|
Post by lc on Feb 12, 2006 21:26:52 GMT -6
(Post deleted by original author)
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 12, 2006 21:34:53 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 15, 2006 21:03:56 GMT -6
I have great respect for Ron Paul and his views. I was even more impressed when he opposed CAFTA. I think he has also supported withdrawl from the WTO. I agree with him on a majority of issues. I'm a little disappointed when Paul blames our economic problems on "socialism," or "world socialism." A better label would be world "corporatism," since socialism implies government ownership of property and the means of production. That's definitely not what's happening today. Today we face the problem of a small number of big corporations owning a large share of the world's productive capacity. Maybe we could call this "Corporate Socialism," which it practically the same thing as Fascism.
I definitely agree with Paul's pro-Gold, anti free-trade, and anti-bank sentiment. The government definitely needs to get out of the business of propping up the bank cartels, as well as Corporate monopolies and oligopolies.
Like Paul, I believe we need to stop "importing" labor by allowing unrestricted immigration into this country, which increases the labor supply, and drives wages down as a result. I also believe we need to stop outsourcing jobs, and the labor income that goes with it, to foreign countries. Since both of these actions drive American wages down, they make it more difficult for Americans to purchase American production.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 15, 2006 21:48:02 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 16, 2006 0:02:58 GMT -6
The definition of socialism may have changed since I had it in my political science classes. At that time, socialism was defined as an economic system where the government owns the means of production. The dictionary I have describes it as a system where the government owns and controls the means of production. But from my earlier classes, it was stressed that socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. The United States, even with considerable government regulation and control was not socialist, because there was almost no government ownership of the means of production.
In contrast to the economic system of socialism, Communism is a totalitarian form of government that employs a socialist economic system.
In practical terms (from the 1970's), the countries of Western Europe, such as Germany, France, and Britain, were considered socialist. They had approximately 20% government ownership of property. The Soviet Union had 60% government ownership of property.
So in practice, whether a country was considered socialist or communist was related to degree of government ownership of property. In theory, however, you could have 60% ownership of property and still not been considered Communist.
Regardless of contemporary definitions, I don't consider a country "socialist" unless there is significant government ownership of property, especially the means of production. By the definition I was taught, increased government control and regulation does not make a country more "socialistic." And if government intervenes on the side of big business, it becomes more "corporatocratic," not socialistic.
If the U.S. nationalized its health care, that would be a socialistic move. But if it subsidizes private insurance, it's definitely not a "socialistic" move. In fact, I'd call it a corporatocratic move. Private ownership has been maintained, but free enterprise has not. Though the enterprise is being funded by the government (the taxpayer), the profits are going into private pockets.
To my way of thinking, unless you have government ownership (and no private profit), you don't have socialism. What you actually have today is something drifting in the direction of Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's Nazism. You have government assisting big business and corporations at the expense of small business and workers.
Ron Paul might get a lot of support from the left if he'd stop labeling everything as a "socialist" conspiracy. If this is a conspiracy, it's not a conspiracy of workers. That's what socialism would imply. It's a conspiracy of private big business and banking interests. This is not consistent with socialism, Marxism, or Communism. It's consistent with monopolistic/oligopolistic capitalism. Or better still "corporatism."
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 16, 2006 10:37:10 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 16, 2006 12:09:59 GMT -6
I'm certainly more in favor of Ron Paul's type of capitalism than I am in what we have now. I think the definition of direct re-distribution of wealth downward does describe the current use of the word socialism. As such, policies that cause downward redistribution of wealth are labeled socialistic.
However, my contention is that many current policies are redistributing wealth upward. I believe that's a much bigger problem at present. And that upward redistribution will hurt capitalism in the long run, because it reduces the money available to consumers to purchase goods.
As such, at the present time, I think policies that redistribute wealth downward would help and strengthen capitalism.
Capitalism not only requires capital, it requires consumers to buy the production resulting from the use of that capital. At the present time there is excess capital in relation to consumer spending power. (Though consumer spending power has been greatly amplified through borrowing.) Some downward redistribution of wealth, at the expense of reducing investment capital, would actually increase capital investment. It would increase returns on new investment by increasing consumer spending. A reduction in capital in this manner would increase capital investment. At present, such a "socialistic" move would be in the best interests of capitalism in the long run. Everyone would benefit, including capitalists. More wealth would be produced because the increased aggregate demand would spur increased production.
