Note: Please do not participate if you are not a U.S. citizen or pending for citizenship.

I have been talking with my parent's friends recently, and many of them talk about how they wish that the U.S. was a communist state. So I started asking around, and found that a lot of people do wish that it was so. I wanted to ask my fellow players if they too wished that the U.S. was a communist state. Or do most wish to keep capitalism around?

(From dictionary.com

Capitalism- an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Communism- a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Do you:

A. I want America to stay capitalistic.
B. I am pro-communism in the U.S.
C. Until this point I did not know the meaning of communism.

-El Presidente 1949

Given your definition, I suppose I prefer communism.

When it comes to nationalization, I certainly would prefer a greater degree of state ownership of commercial entities and other firms; If simply for the sake of stability. Or perhaps because private ownership would entail higher taxes given that the sole buyer happens to be the government or almost (eg. paying for weapons; The profits of the companies are paid for by higher taxes; Would they be nationalized, they would simply go back to the government.)

On another note, I don't like a dichotomic choice as presented. I prefer considering every issue on it's own rather than having to take a package.

In any case, I don't live in the US...

Communism is actually existing in the U.S as any political parties are given right to act.

Finally, the choice belongs to the U.S people. They will choose communism leaders if they actually do want.

I believe that companies that have a poor track record with respect to human rights, environmental damage, and other social needs should be taken over and run by the government for x amount of time- so as to remove the issue of the problem, which is usually the company's owners. For example, there are a few mining companies in the US that would certainly benefit from being taken over and run by the government- if only to ensure the survival of the miners!

HOWEVER: I am a firm believer that people should also have the right to own and run a company, and if they can do so in a way that does not violate anybody's civil or social rights, then there is not reason they cannot perform business.

As far as socialism in the US, or at least the belief in socialistic democracy, I am still not sure whether it would work in a nation as large as ours, as compared to some of the success stories over in Europe. We're just quite a different nation, you know?

Nonetheless, I'm basically all for whatever increases happiness and quality of life. I know that may seem ridiculously broad, but this IS a tropico 3 message board, and technically right now I'm hunting for tips on how to beat the "They Live Among Us" level in Absolute Power, and also the best ways to manipulate the happiness bars of my citizens, and also completely dominate them. ;-P
~chrisser665

Ha ha, P_Mathias, good one. I'd urge your parents' friends to read a book, but since they can't color in it, they probably wouldn't. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm

Here's the butcher's bill of communism, in numbers of deaths:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Not exactly an enviable record, is it? The damned Nazis only killed off 25 million ...

(14-11-2010 07:35 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  Ha ha, P_Mathias, good one. I'd urge your parents' friends to read a book, but since they can't color in it, they probably wouldn't. http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm

Here's the butcher's bill of communism, in numbers of deaths:

65 million in the People's Republic of China
20 million in the Soviet Union
2 million in Cambodia
2 million in North Korea
1.7 million in Africa
1.5 million in Afghanistan
1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
1 million in Vietnam
150,000 in Latin America
10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power."

Not exactly an enviable record, is it? The damned Nazis only killed off 25 million ...

No my friend. I understand that you are relating these deaths to "communism", but out of fairness, it never was. These were never true communist countries- they were totalitarian dictatorships. And not the dictatorship of the people- it was the dictatorship of the the few people at the top- the secretariat, the politburo, the nomenklatura.
As a US citizen, I'm not exactly one to embrace what often appears to be "communism". But I have objected on more than one occasion (for the sake of academic truth) that what everybody refers to as "Communism" is and was actually something entirely different.

Quote from the top of the page: "Communism- a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."

Isn't a "totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuation political party" a totalitarian dictatorship?

Or do you mean something else, like Acts 2:44-45? "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need." Problem is, human nature gets in the way. Some get lazy and won't work; someone else says those that don't work shouldn't eat, and it all ends in a fight. Some religious communes are more or less successful; an abbey or monastery functions but only under authority and implicit coercion. Disagree, you get ousted.

But I like best the quote from Friedrich Kapp, visiting the German "Latin Settlements" communes in Texas, where he recorded one of the inhabitant's profound statement: "Our life here would actually be quite bearable, if we only had a bowling lane." A close second was another inhabitant's statement: "There is nothing hindering me in expressing my revolutionary thoughts, except that there is no one listening to me." And so went life in the commune ...

Finding communism or socialism in the U.S. is analogous to finding the bones of a dinosaur - a thunder lizard.

Since President Woodrow Wilson and his Attorney General - A. Mitchel Palmer - any political-economic theory of collectivism has been under intensive attack. The only acceptable political-economic theory is capitalism; the fact that we have economic classes is denied - we are all "middle class" - except for the anti-social "drop-outs" but most of them are in prison or public housing projects. Hey, even Bill Gates is just upper middle class - ask him.

