Comments (20)

• Ken Zahringer

  Weird and confused, to say the least. In yesterday's daily article, Tim Hartnett wrote a cogent critique of schools of management. One could easily level a similar criticism against journalism schools. For all the ballyhoo about press bias that we hear, in fact simple ignorance in the press is a much bigger problem. Writing beautiful prose is an irrelevant talent if you don't know what you're writing about.

  Published: October 22, 2008 9:11 AM

• Larry N. Martin

  Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, here, but I always equated socialism with government ownership of businesses and industries (i.e. USPS or public schools), and fascism with nominally private, but heavily-controlled and regulated by government (i.e. utilities and banking). In other words, the differences seemed pretty minimal to me, and at some point, are easily blurred.

  Published: October 22, 2008 9:13 AM

• Larry N. Martin

  Oh, and communism? That's also where government owns everything, but the People ARE the government. Which is probably why it'll never work.

  Published: October 22, 2008 10:04 AM

• baychev

  All of Europe is socialist, the UK having the most perverted version of all. But there is nothing inherently bad for the government to provide affordable education, health care, collective pension system, unemployment benefits in exchange for higher taxation. Having seen how those systems work on both sides of the Atlantic, I can say the USA has advantage only in the higher education (but not high school education).
  Crony capitalism (USA, Russia) and mercantilism (China) are much worse for the populace. They more or less support a feudal system where people have to work more and earn less in terms of purchasing power. I still cannot comprehend how deflation, which increases the purchasing power of savers, is considered the greatest evil by the current Fed muppet.

  Published: October 22, 2008 10:19 AM

• Book 'em Danno

  Is this a "nature" vs. "nurture" question?

  Published: October 22, 2008 10:25 AM

• James Frank Solís

  I suppose, Baychev, that whether there is anything "inherently bad for the government to provide affordable education, health care, collective pension system, unemployment benefits in exchange for higher taxation" depends upon what one means by "inherently" bad.

  If we generalize your claim here I think it puts a fine point on the matter: There is nothing inherently bad for one person to assert a right to have an education, regular physician visits, surgery, a comfortable retirement, and regular income (even when he's not employed) -- all at the expense of his neighbors, and use his government to get those things. In other words: there's nothing inherently bad with the tacit repeal of the right to enjoy one's property. There's nothing inherently wrong with the assertion that things which would be wrong if done by individuals, or mobs, are right when done by government. There's nothing inherently bad with the assertion that government can do whatever a majority says it can do. There's nothing inherently bad with the idea that a government has unlimited power to sieze and transfer wealth, even if it doesn't utilize all of that unlimited power.

  And these things aren't in "exchange" for higher taxes. These things are supposedly "rights", which means we don't realy have to pay taxes for them. Not only that, but the people who have least need of receiving these things from the government are those who pay the most in taxes due to our graduated income tax.

  What is or isn't "inherently" bad must be a matter of taste.

  Finally, your criticism of "crony capitalism" as a harm is duly noted. However, "crony capitalism" should really be seen as a contradiction in terms.

  Published: October 22, 2008 11:12 AM

• Michael

  "Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks." Why is it hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist despite Bush's efforts to nationalize the financial services industry? Maybe it's me...

  Published: October 22, 2008 11:39 AM

• Byzantine

  Larry,

  Communism is collective ownership of the means of production. It rarely works, even in the private sector, because each individual's incentive to produce above his basic needs is hampered by the claims everybody else has on his excess. An exception would be where the collective is bound by a common ethos, such as a monastery or a family.

  Interestingly, the NFL has tons of rules to spread the wealth among its constituent teams, and it's one of the most successful business enterprises on the planet. The participants abide by this arrangement because they know that by enforcing parity, the NFL enhances its product to the benefit of all its members.

  Published: October 22, 2008 11:44 AM

• David Spellman

  You know you are a Socialist when:

  1. You are willing to give up the freedom to do as you please in exchange for the power to make other people do as you please.

  2. Your complexion turns a bright green hue of envy because someone earns more money than you do.

  3. You believe that other people can do a better job of running your life and then elect them to office and let them do it.

  4. You blame every reversal of fortune--including natural disasters--on a lack of regulation and expect the government to outlaw it, or at a minimum compensate you for any losses.

  5. You still leave a lost tooth under your pillow and a plate of cookies and a glass of milk by the tree on Christmas eve.

  Published: October 22, 2008 12:21 PM

• magnus

  But there is nothing inherently bad for the government to provide affordable education, health care, collective pension system, unemployment benefits in exchange for higher taxation.

