Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Allowing someone to keep more of what they EARN is hardly "welfare".
Taking something from someone unearned is "welfare".
What they earn? Think about this on a broader scale - yes, in the immediate and personal sense you are earning money by working. However, your ability to earn is a function of the particular political institutions, laws, past governmental decisions, tax expenditures, policy approaches and politicians in power to effect change. Contrary to certain dogmas popular among the more libertarian oriented wing of the Republican party, the economy is not a simple, natural, self-regulating, perfectly efficient mechanism. The economy is structured, guided, protected, built, strengthened, expanded, etc. by the state towards particular aims. This is the case in ALL states (here I'm using the term 'state' in the standard political science sense to refer to the entirety of the official governing apparatus of a country rather than in reference to sub-national political units like Illinois and Idaho). Even Adam Smith advocated for, and argued it critical that, the state take an active role in the economy in certain cases in 'The Wealth of Nations' which is, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, the 'founding document' of capitalist economic theory. The reason you are able to go to work, the reason you are guaranteed certain labor rights, likely the reason the firm you work for even exists, all stems from the structure set up, monitored, regulated and manipulated by the state.
Governments intervene in the economy for many, many reasons. Most obvious is market failures, which happen all the time. The version of capitalist theory so many libertarians and Conservative voters with little in the way of formal training in economics support is an oversimplified, reductionist and archaic bastardization of the capitalist theory originally devised centuries ago with Smith's writings.
As a social science theory, which is what capitalism is in many respects, certain assumptions must be made and hold true in order for the theory - or system if you prefer - to function as expected. Early ideas about capitalism assumed that there was perfect information, no transaction costs, no externalities, perfect competition and that all individuals are perfectly rational actors - among other things. To the extent that these assumptions hold in the real world, the predictions of capitalist theory should hold true (unless you are a follower of Milton Friedman's work... in which case, read something written after the 1950s and recognize that the notion that a theory's assumptions don't have any need to reflect reality to make accurate predictions is really, really, really.... well, stupid). With that in mind, please explain how any of the five major assumptions made by laissez-faire capitalists reflects the real world. There are always transaction costs, always. There is no such thing as perfect information and rarely will a given market come anywhere close to it. Externalities, which weren't fully understood until this century, are clearly very real with enormous implications for capitalist theory - so much so that today conservative economists (actual economists, the kind with PhDs and real credentials) have no qualms with government intervention in the economy to correct for them. Rationality as a concept has been so deeply undermined by philosophers, economists, political scientists and, especially, psychologists that hardcore laissez-faire types were forced to try to salvage the assumption by replacing it with 'bounded rationality' which proved to be even more problematic than rationality thus causing it to be replaced with satisficing which is really just a sad, bitter cop-out. And perfect competition? Some industries actually do get close (restaurants, bars and other industries that are largely run by by small business owners rather than franchised out to large corporations) and others have enough competition that it still works, but other industries are naturally uncompetitive (utilities is the most obvious example). Thus, the assumptions about capitalism held by so many voters and politicians don't even reflect what most any economist understands capitalism to actually be. Thus, one important job of government is to correct for the failure of the real world to live up the the idealized assumptions of capitalist theories.
Moreover, there is the strange obsession with 'efficiency' held by many who denounce anything that even looks like possible government involvement in the economy (that it created... go figure...). Efficiency isn't a real value, there is nothing so intrinsically special about economic efficiency that makes maximizing it at the expense of other values necessarily the right course of action. Efficiency is important in the sense that it leads to reductions in wasteful spending, waste of valuable resources and profit maximization. However, these are not the sole values to which we should be striving as a people nor is it the sole, or even primary, goal of fiscal and monetary policy. Efficiency often has a somewhat conflictual relationship with values of equal opportunity, human rights, personal economic security, fairness, equity, environmental conservation and others. Thus, letting the economy run loose in the name of efficiency is directly in opposition to democratic (small d - as in the type of government, not the political party) principles. Government has other responsibilities and is faced with a balancing act - efficiency is important, but it is not the sole value of importance so it must be balanced in relation to those values important to a society in which it may, at times, have an antagonistic relationship.