The terms commonly used to describe other political-economic systems - such as communist, socialist, fascism\corporatism - are in the category of profanity such as the F-word, SoB, etc.

The U.S. congradulates itself on winning the "cold" war with the USSR because it's easier for our corporations to do business with entrapreneural thugs rather than communist, nationalist thugs.

There can be no reasoned discussion of political-economic theory in the U.S.

(16-11-2010 04:21 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  There can be no reasoned discussion of political-economic theory in the U.S.

Ha, I like your bluntness.

Capitalism has its faults, and it always will. Such is undeniable. Any system will always have faults. Inherent weaknesses and shortcomings.

However, its alternatives are.. thoroughly unattractive.

Communism: Chase some economic ideal that no nation, no people will ever be able to truly achieve. Doing so would require overcoming the selfish nature of human beings, and doing that en masse will simply never happen. Communism, the ideal, is simply impractical. Just look at the past. All those so-called Marxists just ended up ruthlessly exploiting their people and often killing those who spoke up against them. In short, communism is just a vague and naive ideal that really won't get anybody anywhere.

People often like to believe in pretty stories, and simple slogans. Heck, some people believe still that vaccines cause autism, that AIDS was a deliberate attempt to wipe out segments of the population, or that fluoridation is an Illumaniti plot to take over the world. Some too believe there are secret Nazi bases on the moon.

No wonder some believe in myths of socialism or communism.

@Coconutkid: Can we have a reasoned discussion, if we are not operating from the same knowledge base? Leontief's Paradox, which apparently violates the Heckscher-Ohlin model (which built upon Ricardo's ideas, who in turn was profoundly influenced by Adam Smith) directly pertains to your comments regarding international corporate trade with the USSR and later, Russia, as well as current trade imbalances with (Communist) China. What? Never heard of Ricardo and the Iron Law of Wages (yeah, some say LaSalle, but Ricardo really formulated it)? It was essential to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in developing their ideas ...

I'll try to put it simply, though it really isn't simple at all. We cannot predict what the stock market will do, or make any definite plans upon it. The stock market is by no means an inclusive derivative of the economy, which is a function of millions of individuals, commodities, etc, including as well unpredictables such as weather, disaster, and group psychology, all inter-related. How could a government possibly predict and control all factors? Yet both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward so called "equality."

The Soviet collapse was inevitable. The current attempts to avert the world economic crisis are similarly flawed, since they are based upon simplistic formulas, and the imbalances are growing and getting worse. The free market is really the only answer ... and as Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

(16-11-2010 11:49 PM)IronFist Wrote:  ... Doing so would require overcoming the selfish nature of human beings, and doing that en masse will simply never happen. ...

I think you are making an assumption about the basic nature of humans that is not borne out by psychological research. Although I am not deeply and widely read in the field, I think it is a mistake to characterize the overarching human drive to be competition - the law of tooth and claw of animals in the field and water.

In our society, competition is assumed to be - if not the sole - motivator, to be the only practical way to get people to act. Studies of how to use competition to guide peoples' behaviors occupy lots of time and consume lots of money. Studies of how to use cooperation are so rare as to be unknown.

So, it is not hard to conclude that the U.S. is a "one party" nation based on selfishness moderated only by the recognition that at least every fourth poke has to have an actual pig in it - else order will collapse.

Ricardo's analytical style was deductive. In deductive analysis, one first imagines a model economy (as it is usually much simpler to think about than an actual economy) and then figures out how that model economy would behave under alternative economic policies. If the model economy is essentially similar to actual economies, policies that are effective in the model economy will also be effective in actual economies. Ricardo's analytical style is very modern in the sense that it is similar to the way an economic theorist today may think through a problem.

At least on the surface, it appears that Ricardo's model economy was a very accurate picture of the society of his era. That is a patriarchy in which only men were important and women and children appeared only as decorations. It seems that he gave no recognition to the value or even existence of the work women performed without involvement in the flow of money. That includes especially the bearing and rearing of infants. (BTW, the strongest argument against child labor is its inefficiency; they should be physically developed and indoctrinated for suitable labor.) So it would appear that his theory of income distribution is faulty because the importance of the laborer's contribution is greatly undervalued because of this invisible or ignored maintenance factor for labor. This is not the same as the mechanisms that led to the growth of labor and capital goods in his theory.

The Iron Law of Wages driven to its final Malthusian stage fully justifies slavery, either chattel or indenture\contract. Slavery effectively removes the undesireable factor of uncontrolled variables for the landlords and capitalists. Subsistence can be calculated with great accuracy, even to the formerly unmeasured\unnoted cost of womens' work. Breeding can be organized and costed out. Development of children and youth can be optimized. Naturally the ratio between free and slave labor would be decided by the landlords and capitalists.

