

[cgfunmathguy]

I'm sorry.  I was not being clear.  I was thinking of this part of your previous post

I brand myself a "libertarian" in the truest sense of the word. Get the government out of my life, and keep it out. My complaints about government run the gamut and hit both sides. The federal government should not be in the business of doling out dollars to any entity. This includes corporations, educational institutions of any rank (including the modern pre-school/day care), state agencies (like the departments of transportation), or individuals. Enforcing this one reform would reduce everyone's tax load by more than 50%, even if you kept funding the wars on terror indefinitely.

Has there ever been a federal government that did not distribute money to any entity including corporations, educational institutions of any rank, state agencies or individuals?  I used the word "economy" inappropriately.  I was thinking of the kind of economy that would emerge from such a federal government.

My question, by the way, is not an attempt to bait.  I find the values of libertarianism attractive.  I just don't know if it's a practical alternative or just a romantic longing.

Thanks.

I think we would find that during the Early Republic period, the federal government acted in just this sort of way. It worked for the time. However, in the early twentieth century, we became obsessed with "government doing something". I'm not saying that it was all bad, just most of it. Federal regulation of corporations, trusts, etc. has roots in the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, and it had a profoundly positive effect (at least early on). On the other hand, I'd have a hard time finding a constitutional basis for the federal Department of Education.

I do consider libertarianism to be a romantic longing, unfortunately. If everyone who portrayed themselves as libertarians (myself included) voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, I suspect that we would not have any President with D or R behind their names for the last 20+ years.

By the way, even if you were baiting me, I'd still respond because I enjoy the discourse.

[scientiffikk]

First, I would like to know your definition of socialism, and why you think it is such a bad system.  You make your statements as if it is obviously a bad thing, but it's not obvious to me, and I would like to know what exactly about socialism that repulses you.

Definition (from American Heritage Dictionary, as quoted on dictionary.com): Socialism--1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Believe it or not, the profit motive works, and socialism doesn't. The Pilgrims (yes, the ones on the Mayflower) learned that lesson 400 years ago, but we keep refusing to believe it.

Secondly, could you tell me why you think it is better for a for-profit insurance company or HMO to make your medical decisions than to have national health care?  If you tell me that national health care will cost too much, then you are ignorant of the current costs of health care in its current state.

A for-profit insurance company has a motive to make sure that I am satisfied customer. If I'm not satisfied, I can change companies, change plans, or fund my own health care. If the company wants my money, they make sure I'm satisfied. Yes, health care is expensive. I actually blame that in the prevalence of health insurance.

Thanks for the response, but I wanted YOUR definition of socialism, not a dictionary definition.  Because I don't think they match up.

Can you give me any evidence from credible sources that "profit motive works and socialism doesn't"?  By your previous statement that a country with national health care is socialist, every industrialized country on the planet, except the US, is socialist.  Are you telling me that none of them "work"?

And if you think that health insurance companies think of you as a 'customer' to be pleased, then I think you are delusional.  Come on, be honest, how many people can afford to switch insurance companies because they don't like the service?  Most people can only afford to be covered through their employer, so in reality don't have an alternative to turn to.

Maybe an overabundance of insurance has led to the current state of the system we find ourselves in, but it doesn't matter how it happened, the reality is that for probably 90% of the US population, if you don't have insurance then you can't afford to get sick or be in an accident. 

[pyshnov]

Hi, oldchair, you say:

Would you make it illegal for business people to use the resources offered by investors (doing so would seem to create an incredible level of governmental regulation) or would you mandate that all busnesses must be run by the owner, rather than by a professional manager?

No, they can do whatever they want. Shareholders will do whatever they want. This problem of non-private, non-profit economy was created by changing the tax laws, creating tax exemptions. Corporations today are running their business with public money, period. Moreover, they have freedom to redistribute public money when they make tax-free donations and other tricks. This accounts for enormous sums. How unelected private person can redistribute public money?  This is all based on theory of K. Galbraith. Though, the warning was made by A. Berle ("Power Without  Property", NY, 1959) that in this system a manager will play a role of a communist commissar. Now Berle is forgotten and the socialism in this half century went to total absurdities and fraud on the taxpayer.