Governments also intervene in the economy for purposes of national security; one reason we didn't let the US automobile industry collapse a few years ago was not because Ford and friends were just so darned amazing but rather we needed to have a secure domestic source of military vehicles so as not to have to rely on foreign corporations to provide us with military hardware in the case of war. Trade sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, quotas, non-tariff barriers... all forms of governmental trade policy which undermine efficiency for purposes of national security or interest. If you are sitting here bitching about you getting taxed for the money you earned in any industry that receives any form of trade protectionism then you are a complete, if unwitting, hypocrite (I'm looking at all of you who are in the auto industry, in any sort of agricultural industry from the farm to the factory to the grocery store, private utilities, energy companies, or any corporation doing research and development of high-end electronic devices then). You're also a hypocrite if you don't support free trade agreements which is the government actually promoting the type of capitalism that many conservative voters profess to love but seem to hate.
Governments have, in many countries and often with great success (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, China), intervened in the economy to guide it's long-term development because, you know... the economy is just a system of interactions between people - it has no mind and it does not plan for the long-term. Thus, lacking any government intervention, the unregulated economy almost always favors short-term gains over long-term ones even if the long-term ones are far larger and will be lost if the short-term gains are pursued instead. Subsidies to infant industries to enable them to develop to the point of being internationally competitive is a good example.
But more than than is going on here; the government creates and provides the backing for the currency you are earning!!! It regulates the financial industry (when allowed to) to keep them from ****ing you over too much and to make sure that you know the money you put in the bank is always save. It keeps unfair practices resulting from a lack of perfect information from being legally allowed. It develops and secures foreign trade relationships so that we can export goods to allow for real economic growth and reduce unemployment, it controls the interest rate which helps to ensure that your earnings are not devalued by unregulated economic activities that cause inflation or market collapses. It creates the legal framework that allows business owners to get the capital necessary to start up businesses and do so quickly - so that you can earn that money. The government provides you with police protection, fire protection, ensures that hospitals must treat you if your sick or dying. It educates you, your children and provides national security for all through the military and clandestine activities. It subsidizes even private college educations using grants and low-interest loans. It keeps other countries from undermining our economy for their gain through a multitude of mechanisms, including WTO Arbitration. It pays for the electric cables that supply the electricity you're using right now (no, private utility companies do not buy and put up those electric wires). Any road you've ever driven on that WASNT a toll road is paid for with tax dollars - so you are able to drive to work without having to pay a private company to use the road because of taxes. It makes sure that when you **** in the toilet, that **** goes somewhere out of sight and mind to be treated. It makes sure the water out of your faucet doesn't give you dysentery and that the beef you had for lunch doesn't give you salmonella. It protects your right to work. ALL of this requires the government to tax. It takes a lot of employees to run even these most basic governmental operations, the types of things even poor governments do, and these state employees must be paid. And the facilities, the construction, the use of international institutions, vehicles for cops, hospital bills for the uninsured but dying have to be paid. Without the government acquiring taxes and regulating the economy you wouldn't have a job, you wouldn't even be safe from being murdered unless you hired private security. You wouldn't be able to take a bite of food without fear of illness if it weren't for taxes. A large number of PRIVATE SECTOR jobs that you are earning your wages at (paid, again, in US bills minted by the US Treasury Department) exist because the government taxes you and redistributes that wealth to those industries to ensure they stay afloat financially.
All of this is to say that even setting aside your, in my opinion immoral and completely detached, borderline sociopathic, view that you owe no one anything despite living in a country that provides you with the very structure needed to have a modern society. You benefit from tax dollars every day, you are benefitting right now so damnit, yes the government has a right to ask you to pay your fair share. And if someone happens to get fired because the government allowed capitalism to actually go unregulated and cause an uncompetitive industry to collapse as jobs get outsourced to poorer countries (which, after all, is precisely what capitalism says should happen) then suck it up and stop feeling sorry for yourself that a couple pennies from each of your paychecks is going to those who were laid-off so they can retrain for a new industry that will help the country and so they can keep their families afloat for a short time while pursuing a new line of work. The entire financial system in which you earn your money is supported by the state through your tax dollars - you earn money because the government has created a political-economic system where that is possible so yes, you get to help pay for it. The economy exists beyond barter-and-trade, it is beyond subsistence, it provides you with workers compensation if hurt on the job, ensures employers pay you regularly and fairly and keeps you (or your wife, or sister, or whoever) from being fired if pregnant simply for being pregnant. It will provide you with medical coverage when you retire through Medicare. It will provide you with Social Security. And yes, if you happen to get down on your luck and aren't able to earn that money for whatever reason (maybe because the government decides to listen to you and removes all subsidies benefiting your employers and the wage laws that keep you from being abused by employers) the government will provide you with temporary unemployment insurance, assistance training for and finding a new job and 'food stamps' so you don't have to go to the local soup kitchen because you lost your job.