Ricardo came to the conclusion that it was a waste of time to worry about long-run economic growth. More important was the issue of how the steady state output is distributed among the different classes. Ricardo’s belief that total output will ultimately stop growing convinced him that the main issue in economics was not to figure out how economies grow richer but to figure out how the limited output in the economy’s stationary state is distributed or shared among the various sectors of the economy.

(17-11-2010 03:14 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  ... knowledge base? Leontief's Paradox, which apparently violates the Heckscher-Ohlin model ...

... We cannot predict what the stock market will do, or make any definite plans upon it. The stock market is by no means an inclusive derivative of the economy, ... How could a government possibly predict and control all factors? Yet both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward so called "equality."

The Soviet collapse was inevitable. The current attempts to avert the world economic crisis are similarly flawed, since they are based upon simplistic formulas, and the imbalances are growing and getting worse. The free market is really the only answer ...

To what extent are all these esoteric theories and counter-theories based on more or less elaborate deductive analysis? The Nobel Prize for Economics was not established by Alfred Nobel. It was established and endowed by Swedish Bankers to "legitimize" the "science" of economics. I posit that the economy does not exist independently of the politics of the society.

I don't think I mentioned the stock market. Of course it is not a mirror of the economy nor the society. It has become simply an annex to the Nevada gambling industry. You put in your money with the gamble that more money will come out of the slot when you pull the sell lever. For some reason, everyone has been sold on the idea that it is perfectly safe to be a venture capitalist.

If seems you make the flawed logical leap that centralized economic planning has a connection with the stock market. I have no idea of the exact mechanics of the soviet or other centralized economic planning. Of course it could not replicate the chaos of the "free" market you dream of. (I am not well read on chaos theory.) The U.S. dipped deeply into centralized economic planning during WWII with some success. It was an effort during a national emergency. The soviet system of centralized planning evidently started during a national emergency - the defense of the nation and government from universal attack, a suppression of revolution as the French suffered in the 18th century. Perhaps its failure was its inability to renew itself in the face of new challenges. That failure can be laid at the feet of the dictator not the system. Cuba's centralized planning is undergoing a renewal because the dictator is fading away, but the emergency of attack from the U.S. is not fading.

"Income Redistribution" = a profanity to be applied any tax which applies to you rather than someone else. Political equality is O.K. only if it can not lead to economic equality.

I agree that a total collapse of the world economy is necessary to establish the chaos of a totally free market that you espouse. Inevitable seems a bit theological. I am not sure that such chaos will be comfortable, but I am old enough that it will be interesting to observe while not being much of a threat of an earlier death.

Man- I love Tropico players. Hell- RTS players for that matter. We're so damned smart.

Further, we don't just post random epithets and profanities to our forums. Nah, our discussions are all "Sir, I believe you are gravely mistaken" this, and "Whilest your first argument is sound, I must confess that your second lacks a certain focus with which for my to reply," that.

It's not all "lol ur ghey" and "haxord, f4g."

Ah, you misread me! My point about the stock market is that it is not possible to predict. An economy is even less predictable! So, socialism, communism, which attempt more or less planned economies, fall victims to the law of unintended consequences.

Twenty-two years after Ricardo advanced his theories of comparative advantage they were used as justification by the British to start the Opium wars. I am anti-Ricardo. Global free trade is a net benefit to society, but the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can sometimes lead to economic inefficiency through the process of trade diversion.

Your example of Cuba, which has a very inhibited trade system, sounds like something Hugo Chavez would say. A fine example of what happens to a overregulated economy ... Venezuela. Socialist to the core, complete with "income redistribution", too!

---

@chrisser665: Never played Tropico. I was a Patrician II and III player. I was hardly immune to tossing off the occasional insult, but I preferred a Cyrano de Bergerac style; something with a bit of flair.

(18-11-2010 02:44 AM)chrisser665 Wrote:  It's not all "lol ur ghey" and "haxord, f4g."

Ha, that's good. Here, we attempt to engage in a more noble conversation, a more concealed yet scalding hatred of each others' ideals, and a more discrete form of condescension about each others' backgrounds and origins.

It's because we're edumacated interrectuals.

Sorry about not posting in a while. I have been unable to find this. (Was it moved out of the Tropico 3 section?) Anyways, I am happy that I have gotten so much feedback already, and hope that I will get some more.

-El Presidente 1949

(18-11-2010 03:12 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  Ah, you misread me! My point about the stock market is that it is not possible to predict. An economy is even less predictable! So, socialism, communism, which attempt more or less planned economies, fall victims to the law of unintended consequences.