To reverse socialism, you have to start from tax laws. And I believe nothing more is needed, so deep the tax exemptions changed everything. When you try to analize where it goes, what is affected, you go mad.

dark_globe, you say:

The human race doomed itself to destruction when it left subsistence farming. That was one level the limited human intellect could deal with.

The first is pure wisdom, right.
The second, I think, here you should add "and character". The intellect has outgrown character and goes wrong without the right character.

[oldchair]

By the way, even if you were baiting me, I'd still respond because I enjoy the discourse.

Thanks, I enjoy it too.

[pyshnov]

What is said here that "profite motive works", is also not the main thing.
The main thing is that when you let an individual to "manage" something that is not his own, you corrupt this individual. It only the love of the product created by you and owned by you that keeps people honest, creative, free of envy.

[scientiffikk]

scientiffikk:

First, I would like to know your definition of socialism, and why you think it is such a bad system.  You make your statements as if it is obviously a bad thing, but it's not obvious to me, and I would like to know what exactly about socialism that repulses you.

This question is not addressed to me, yet the naivety of it is so shoking that it has to be answered by someone like me who lived for 34 years under socialism.

Socialism is a condition of society where a business is run not by its owner, but by an appointed manager. What do you get here is that this person(s) does not have a genuine interest in its success, profitability. He is supposed to act on honest motivation, but people soon discover that he is corrupt, i.e. his interest is only in his own salary; he steals from "his" business - it does not come from his own pocket; he would betray the interest of his business for a bribe; he sells his business or buys more business at a profit that adds only to his salary and position. Then he fails, but not he personally, his failures affect only the taxpayers.

Socialism knows that it is corrupt and it starts the fight for ethics and integrity in a "workplace": the meetings organised by the crooks. Some cases publicised, some perpetrators punished, but mostly because they did not have the right backing in the right places.

Then, failing in the business, the system goes mad about political correctness and all things political. Then, it blames other countries, starts wars. It begins uniting its own society by creating the frenzy of external danger. Its own constitution is violated permanently due to the "emergency" situation.

Sounds familiar? US is by 90% there, since the big business is no longer private. You might not see it, but the fact is that US "economy" is no longer profitable: corporations (they are in fact socialist institutions) make profits on capital (dividends) that are below the bank interest rate - a ridiculous artificial situation!! And, part of the time, the best and the largests ones are "losing money".

The shares do go up, but this is a fraud, sustainable only because most of the shares are never presented to the bank with the demand of cash. Their true value is a small fraction of the value claimed by Stock Exchange. Clearly, it is fraud: the dividends are around 1% at best, while shares go up on average about 10% yearly (a fictitious figure; where this added value can come from and exceed by 10 times the yearly dividends?) You are just told that your shares grow somewhere in the banks, that's all.

Your fate is in the hands of corrupt managers. Do you like socialism?

I don't quite understand your point, are you saying the US is a socialist country?  Or that US corporations are socialist entities?  Or that it is better to NOT be socialist as a nation?

As for corruption, I consider a government that collects tax dollars, then uses those dollars to hire private corporations with political connections (usually using no-bid contracts) to do the government's business (with no accountability) as highly corrupt.  I consider a government that places people with political motives and little expertise in charge of government agencies that determine how billions of dollars are spent as corrupt.  I consider a government that silences scientists who find results that go against the current ruler's political goals as corrupt.  This is the system we have in place now in the US.  I really can't imagine a socialist country (like Canada or Denmark) as being more corrupt.

[cgfunmathguy]

Thanks for the response, but I wanted YOUR definition of socialism, not a dictionary definition.  Because I don't think they match up.

Actually, the first definition quoted and mine are very close to identical. I knew what my definition was, went looking to see if I was really out to lunch (as accused), found out I wasn't, and posted the evidence.

Can you give me any evidence from credible sources that "profit motive works and socialism doesn't"? 