Are you going to benefit from every program the government pays for? No, of course not, but again, the state isn't there for a single individual, it is there for the collective, the nation, the country. In order to survive and compete internationally as a country we need taxes and we need a healthy, educated population so the government has an obligation on behalf of the body politic to tax you and everyone else in order to provide children with an education and those who can't afford medical treatment the treatment they need. I'm sorry if some of your tax dollars go to things you don't use, but that's how a modern society works, that is precisely what democracy is about and if you don't like it then... well, you know there aren't any taxes in Somalia right? Cause there isn't a government there... And since you don't want any earnings taken in the form of legal taxes then perhaps you need to live in a place that doesn't have them to see what life is like when you don't get taxed. That way you won't have to help pay for food stamps and 'welfare payments' (which you don't even seem to understand) which go disproportionately to young single white mothers and their children because, you know, it's better that they die of hunger because the mother can't find a job that allows her to earn enough money to pay someone to watch the children while she works to earn money for her family because people like you won't even allow the government to set up daycare programs for single working parents.
I know many lefties who suffer from that affliction.
A friend of mine who worked his entire life as a school teacher, retired and is now a college professor just got back from a two week Alaskan cruise. He said, and I quote..."It was great, but I really feel guilty about how many people are suffering right now."
It doesn't make them DO anything themselves....but they certainly vote for those who SAY they will.
Considering we have degenerated into a nation of idiots, I can certainly see why anyone in the teaching profession would struggle with anxiety.
Most of the Americans who "hate" socialism couldn't write a coherent paragraph about it, couldn't explain the differences between Michael Harrington and Rosa Luxemburg, couldn't name three living, self-identified Americans socialists (e.g. Mike Davis, Chris Hedges, Stephanie Coontz). They know nothing about it whatsoever. The are just repeating what they hear on right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and read in right-wing rags life FrontPage.
Socialism and government are counter productive to human productivity. It is about that simple.
While some elements of both may be necessary to support the less than productive element of society, we must always be aware of the fact that both government and socialism act as a parasite which robs people of their incentive to succeed.
Socialism exists today in the lower class and the higher class which both bleed the middle class workers and small businesses.
Ever Adrift = "...the Nazis, who referred to their party as Socialist despite being the exact opposite (fascist)"
Fascism is rooted in Marxism just as is Communism. They are not opposites - the policies are much the same with varying degrees of state control. Fascism is 'right wing' only to someone further left. Both ideologies are left wing compared to free market capitalism.
"...use Socialism to bring about a Communist paradise and extinguish Western values, economics, etc. through a very radical view of the ideology that is not at all characteristic of modern European socialism"
This is the technocratic viewpoint - we'll do it better than those "disastrous" Communists, or Pan-Arab Socialists, or Juche, or African National Congress. Instead of better, people get Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, the Kim dynasty, and Robert Mugabe.
...
You're being... serious? Honestly?
Wow, just... wow.
I really just want to leave it at that because this pains me to have to explain, but that might actually make you think that the nonsense you spouted has some legitimacy and could be grounded in reality.
Communism, at least in theory, is about making the economy and state work for the greater good of the people and to promote equality - typically doesn't work out that way, but that's one of the core ideological roots. That is, if you're speaking of Leninst or Maoist styles of Communism - Marxism is different and has never successfully been pursued by any political party of consequence, let alone implemented. Equality is critical in (Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist versions of) Communist theory and the entire economy is part and parcel of the state - there is no private sector, everything is public sector and the economy is run through state-led central planning.
Fascism is about making the economy and the people work for the greater good of the state qua state. Fascism typically uses a perverted form of capitalism with a large PRIVATE sector though the state serves as the primary consumer of goods made by the private sector which incentivizes (with help from coercive fiscal policy among other things) innovation and private sector development of industries that are geared towards providing the state with what it wants for the promotion of national security. Profit is a major goal of fascism to help build capital to enhance state power and to improve the state's ability to create an autarkic economy (which is, in fact, also a goal of communism as practiced in the real world, though for very, very different reasons). State and private business work closely together in Fascist economies and equality is seen as an unnecessary, even harmful, value whereas it is paramount in communism. In the build-up to WWII the Nazis biggest political opponents were Communists - first in Germany, then in the form of Stalin's USSR which the Nazi's saw as a major threat to their economic goals. Nazis hunted communists almost as religiously as they hunted Jews.
