I am non-partisan. I do not think McCain is the answer to our economic and political woes, but Obama has admitted that he agrees with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. His policies are socialist by their very nature. Is socialism a bad thing? How about you read the follow excerpt, written by Mark J. Perry.
"Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't matter!"
Vote for who you want, but keep the country in mind, not just your own pocket book, because when a Russia/China/Iran coalition storm our shores and all we have are our 200 Million firearms (which is actually awesome, good luck axis of evil:) our pocketbooks won't matter. What will matter is our survival. Talk is cheap. Action is everything...
I agree that we should never fully move to a socialist society where the means of production are controlled by the government. We will certainly see better growth and security as a nation if we continue to reward inovation and hard work. I do worry though, that if we don't embrace some of the virtues of a socialistic society, such as public schooling and healthcare, and let the private sector go un regulated, too many people will fall through the cracks and suffer because of the greed of others. I worry that the invisable hand of Capitalism does not always lead to the overall improvement of society. The slum lord who can squeak out a bit more profit by putting as little money as possible into their low income housing is surely adhering to the core principals of capitalism. We will all in the end be better off if we make sure that even those who do not work as hard or have the drive or knowledge required to succeed in society, are able to share in the success of or society.
ReplyDeleteWonderful comment Mark. You make a sound argument. Very well said. But let me use your example of the 'the slum lord' as to why socialism is not the best way to run a slum apartment & run the country.
ReplyDeleteIf that slum lord lets their building become too slummy & nasty, the tenants would look across the street, or somewhere else and find an apartment that is run in a better fashion for the same or comparable cost due to competition. Or, if the apartment becomes so slummy that the tenants complain a lot and move out, that slum lord will not be making money, so it will behoove that slum lord to at least make their apartment as 'livable' as the competitions apartment that has full occupancy across the street.
Why should the government be able to dictate how the 'slum lord' runs their apartment? If tenants are moving out due to unlivable conditions, that 'slum lord' will have to sell their investment and another investor will come in, fix up the apartment to livable conditions and tenants will come back.
If the government were to come in and tell that 'slum lord', "you need to clean up your apartment", at what point does the government stop their interference?
Let's say there's two competing apartments in high class Manhattan, I'm talking granite counter tops, 3,000+ sq.ft apt's, etc..., and one of the high class apartments suddenly gets a one-time rat infestation, should the government step in and shut down that high-class apartment due to the rat infestation?
The point is, who decides where the government draws the line? In a socialist society, the people do not receive the right to dictate where & when the Government can step in, the Government does, and where is that line drawn. Which people on the economic ladder draw that conclusion?
I agree that as far as national security is concerned, the government should be working for the people. A government should also have rules in place to make its economy stable, but that stable economy needs to be fueled by incentives by capitalistic design, not by socialistic design, as Obama has repeatedly said he wants.
It is 2008 and we are talking about nationalizing healthcare and letting the Federal government step in and have a heavy hand with our public schooling system. We just gave unprecedented authority to the Federal government to control our banking system. The Feds bought large shares in banks and are telling them how and where to spend their money. The Feds also want to step in and control individual’s mortgages for the "betterment of society". My hope for our country is that we do whatever we can to preserve capitalism. Capitalism is what our country was founded on and it is how our parents and grandparents have succeeded to have great lives and provide for their children. Once we give these authorities to the government we are never going to get them back. We are heading down a one way street with too much government control. While these are tough times and America is in pain, making drastic changes with uncertain outcomes is not always the answer. I know that the government can do better with what they have. We all can! You can be more efficient in the fuel you use, the water you use, the energy you waste. You can be more diligent in your personal savings, in the cleanliness of your home. How dirty is your closet, your kitchen, your desk? We need to set expectations that our government use the HUGE resources that they already have and clean up the programs that are currently in place. Taxing the rich and business will lead to further job cuts for our nation. Large business is important to our country and to individual wealth. We need to focus on cleaning up the closet in Washington and not simply buying new clothes to make it look clean.
ReplyDelete