  I don't know what you mean by "bad," but if the question is whether the government should "provide" affordable versions of the things you listed, then the answer is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the government to do so.

  This is true because of the Calculation Problem, which is as much of an "inherent" truth of nature and reality as you can find.

  Government can never know how much to pay for things, how much to produce, in what quality and in what quantity. It cannot do this because it does not earn its income by producing these things. It gets its money by force, having totally severed the connection between providing goods/services and its revenue.

  Therefore, government has no means of measuring how successful various aspects of these goods/services are. It does not know what consumers want (because they do not pay for them as ordinary consumers do). It has no means of knowing which factors of production are cost-effective and which are not.

  Instead, government relies on political measurements -- irrelevant metrics like complaints, protests, votes, propaganda, and political embarrassment. These are the currencies of political decision-making. They are, of course, totally divorced from economic measurements.

  As a result, you end up with massive economic waste in every government project ever developed, which tend to gets worse over time until the waste ends up being so outrageous that it lands in the newspapers, at which time politicians blame each other to acquire even more power.

  This cycle will repeat ad infinitum, until there is a total collapse of the economy.

  Published: October 22, 2008 1:42 PM

• Kevin O'Brien

  That was a very confusing article. Nothing like providing facts to back your statements.

  I have to admit. I am utterly dumbfounded by people's love of socialism. What leads them to believe it could work? Is it a belief that somehow we could reach an Utopia under by government edict?

  Published: October 22, 2008 3:19 PM

• Rubén Rivero

  socialism "involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries."

  Well, that is textbook definition of Socialism to me. It seems that many countries still boast their capitalism, but are becoming socialist under the table.

  Published: October 22, 2008 4:14 PM

• jc

  # Michael
  #

  "Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks." Why is it hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist despite Bush's efforts to nationalize the financial services industry? Maybe it's me...

  not just you, that is the first thing i thought when i read that line. its the marker of a true piece of hack political journalism. its truly tremendous logical work there.

  Published: October 22, 2008 5:36 PM

• jc

  # Michael
  #

  "Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks." Why is it hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist despite Bush's efforts to nationalize the financial services industry? Maybe it's me...

  not just you, that is the first thing i thought when i read that line. its the marker of a true piece of hack political journalism. its truly tremendous logical work there.

  Published: October 22, 2008 5:43 PM

• Alex Peak

  "Red baiting is really the last refuge of scoundrels," Bachtell said. "It has nothing to do with the issues that are confronting the American people right now. It's just a big diversion."

  I guess Mr. Bachtell would consider me a scoundrel for my three anti-Bush product-designs, then.

  Bush is a Socialist 1
  Bush is a Socialist 2
  Bush is a Socialist 3

  "Generally, [socialism] involves espousing government control over a country's basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries."

  By that definition, I'm not a socialist.

  I have detected three general definitions for socialism:

  1. Government run by one or more explicitely socialist parties (e.g. the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the National Socialist Party, the Nazi Party).

  2. Government that owns, controls, or manipulates control over the means of production (e.g. the United States of America and both of its Establishment parties).

  3. Any ideology that holds that the current distribution of property was engineered through illegitimate means, and that advocates reforms to address this injustice (e.g. Rothbard, me).

  "Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."

  Why can't they both be socialists? Bush's obvious advocacy of socialism does not alter the fact that Obama is, too, a socialist.

  Mr. Martin writes, "Maybe I'm being a bit simplistic, here, but I always equated socialism with government ownership of businesses and industries (i.e. USPS or public schools), and fascism with nominally private, but heavily-controlled and regulated by government (i.e. utilities and banking). In other words, the differences seemed pretty minimal to me, and at some point, are easily blurred."

  I would argue that fascism is a form of socialism with a capitalist vaneer.

  Yours,
  Alex Peak

  Published: October 22, 2008 6:28 PM

• nick gray

  Fascism is folk-Socialism, socialism for one nation. Socialism is the name for every type of the mental disease of group-rule over individuals, whereas Fascism is just one variant, a nationalistic outbreak of authoritarian collectivist government. One-worlders and The Green Movement are trans-national socialist movements, as are people who try to give more and more power to the UN, whatever the cause of the moment.

  Published: October 23, 2008 12:09 AM

• Kevin O'Brien

  I would argue that fascism is a form of socialism with a capitalist vaneer.

  Alex,

  
  I completely agree. I must imagine that is why people claimed that Nazi-ism was the last stage of capitalism. Some saw it as capitalism gone bad instead of government gone bad.