As for Marxism, the idea that Fascism is rooted in it is bizarre seeing how Marx believed that government was inherently bad and served only as a short-term necessary evil that would be used to destroy itself to create a government-free world of equals - a sort of big, loving commune where we'd sing Kumbaya together every night and take care of each other with no need for money. Marxism was latched onto by Lenin, but he found Marx to be an idealist who was too worried about morality to do what was necessary - Marx thought the proletariat - workers - would overthrow the state and institute equality and fairness while deconstructing state institutions. Fascism, on the other hand, seeks the opposite: subjugation of workers to the needs of a living state which is the only thing of value. A strong, powerful state in league with an acquiescent private sector.
And all this is besides the point, doesn't even address what was really under discussion which I'm assuming you just didn't have any inane retort for. Marxism has never been realized, Lenin perverted it with the whole Vanguard of the Proletariat idea, Stalin raped it with the idea that the state would remain necessary because people are greedy and Mao infused it with extra-crazy by forgetting about the proletariat and instead focusing on the agrarian population and using nationalist sentiment against the Japanese to gain legitimacy - and he sure did try handing over industry to the people with The Great Leap WAY WAY BACKWARDS - something that no self-respecting fascist would ever do.
But, why is this even of issue? I wasn't talking about Communism (Marxist or otherwise) or Fascism except as an aside; I was talking about why uninformed conservative voters in the US believe 'socialism' is a bad word because it happened to get tied to Stalinism and Maoism during the Cold War - the term socialism is associated with these radical ideologies and not the Social Democratic ideology of modern European (and Canadian) Welfare States which doesn't resemble it in the slightest. Socialism, as a much broader classification of political-economic systems, includes any system in which the private sector and public sector are both present. Social Democracy views things like health and education as rights on par with freedom of speech and therefore calls for the government to ensure that all people have access to quality education and healthcare and not only those who are wealthy. Social Democracies are largely capitalist, but select industries are nationalized, in part or whole, to promote other values of importance to society - the right to a healthy life, the right to food, the right to an education, the right to not be abused by employers, the right to job security within reason, the right to limit negative externalities (which are market failures that, by definition, can't occur in a communist system and which are irrelevant in a fascist one). It also calls for regulation of industries to ensure that they do not collude. And yes, it does call for government ownership of select industries - namely any that tends towards natural monopoly or monopsony (again, market failures in which capitalist theory breaks down and capitalist approaches lead to inefficiency and harm consumers). Otherwise, industry is to be left to the private sector which is to work in tandem with workers, in the form of unions, and the state to find a way to balance the needs of private industry and it's profit motive with the rights and basic needs of those it employs so they actually do receive what they have fairly earned (neo-corporatist arrangements) which laissez-faire capitalism does NOT do since it places full power in private business allowing for the abuse of workers through inadequate payment, arbitrary withholding of earnings, firing without justification or recourse, etc.
And technocracy isn't a bad word, btw. Using it as such shows contempt for the educated and experts, suggesting that merit and qualification based on experience and knowledge is not a legitimate basis on which to devise fiscal and monetary policy. I would prefer to have people who are highly educated helping to devise policies in ways that ensure that workers are protected while industries remain capable of flexibility that allows them to be internationally competitive along with the option to intervene to SAVE private sector industries threatened by unfair trade practices put forth by foreign countries which, again, pure capitalism does NOT allow for. And anyways, you seem to be somewhat confused on Social Democracy as practiced in Europe with Developmental Statist approaches first pioneered by post WWII Japan and then South Korea, both of which saw their economies grow to be among the most robust, largest in the world as a result - much to the chagrin of those working within the Bretton Woods institutions at the time who saw their success as a direct threat to their continued insistence that neoliberalism and the structural adjustment packages they used to impose it on developing countries were the only way to grow an economy. Japan and South Korea are NOT welfare states and certainly much less socialist than Germany, France, Sweden, the UK, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Canada and the Netherlands (many of which have higher standards-of-living, better quality-of-life, longer life-expectancies, better educated populations, less poverty, less crime, and more robust democratic systems with more open debate and actual democratic participation than the US). However, Japan and South Korea did provide an alternative development approach that involved a strong relationship between a powerful, technocratic state bureaucracy and the private sector (again, private, not public) and the use of industrial policy to promote a focus on long-term, rather than short-term, economic goals. And it worked. Really well. Really, really, really well. Now Malaysia and Taiwan are emulating that approach which has led to incredible economic growth in those countries. China has also taken some aspects of that approach and we all know how well China has done.