Sure. Let's look at the Pilgrims to whom I referred earlier. The Mayflower Compact was pure socialism. Everything was owned in common by the community, individual desire and talent meant nothing, and everyone was required to work for the "common good". The first year they were in Massachussetts, the colony nearly starved. If not for the generosity of the local indigenous people (not allowed to call them "Indians" anymore), the colony would have disappeared. This, by the way, was the reason for the first celebration of Thanksgiving.

The leaders of the colony decided that the Compact wasn't working. They went to the community and offered to change/scrap the Compact. Scrapping the Compact and allowing each individual to work with his/her own set of skills, the colony thrived as people tried to better their situations. The only difference between the two situations at the time was socialism vs. the profit motive.

As for more recent examples, let us look at the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was much more socialist than communist. As I recall, the Soviet Union and its economic system collapsed 74 years after its birth due to its socialist policies and promises (mostly unfulfilled). The US, which still operates mostly on a profit motive, is still running strong 230 years after its founding.

By your previous statement that a country with national health care is socialist, every industrialized country on the planet, except the US, is socialist.  Are you telling me that none of them "work"?

I think that argument can be made. You mean to tell me that France, Italy, and Germany (to name three) have a better (cheaper, more widely available services, more qualified doctors in greater numbers per capita) health care system than the US? Then please tell me why the US produces more medical (not pharmaceutical, although those work too) advances than any other country. Also, the overall economies of these three socialist countries is not anywhere close to the equal of the US. These countries, which are beacons of socialism in the health-care industry, are not working. Neither is our northern neighbor, Canada.

And if you think that health insurance companies think of you as a 'customer' to be pleased, then I think you are delusional.  Come on, be honest, how many people can afford to switch insurance companies because they don't like the service?  Most people can only afford to be covered through their employer, so in reality don't have an alternative to turn to.

Maybe an overabundance of insurance has led to the current state of the system we find ourselves in, but it doesn't matter how it happened, the reality is that for probably 90% of the US population, if you don't have insurance then you can't afford to get sick or be in an accident. 

I have more than one choice for health insurance. If I don't like the way I'm treated by one plan, I can switch (during a given period of time each year). If neither plan does what I want, I can choose to purchase private insurance or no insurance. In my experience (notice the qualifier), most doctors will significantly cut their bill if you pay on your own instead of submitting insurance. It is actually cheaper for them. Also, if you are in an accident at work or in your car, worker's compensation or someone's automobile insurance picks up the tab (up to a fairly significant amount). It was for these reasons that I was voluntarily a member of the "45 million without health insurance" for 11 years while substitute teaching and going to graduate school. The mentality of "I can't afford to go to the doctor without health insurance" is pretty much a crock.

What is said here that "profite motive works", is also not the main thing.
The main thing is that when you let an individual to "manage" something that is not his own, you corrupt this individual. It only the love of the product created by you and owned by you that keeps people honest, creative, free of envy.

Very well said, pyshnov.

I really can't imagine a socialist country (like Canada or Denmark) as being more corrupt.

Try France, for starters.

[scientiffikk]

Can you give me any evidence from credible sources that "profit motive works and socialism doesn't"? 

Sure. Let's look at the Pilgrims to whom I referred earlier. The Mayflower Compact was pure socialism. Everything was owned in common by the community, individual desire and talent meant nothing, and everyone was required to work for the "common good". The first year they were in Massachussetts, the colony nearly starved. If not for the generosity of the local indigenous people (not allowed to call them "Indians" anymore), the colony would have disappeared. This, by the way, was the reason for the first celebration of Thanksgiving.

The leaders of the colony decided that the Compact wasn't working. They went to the community and offered to change/scrap the Compact. Scrapping the Compact and allowing each individual to work with his/her own set of skills, the colony thrived as people tried to better their situations. The only difference between the two situations at the time was socialism vs. the profit motive.

By your previous statement that a country with national health care is socialist, every industrialized country on the planet, except the US, is socialist.  Are you telling me that none of them "work"?

I think that argument can be made. You mean to tell me that France, Italy, and Germany (to name three) have a better (cheaper, more widely available services, more qualified doctors in greater numbers per capita) health care system than the US? Then please tell me why the US produces more medical (not pharmaceutical, although those work too) advances than any other country. Also, the overall economies of these three socialist countries is not anywhere close to the equal of the US. These countries, which are beacons of socialism in the health-care industry, are not working. Neither is our northern neighbor, Canada.