At present, any "bottlenecks" to increased production are not from lack of production facilities or capital. They're from the ability of consumers to buy production. These are demand-side limitations, not a supply-side limitations. Capital investment is not being limited by the supply of investment capital. It's being limited by investment demand and investment opportunities. These are demand-side limitations, not a supply-side limitations.
I may have been a little vague about my opinion of Ron Paul. He's one of my favorites. I haven't read anything that he's written that I disagree with. Though I disagree with some of his labeling of world events as being "socialist," I agree with him on those issues.. He's one of the American worker's best friends in Congress. He has stood up against his party against what many of us call the "cheap labor lobby."
Paul refers to Keynes frequently, though I'm never sure of the exact context. I suspect it is in reference to deficit spending to keep the economy afloat. If it is, I would agree with Paul, but a few words are necessary in Keynes's defense. Keynes believed in deficit spending in times of a severe aggregate demand shortage. This was intended as a temporary fix only. The debt was to be paid back when the economy was healthy again. Keynes advocated increasing aggregate demand when it was so deficient that the economy essentially collapsed. His policy of government intervention was basically "economic" disaster relief. It was kind of like a FEMA for the economy. (back when FEMA actually worked.) You wouldn't use FEMA to rebuild Los Angeles at present anymore than you would use an "economic" FEMA to prop up the U.S. economy after World War II.
If Paul is criticizing the misuse of Keynesian policies today, then I disagree with him somewhat. Many classify today's government policies as those of Reaganomics, not Keynesian economics. The pump is being primed from the top, not the bottom. And it's not working.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Feb 16, 2006 14:49:10 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 17, 2006 17:27:03 GMT -6
LC,
Once again, we are in near complete agreement. I agree that in a perfect economy there would be no need for direct subsidization of the poor. However, I'm probably not as militantly against it as Ron Paul. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are for welfare payments, or TANF, but it seems to be relatively small--somewhere in the $20-40 billion/year range. This pales in comparison to our defense budget which is in the $500 billion/year range, or the war in Iraq. Furthermore, TANF goes almost 100% into consumer spending. So it does have the advantage of propping up aggregate demand, and helping those that need it the most.
But I'd much rather fix demand problems with wage increases. And I think increasing the minimum wage is an especially good idea.
I really don't have much of a problem with the use of the word socialism. I just think that using it to describe certain events diminishes public perception of extensive Corporate involvement in those events. I think it gives a false impression of who is reaping the benefits when an alleged government "giveaway" program results in increased profits for Corporate America. The Medicare Drug Plan is a classic example. Though espoused as a program to help needy elderly patients, it's really a plan to help already over-compensated pharmaceutical companies.
The same is true of Medicare and Medi-Cal, when patients are enrolled in an HMO. It certainly functions like socialized medicine at the patient and physician level. But most of the money goes into Corporate profits, not patient care. HMO's get huge discounts on drugs and lab tests, often on the order of a 95% discount. Meanwhile, most of the services they pay for, including physician salaries, are capitated.
An example of some of the discounts are oral contraceptives, that cost a cash-paying patient $30/month, may cost the HMO only $2/month. (These are actual prices that existed when I worked for an HMO.) An HMO may pay $30 for lab tests that would cost an individual over $350. (Again, I'm looking at actual charges on 2 sets of lab tests run on myself. The 1st, that I paid myself, cost $377. The 2nd, paid by an insurance company, only cost the insurance company $38.) Hospital payments are often capitated, meaning the HMO pays a largely fixed amount for an unlimited amount of hospital care.
Who profits from this system? The HMOs and the insurance companies. Who pays, the government (and taxpayers.) Who receives the service? Patients. So the government is paying for medical care, which would appear to be socialistic. But who do they pay? The Corporate HMO. If government money is going directly into private pockets, I think it's misleading to blanketly refer to this as socialism. And I think the same is true of all the myriad "privatization" schemes the Bush junta has contrived.
How about "Corporate Socialism" ? I think that gives a more accurate impression of the current situation.
|
|