Ultimately, the point is that you shouldn't be reductionist and should actually recognize that there is a vast array of approaches to political economy that employ the use of state interventionism, nationalization of part or all of key industries for which capitalism's goal of efficiency either doesn't obtain or is undesirable, and a healthy, competitive private sector along with an activist social (or 'welfare') policy that is designed to actually take care of the citizens of the state so you don't die from stage 1 cancer because you don't have insurance. Socialism is a word that needs to be thrown out, it hides the complexity of the topic and lets people like you engage in reductionist arguments that prey on people's fears of a bygone era to hide the interests of corporations that are actually benefiting from corporatist socialism to the detriment of consumers and the health and education of citizens.
We're always moving towards equalibrium and with that we move just as efficiently towards chaos. See the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
You'll get your utopian society but when you do finally get it you won't be happy about it. It will be anything but exciting and it will not be utopian at all, in any way.
Before anyone can say those laws don't affect everyday life maybe you should double check how those socialist countries have managed to provide for all. They do it off of over a billion years worth of electromagnetic radiation stored in the earth available in as short as 150 years. A simple look at the GDP per capita for the planet will show you what your lifestyle will be like when you get your universal equality.
By the way, there's no reversing it on e you get it either. In fact there's no way to stop it short of world wars where huge populations die and resources are once again concentrated into fewer hands.
"Corporate socialism" is as bad as crony capitalism.
Kim Jong Un and Bashar Assad and Robert Mugabe aren't from "a bygone era"; they are murderous socialists currently in power.
Many of the "vast array of approaches" to socialism associate through the Socialist International, which includes recognized socialist parties from Algeria to France to Mugabe's Zimbabwe. If France and Greece (European Social Democrat states), don't mind being associated with the socialist tyrant Mugabe of Zimbabwe, then how is that my reductionist problem?
Let me see if I sum up your thoughts on communism and fascism correctly:
Communism is a perversion of Socialism where the State controls the economy.
Fascism is a perversion of Capitalism where the State controls the economy.
Both Fascism and Communism "as practiced in the real world" serve to enhance the power of the State.
To me, it seems like the Fascist perversion of Capitalism is really a forcible State takeover, and is in effect a socialist expropriation of industry.
"...the Nazis biggest political opponents were Communists". So competing socialist ideologies fought each other - just like the German Social Democrats (BTW the second largest party in Germany currently) fought the German Communists (and killed the Communist Rosa Luxemburg) a decade earlier. Socialists killing other socialists happens a lot, especially when the power to control the State is at stake.
As for technocracy - I don't show "contempt" for technocrats however I do realize that man is fallable, which is a concept many technocrats don't seem to understand.
It's largely a historical accident. The US, unlike it's European counterparts, never developed powerful unions and the socialist parties that often derived from them in the 19th century because at the time the US was still expanding and gorging on resources long since used up in the Old World. Socialism was coming into its own in Europe when that continent's countries were consolidating and facing the effects of a highly urbanized, increasingly educated populace that sought a voice in politics to rectify the horrifying injustices of unbridled capitalism as it existed then - 16 hour work days, child labor, no labor protection, no social safety nets, low wages... - At the same time the US was still expanding, land was still available and cheap, cities were still being founded and growing, opportunity was everywhere and the kind of class differences that characterized European societies had yet to come into full force on a national scale - upward mobility was more easily achieved in the US at the time because the economy was in an earlier phase of development, resources were plentiful, fertility rates higher and still sustainable... Thus the type of stark class differentiation that had, by that time, become obvious in Europe was still developing and in its infancy in the US (plus the US, with no aristocracy, offered much more equality of opportunity in it's earlier years - capitalism, of course, develops its own aristocracy over time...). The states of Europe were far older, more developed and culturally cohesive than the US and socialism, of a type, was a cure to the worst excesses of the political-economic system that had become entrenched. It was not a cure for American problems at the time because we weren't there yet, and in some ways never would be given difference of situation. Socialism was, as a result, far more attractive in European countries because the justifications for it were much more clear and deeply felt.
Meanwhile, Europe was democratizing and political parties were replacing aristocrats as the source of political power: parties that wanted to succeed needed clearly articulated principles and policy proscriptions in order to secure votes and the promises of socialism, being so attractive, allowed powerful socialist parties to organize and win elections - many of these parties still remain dominant in most European countries to this day. The parliamentary form of government coupled with the electoral systems found in most European countries further facilitated this by allowing more than two parties to compete meaningfully giving those with any type of socialist leaning a more articulate, focused and sustainable platform from which to pursue their policy objectives. Socialism at the time was different than now, of course, and would fracture into innumerable different ideological derivatives - some, like Communism, would prove disastrous, but more moderate views would evolve into what today is known as Social Democracy which viewed government as necessary and important for reigning in the worst parts of capitalism while still allowing a large and competitive private sector. Experimentation, facilitated by different political cultures across countries and more political parties, allowed these countries to find effective ways of reconciling a 'Welfare State' with capitalism in a way that maintained democracy and the core values and rights associated with it.