I'm giving up on the insurance debate, because I don't really have time to look up sources to make my points.

As far as calling Italy, Canada, France, and Germany failures, that is totally an opinion, and you have no evidence to show me that socialism is not working.  I don't think growth of an economy is the only way to measure success.  If so, then China (communist) is equally successful to the USA.  Your argument that health care is better in the US is better than in Canada, Italy etc., because more technology is developed in the US, is fatally flawed.  For one thing, the scales of economy are much different, so total output is obviously going to be different, all else equal.  Secondly, how does technology innovation translate to patient care?  Show me some non-biased numbers or studies that show that patient care is better in the US.  Everything I've read says that these economic and quality arguments you present are strawmen and don't hold up to economic analysis.

Sorry, but your Pilgrim explanation strikes me as an elementary school level story.  Founding a settlement on a "new" continent is hardly a model for current government.

[dark_globe]

As for more recent examples, let us look at the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which was much more socialist than communist. As I recall, the Soviet Union and its economic system collapsed 74 years after its birth due to its socialist policies and promises (mostly unfulfilled). The US, which still operates mostly on a profit motive, is still running strong 230 years after its founding.

That's horribly simplistic. The Soviet Union's collapse was due to many factors: failure to invest in the infrastructure, spending far too much of the GNP on national defense, rising national movements, widespread corruption, etc., etc.

A good study of the fall of the Soviet Union is Suny's The Revenge of the Past.

I'm not defending the system the Soviets claimed they had, but to blame their collapse exclusively on socialism is incorrect.

[cgfunmathguy]

As far as calling Italy, Canada, France, and Germany failures, ...

I did not call them "failures". I did say that, in regards to health care, their systems aren't working. If you want a better explanation of why socialism doesn't work in health care, consider the VA Medical System, to which I was subjected for eight years. I had a car accident and suffered a concussion. My VA doctor, a very conscientious sort, ordered an MRI to diagnose severity, etc. SIX WEEKS LATER, I had the MRI, which showed nothing. (Gee, I wonder why?) This is the actual working of a socialized health-care system, not the pie-in-the-sky model. It doesn't work.

Sorry, but your Pilgrim explanation strikes me as an elementary school level story.  Founding a settlement on a "new" continent is hardly a model for current government.

The Mayflower Compact was socialism in its purest form. There were no other entanglements, just a group of people agreeing to let the community hold the means of production and to allow all of its output to be distributed among the population at large. If you refuse to accept the story, then you are not serious about finding out how socialism works (or doesn't).

That's horribly simplistic. The Soviet Union's collapse was due to many factors: failure to invest in the infrastructure, spending far too much of the GNP on national defense, rising national movements, widespread corruption, etc., etc.

A good study of the fall of the Soviet Union is Suny's The Revenge of the Past.

I'm not defending the system the Soviets claimed they had, but to blame their collapse exclusively on socialism is incorrect.

Yes, it is simplistic. However, the underlying cause for the collapse was the socialistic system employed and "refined" since 1917. Were there other causes? Sure. Would they have been there without the socialism? Maybe. (I'm inclined to believe that some of them would have been, at least.) Were they exacerbated by socialism? Yes, I believe so.

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll look it up.

[dark_globe]

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll look it up.

My pleasure!

[oldchair]

I would love to hear from an historian (calling Larry C; calling Larry C) about the Mayflower Compact argument.  My recollection from American history classes (25+ years ago) is that the first year was dreadful because of misunderstandings about weather, planting seasons, harsh winters, etc. 

In terms of national health insurance, what does one make of the recent news stories about American industries (especially the automobile industry) being unable to compete with foreign corporations, both Asian and European, because of health insurance costs?  CNN/Money had a report on the Chrysler Group yesterday, I believe, that indicated that we just can't compete with nations that have national health care.  Wouldn't the pressures of a global economy demand that we adapt?