  Published: October 23, 2008 7:54 AM

• Roger Strong

  I hope I don't annoy anyone with my Canadian point of view:

  America's dirty little secret is that as much as it detests socialism, it's REALLY GOOD at making it work.

  - The largest state-owned companies - like the Tennessee Valley Authority - are in the US.

  - The US Postal Service has a monopoly unheard here in Canada and elsewhere. It even takes companies to court if they rely too much on courier services. They'd never get away with this here.

  - The US State Department has a reputation as the most unabashedly socialist organization on the planet.

  - The Interstate Highway System is a wonder of the modern world - and it wasn't capitalism that created it. It was (exceptionally enlightened) government decree.

  - My favorite, as a space buff: Winning the space race was a triumph of American socialism over Soviet capitalism.

  The Russians had competing design bureaus - not too much different than American government dependant military contractors - making their space hardware, competing for contracts and polical patronage. The people running the bigger companies (Korolyov, Glushko, Chelomei) hated each other. There was little cooperation, a lot of duplication of effort, and more than a bit of sabotageing each other's efforts.

  The American government on the other had dictated How It Would Be Done, assigned everyone a role, and put Jack Webb in charge. With the Saturn V, one company built the first stage, another built the first stage engines, another built the second stage, another built the second stage engines, another built the interstage ring that held flight computers and batteries, etc. The LEM was built by Grumman, the Command/Service Module by North American Aviation, etc.

  And this was all was Lyndon Johnson's way of dragging the American south into the 20th century. Think of the old stereotype of folks from Alabama. Now consider that Huntsville - where rockets are designed - has the highest concentration of engineers per capita. Thank the space program.

  Add rocket manufacturing in New Orleans, solid rocket booster manufacturing in Utah, the White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico, mission control in Houston, launches in Florida, and other space labs, centers, and manufacturing facilities all over the south.

  If you find this point of view annoying, imagine what the Russians must think:
  American: "The collapse of the Soviet Union shows that socialism doesn't work!"
  Russian: "But..., but...., but YOU make it work......!
  American: "La La La... I can't hear you....."
  

  Published: October 25, 2008 1:49 AM

• Stanley Pinchak

  Roger Strong,
  As long as there are prices for capital goods in the market external to a vertically integrated company, they may rely on those prices to estimate profits and losses. As Rothbard has shown, socialism in a market scenario is similar to a vertically integrated company. This does not mean that a socialist project will be anywhere near as efficient as even a vertically integrated project. On the contrary it can not help but be less efficient. The capital for socialist projects does not have to be procured on the market either via competition for loans, or via prior saving. The failure or success of the project is not measured in terms of profit or loss. There can in fact be no failure as long as the public allows itself to continue being fleeced. The fact that America's socialism has achieved large projects should not be looked at as success of socialism, but as an imposition of values from Washington onto the nation at large and a redistribution of wealth from the frugal to the profligate. The amount of waste, graft, and the lingering deleterious effects of these subsidies have plagued this nation's people since these "great works" were embarked upon. We are left with the legacy of a road system that kills 40,000 people a year, a bloated space program that is not desired (except for maybe a couple of rich space tourists), and a postal system which provides poor service at monopolistic rates. If I must have a government burger, please hold off on the socialism.

  Published: October 25, 2008 4:22 PM

• Simon Kay

  I am amazed by the misguided opinions of socialism that people are displaying in this discussion.

  The term 'socialist' is not an insult! I am proud to consider myself a socialist as I believe that in many cases, socialism is as close to a political representation of Christianity as is currently available. I belive that any nation is not judged by the wealth of its richest citizens, but by the wealth of the poorest. No country whose residents are allowed to go without education, healthcare, good quality legal reresentation etc, etc because they cannot afford them can ever really consider itself to be civilised.

  To suggest that I would turn "green with envy because someone earns more than me" is absolute nonsense. I am happy for people to earn a wage based on the work they do. Fair play to them for it. But I also believe that the tax we pay should be based on what we earn. After all, our tax is really just the rent we pay for the privilidge of living in this country and it goes towards making a better country for EVERYONE who lives here. I earn a good wage and am happy to pay my taxes if I know that at the other end of the country a sick child I will never meet is getting the surgery they need to keep them alive. What sane compassionate human being could ever argue otherwise?

  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asked "Who was the neighbour to this man?" He then urges his followers to go out into the world and do the same. What better way can there be to do this than to create a society where protection of the weak and vunerable irrespective of wealth, race, religeon or gender is at the very heart of social policy?

  Published: October 23, 2009 4:27 AM