The US never had any of this, unions were never as powerful here and by the time they really started catching on the two-party system was already entrenched. And then, of course, the US faced a civil war and was deeply divided on issues of no relevance to Europe while enjoying economic prosperity without too much pain due to it's being essentially 'younger.' Thus, there was no real room or reason for socialist ideas to become powerful within American political institutions. This did change when the Great Depression arrived and FDR became President, but despite FDR's ability to build huge support for socialist programs like Social Security it was too late and/or bad timing because WWII arrived and we found ourselves fighting the Nazis, who referred to their party as Socialist despite being the exact opposite (fascist), and then the USSR which sought to use Socialism to bring about a Communist paradise and extinguish Western values, economics, etc. through a very radical view of the ideology that is not at all characteristic of modern European socialism. But they, like the Nazis, came to be associated with the term 'socialism' despite not actually being anything like what we call socialism today... the Cold War and McCarthyism solidified the term's negative connotation in the American political lexicon while the Democratic Party eventually sought socialist reforms under LBJ while also fighting a war in Vietnam and undergoing major social upheaval with the Civil Rights Movement... opponents of LBJ's Great Society muddled down the major socialist health reforms he sought, dividing supporters by giving the most powerful supporters (elderly voters) Medicare and the poor Medicaid so that although it seemed LBJ won, political support for truly universal healthcare dissipated because many of its major supporters had access to such healthcare through the limited, targeted Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and Democrats underwent a social realignment over civil rights and Democrats, associated with Socialist programs, were denounced for such support - further cementing a hate of so-called socialism in the minds of many voters who disapproved of other things the Democratic Party was doing at the time.
Thus, while many Americans actually support socialism when asked about specific programs, they recoil when they hear the term socialist and immediately disapprove of anything with that label. Yet, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Schools, School Lunches, Unemployment Benefits, Child Labor Laws, Food Safety Regulations... they are all socialist...
This is lucid, well-argued, and accurate. Which means, sadly, that the people on CD who really need to read it, won't...
What they earn? Think about this on a broader scale - yes, in the immediate and personal sense you are earning money by working. However, your ability to earn is a function of the particular political institutions, laws, past governmental decisions, tax expenditures, policy approaches and politicians in power to effect change. Contrary to certain dogmas popular among the more libertarian oriented wing of the Republican party, the economy is not a simple, natural, self-regulating, perfectly efficient mechanism. The economy is structured, guided, protected, built, strengthened, expanded, etc. by the state towards particular aims. This is the case in ALL states (here I'm using the term 'state' in the standard political science sense to refer to the entirety of the official governing apparatus of a country rather than in reference to sub-national political units like Illinois and Idaho). Even Adam Smith advocated for, and argued it critical that, the state take an active role in the economy in certain cases in 'The Wealth of Nations' which is, as I'm sure everyone here is aware, the 'founding document' of capitalist economic theory. The reason you are able to go to work, the reason you are guaranteed certain labor rights, likely the reason the firm you work for even exists, all stems from the structure set up, monitored, regulated and manipulated by the state.
Governments intervene in the economy for many, many reasons. Most obvious is market failures, which happen all the time. The version of capitalist theory so many libertarians and Conservative voters with little in the way of formal training in economics support is an oversimplified, reductionist and archaic bastardization of the capitalist theory originally devised centuries ago with Smith's writings.
As a social science theory, which is what capitalism is in many respects, certain assumptions must be made and hold true in order for the theory - or system if you prefer - to function as expected. Early ideas about capitalism assumed that there was perfect information, no transaction costs, no externalities, perfect competition and that all individuals are perfectly rational actors - among other things. To the extent that these assumptions hold in the real world, the predictions of capitalist theory should hold true (unless you are a follower of Milton Friedman's work... in which case, read something written after the 1950s and recognize that the notion that a theory's assumptions don't have any need to reflect reality to make accurate predictions is really, really, really.... well, stupid). With that in mind, please explain how any of the five major assumptions made by laissez-faire capitalists reflects the real world. There are always transaction costs, always. There is no such thing as perfect information and rarely will a given market come anywhere close to it. Externalities, which weren't fully understood until this century, are clearly very real with enormous implications for capitalist theory - so much so that today conservative economists (actual economists, the kind with PhDs and real credentials) have no qualms with government intervention in the economy to correct for them. Rationality as a concept has been so deeply undermined by philosophers, economists, political scientists and, especially, psychologists that hardcore laissez-faire types were forced to try to salvage the assumption by replacing it with 'bounded rationality' which proved to be even more problematic than rationality thus causing it to be replaced with satisficing which is really just a sad, bitter cop-out. And perfect competition? Some industries actually do get close (restaurants, bars and other industries that are largely run by by small business owners rather than franchised out to large corporations) and others have enough competition that it still works, but other industries are naturally uncompetitive (utilities is the most obvious example). Thus, the assumptions about capitalism held by so many voters and politicians don't even reflect what most any economist understands capitalism to actually be. Thus, one important job of government is to correct for the failure of the real world to live up the the idealized assumptions of capitalist theories.