Also, if the American health care system is so good, why do we do so badly on so many health-indices when compared to other industrialized nations?  I'm thinking of life expectancy, infant-death rates, etc. 

The private system we have seems to be rendering us uncompetitive and prone to early death.  Of course, some of the early death might be caused by the stress of worrying not only about illness but also about the financial ruin that can go along with it.

[scientiffikk]

As far as calling Italy, Canada, France, and Germany failures, ...

I did not call them "failures". I did say that, in regards to health care, their systems aren't working. If you want a better explanation of why socialism doesn't work in health care, consider the VA Medical System, to which I was subjected for eight years. I had a car accident and suffered a concussion. My VA doctor, a very conscientious sort, ordered an MRI to diagnose severity, etc. SIX WEEKS LATER, I had the MRI, which showed nothing. (Gee, I wonder why?) This is the actual working of a socialized health-care system, not the pie-in-the-sky model. It doesn't work.

Sorry, but your Pilgrim explanation strikes me as an elementary school level story.  Founding a settlement on a "new" continent is hardly a model for current government.

The Mayflower Compact was socialism in its purest form. There were no other entanglements, just a group of people agreeing to let the community hold the means of production and to allow all of its output to be distributed among the population at large. If you refuse to accept the story, then you are not serious about finding out how socialism works (or doesn't).

OK, cgfunmathguy, I don't think it's fair of you to say that if I reject your pilgrim explanation that I'm not serious about understanding your point.  I seriously want to know why you think that it would be such a terrible thing for the US to move towards socialized medicine, like every other industrialized nation.  I don't think I'm being dense, but I haven't really gotten a sense of why you feel this way.  All of your reasoning thus far has been anecdotal at best, and to me, illogical.  I've read materials from PhD economists that have analyzed the costs of paying taxes for national health care vs. paying in the current manner, and the idea that national health care would be more expensive doesn't hold up to a careful analysis.  I believe this to be true.  That a doctor in a one-payer system would give you lower quality care than in an insurance payer/patient payer system (as it is now) doesn't make sense to me.  You haven't given me any numbers or studies to show that quality of care is worse in socialized medicine countries than it is here, and the experts I've read say that this argument also doesn't hold up.  The profit motive argument, where a patient goes shopping for another insurance company, is not realistic, as I've pointed out, because of the prohibitive costs (to most US citizens), and the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.  This argument also fall flat when a patient needs urgent care.  If you go the the doctor and are told that you need a surgical procedure immediately, are you really going to shop at every hospital in the region for the cheapest surgery?  Theoretically you could, but realistically, a competitive market for life-saving surgery doesn't exist.

So you got a bad doctor at the VA, and I believe you, but there are bad doctors in every hospital, my friend, getting a bad one at the VA doesn't mean that the VA system is a failure!  This is flawed logic.  And, you didn't exactly say that Italy, etc. were failures, but that was your basic point, was it not?  I have been to Canada, England, and several countries in Europe (including France), and they seem to be thriving pretty well from what I could tell.  So, how is socialism such a bad form of government?  You've already given me the economic growth argument, but as I mentioned, that argument doesn't work when you consider growth of communist China.  How about quality of life issues?  Personal security in health care and retirement seem to be pretty important measures of a successful system of government, in my opinion. 

Lastly, you didn't give me any basis for your assertion that France is more corrupt than the current US government.  It may be true, but if so I'm unaware of the reason.

[acrimone]

You haven't given me any numbers or studies to show that quality of care is worse in socialized medicine countries than it is here, and the experts I've read say that this argument also doesn't hold up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/08/07/nhealth06.xml&sSheet=/health/2006/08/07/ixhmain.html

[scientiffikk]

You haven't given me any numbers or studies to show that quality of care is worse in socialized medicine countries than it is here, and the experts I've read say that this argument also doesn't hold up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2006/08/07/nhealth06.xml&sSheet=/health/2006/08/07/ixhmain.html

Thanks, but is that the best you can do?

From the article:
"A spokesman for the hospital and the PCT insisted that no one was denied urgent treatment, adding: "This is a local issue. It doesn't have national significance.""