Moreover, there is the strange obsession with 'efficiency' held by many who denounce anything that even looks like possible government involvement in the economy (that it created... go figure...). Efficiency isn't a real value, there is nothing so intrinsically special about economic efficiency that makes maximizing it at the expense of other values necessarily the right course of action. Efficiency is important in the sense that it leads to reductions in wasteful spending, waste of valuable resources and profit maximization. However, these are not the sole values to which we should be striving as a people nor is it the sole, or even primary, goal of fiscal and monetary policy. Efficiency often has a somewhat conflictual relationship with values of equal opportunity, human rights, personal economic security, fairness, equity, environmental conservation and others. Thus, letting the economy run loose in the name of efficiency is directly in opposition to democratic (small d - as in the type of government, not the political party) principles. Government has other responsibilities and is faced with a balancing act - efficiency is important, but it is not the sole value of importance so it must be balanced in relation to those values important to a society in which it may, at times, have an antagonistic relationship.
Governments also intervene in the economy for purposes of national security; one reason we didn't let the US automobile industry collapse a few years ago was not because Ford and friends were just so darned amazing but rather we needed to have a secure domestic source of military vehicles so as not to have to rely on foreign corporations to provide us with military hardware in the case of war. Trade sanctions, embargoes, tariffs, quotas, non-tariff barriers... all forms of governmental trade policy which undermine efficiency for purposes of national security or interest. If you are sitting here bitching about you getting taxed for the money you earned in any industry that receives any form of trade protectionism then you are a complete, if unwitting, hypocrite (I'm looking at all of you who are in the auto industry, in any sort of agricultural industry from the farm to the factory to the grocery store, private utilities, energy companies, or any corporation doing research and development of high-end electronic devices then). You're also a hypocrite if you don't support free trade agreements which is the government actually promoting the type of capitalism that many conservative voters profess to love but seem to hate.
Governments have, in many countries and often with great success (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Thailand, China), intervened in the economy to guide it's long-term development because, you know... the economy is just a system of interactions between people - it has no mind and it does not plan for the long-term. Thus, lacking any government intervention, the unregulated economy almost always favors short-term gains over long-term ones even if the long-term ones are far larger and will be lost if the short-term gains are pursued instead. Subsidies to infant industries to enable them to develop to the point of being internationally competitive is a good example.
But more than than is going on here; the government creates and provides the backing for the currency you are earning!!! It regulates the financial industry (when allowed to) to keep them from ****ing you over too much and to make sure that you know the money you put in the bank is always save. It keeps unfair practices resulting from a lack of perfect information from being legally allowed. It develops and secures foreign trade relationships so that we can export goods to allow for real economic growth and reduce unemployment, it controls the interest rate which helps to ensure that your earnings are not devalued by unregulated economic activities that cause inflation or market collapses. It creates the legal framework that allows business owners to get the capital necessary to start up businesses and do so quickly - so that you can earn that money. The government provides you with police protection, fire protection, ensures that hospitals must treat you if your sick or dying. It educates you, your children and provides national security for all through the military and clandestine activities. It subsidizes even private college educations using grants and low-interest loans. It keeps other countries from undermining our economy for their gain through a multitude of mechanisms, including WTO Arbitration. It pays for the electric cables that supply the electricity you're using right now (no, private utility companies do not buy and put up those electric wires). Any road you've ever driven on that WASNT a toll road is paid for with tax dollars - so you are able to drive to work without having to pay a private company to use the road because of taxes. It makes sure that when you **** in the toilet, that **** goes somewhere out of sight and mind to be treated. It makes sure the water out of your faucet doesn't give you dysentery and that the beef you had for lunch doesn't give you salmonella. It protects your right to work. ALL of this requires the government to tax. It takes a lot of employees to run even these most basic governmental operations, the types of things even poor governments do, and these state employees must be paid. And the facilities, the construction, the use of international institutions, vehicles for cops, hospital bills for the uninsured but dying have to be paid. Without the government acquiring taxes and regulating the economy you wouldn't have a job, you wouldn't even be safe from being murdered unless you hired private security. You wouldn't be able to take a bite of food without fear of illness if it weren't for taxes. A large number of PRIVATE SECTOR jobs that you are earning your wages at (paid, again, in US bills minted by the US Treasury Department) exist because the government taxes you and redistributes that wealth to those industries to ensure they stay afloat financially.
All of this is to say that even setting aside your, in my opinion immoral and completely detached, borderline sociopathic, view that you owe no one anything despite living in a country that provides you with the very structure needed to have a modern society. You benefit from tax dollars every day, you are benefitting right now so damnit, yes the government has a right to ask you to pay your fair share. And if someone happens to get fired because the government allowed capitalism to actually go unregulated and cause an uncompetitive industry to collapse as jobs get outsourced to poorer countries (which, after all, is precisely what capitalism says should happen) then suck it up and stop feeling sorry for yourself that a couple pennies from each of your paychecks is going to those who were laid-off so they can retrain for a new industry that will help the country and so they can keep their families afloat for a short time while pursuing a new line of work. The entire financial system in which you earn your money is supported by the state through your tax dollars - you earn money because the government has created a political-economic system where that is possible so yes, you get to help pay for it. The economy exists beyond barter-and-trade, it is beyond subsistence, it provides you with workers compensation if hurt on the job, ensures employers pay you regularly and fairly and keeps you (or your wife, or sister, or whoever) from being fired if pregnant simply for being pregnant. It will provide you with medical coverage when you retire through Medicare. It will provide you with Social Security. And yes, if you happen to get down on your luck and aren't able to earn that money for whatever reason (maybe because the government decides to listen to you and removes all subsidies benefiting your employers and the wage laws that keep you from being abused by employers) the government will provide you with temporary unemployment insurance, assistance training for and finding a new job and 'food stamps' so you don't have to go to the local soup kitchen because you lost your job.
Are you going to benefit from every program the government pays for? No, of course not, but again, the state isn't there for a single individual, it is there for the collective, the nation, the country. In order to survive and compete internationally as a country we need taxes and we need a healthy, educated population so the government has an obligation on behalf of the body politic to tax you and everyone else in order to provide children with an education and those who can't afford medical treatment the treatment they need. I'm sorry if some of your tax dollars go to things you don't use, but that's how a modern society works, that is precisely what democracy is about and if you don't like it then... well, you know there aren't any taxes in Somalia right? Cause there isn't a government there... And since you don't want any earnings taken in the form of legal taxes then perhaps you need to live in a place that doesn't have them to see what life is like when you don't get taxed. That way you won't have to help pay for food stamps and 'welfare payments' (which you don't even seem to understand) which go disproportionately to young single white mothers and their children because, you know, it's better that they die of hunger because the mother can't find a job that allows her to earn enough money to pay someone to watch the children while she works to earn money for her family because people like you won't even allow the government to set up daycare programs for single working parents.
Very pro government, pro authoritarian, pro communism argument. These kind of lectures belong in Great Debates or history, or it's own thread about the glories of what gov't offers it's servants.
The gov't overall is to protect people from abuse, by general laws that allow competition among a level playing field. That is not what you get with crony corporatism or socialism. For that matter, a socialist country, that you perceive as ideal, would assign jobs as needed by this entity you choose to call gov't. I call it a crime syndicate of bosses. Everything we do can be considered a matter of National Security by people that think as you do - that's the problem. We either serve this cabal, or we are free to pursue our own interests as individuals. This country was founded upon individual freedom, not the Karl Marx greater good. Because the greater good means we serve our master rulers.
Allowing someone to keep more of what they EARN is hardly "welfare".
Taking something from someone unearned is "welfare".
Corporate welfare in some parts of the country is basically states spending massive amounts of money to recruit and retain businesses and you think this is somehow free? No, it is funded by the taxpayers through all kinds of taxes. One of the most famous examples of corporate welfare is Johnson County, KS part of the Kansas City metro area. Massive infusions of corporate welfare over time have taken large quantities of jobs from Kansas City, MO and this creates some oddities on the geographical landscape. I never mentioned that people shouldn't keep more of what they earn, but the taxpayers are definitely subsidizing large amounts of corporate welfare through high taxes with no guarantees of employers or jobs remaining in particular areas over time. Would you pay 8-10% sales tax and higher income taxes relative to living in other states to help fund all of these incentives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