I think I did not misread - predicting the future is not possible even if the area covered has fewer variables than the economy. The socialist and communist attempts at economic planning are quite similar to the capitalist attempts to manipulate the market a-la WalMart or Standard Oil or any of the other great combines of history -- the Hanseatic League? The difference is the socialist \ communist plans have a theoretical link to a broad-based, popular opinion reflecting the common good while the "capitalist" plans are the work of a small group of plutocrats striving to obtain an even greater share of the available wealth. Which group delves deeper into the detail of the economy and thereby is more likely to make mistakes? I don't know. It is a common charge that the communists require all property to be held in common down to the toothbrush and underwear level. But that is a silly public debate scam. Actually the "law of unintended consequences" is more correctly stated in the "law of you can't do just ONE thing."

(18-11-2010 03:12 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  ... Your example of Cuba, which has a very inhibited trade system, sounds like something Hugo Chavez would say. A fine example of what happens to a overregulated economy ... Venezuela. Socialist to the core, complete with "income redistribution", too! ...

My comment about Cuba was one sentence and was intended for someone who had at least a general idea of the Tropico game. I'm sorry you don't. Regardless, you seem to do a "bait & switch" when you go from Cuba to Venezuela. Chavez is more a populist than a socialist. What is your scale of "over-regulated" economies?

Over the last couple of decades, "income redistribution" has been happening in the U.S. Is it O.K. if it just happens with a drift to the rich rather than being planned as was implied by LBJ's "War on Poverty" which tried to cause a drift to the base of the economic pyramid? Income redistribution happens just like the law of you can't do just one thing.

---

A picture of red politics as it exists in the U.S.

This gives me an idea:


Lets start a commune! A social experiment.

We will purchase a Caribbean Island, and go there with about 30-50 people with nothing but a few tools and the clothes on our backs.

And we will make it a great nation communist-capitalist nation.

I'll decide the will of the people and you guys do all the work.

(Else I will be the rebel leader.)

From Wikipedia: "Since 2005 Chávez has aimed to deepen the Revolution with what he has called the "Socialism of the 21st Century", emphasising participatory democracy through Communal Councils and worker-managed cooperatives, and founding the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) in 2007. He has also nationalised or renationalised a range of large companies, including Venezuela's main telephone company and leading steel company, and following the 2003 economic crisis, he reinstituted exchange controls, with dual exchange rates." Now how exactly does this differ from socialism?

I think where we differ most in view is that I never believed you can make poor men rich by making rich men poor. Is poverty a disease to be cured, or is it in some fashion a measure of the man? I very much respect charities like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heifer_International . Yes, I have donated to them.

Taxes? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-hal...l?x=0&.v=1 The rich pay. The poor don't. Despite that, the poor haven't gotten richer, and the rich have. Is that possibly the measure of the man? I don't see any demonstration that the rich as a group don't deserve their wealth, or that somehow the poor deserve the wealth that the rich have acquired. Sure, some of the rich are criminal; so are some of the poor.

I hate to sound greedy, but I earned my money. I started in poverty and lived in the projects after my mom left the abusive SOB that was my sperm donor and her husband. We stayed in projects until after my mom remarried, she managed to bump back into my stepfather who she dated before marrying. My parents cared enough to volunteer at a church to get all 3 of us older kids into parochial schools (my younger brother was raised in a small town after a forced move for work for my step-father), my step-father worked 2 jobs often over 75 hrs/week, prior to that he had a business that his partner embezzled to death, he worked 90+ a week there. They cared enough to make sure we did our homework and did not less us get by with average. We got grounded for Bs. We got punished for A-s that said "did not put forth effort". There are parts of how I was raised that I disagree with, but in the end they instilled a work ethic in us and a go-getter attitude. For the last 12 years I have averaged working over 50 hours a week and have gone months with 70+ hours per week. To get through college I went to the service, was saving up nicely. Granted I got shot at a bunch and eventually caught a richocet which got me on voc-rehab which covers a lot of the expenses of school. When I went to college I did a simple analysis - which are the 10 ten jobs in demand and which did I feel I would like that made the most. Most people look for what they like the most instead with no concept of earning a living. I still worked full time while going to school full time to pay for the rest that voc-rehab did not. That got me out of college debt-free save about 3k on a CC from recent car repairs (cheaper to fix what I had than get a new one). From that day forward I have taken at least 15% of my income and invested it. I am now investing over 40%. This is so I have a future, but more importantly my son will. It does mean my wife and I drive used vehicles and live in within a semi-rigid budget.

Counting all taxes I give up over 50% of my income already. If you want more than that I can simply stop working so hard and accept less. 50% of what I make now would be worth far more than 65% of what I would make if taxes tried for that big a piece. I have the resources to pay off my house quite a few times. I can easily go for a less stressful job making a lot less which allows me more time with the family. Of course it would push my retirement back from 54-56 to 65-70. However, if government punishes success too much that would be the course I would take.

If I sound a bit angry, you are right. I am getting tired of people who complain that they need more of what I got. Been out of work 99 weeks and worried about losing UC? NOT MY FAULT. I have survived quite a few layoffs over time. I filled in with part-time delivery jobs. I filled in that income with money made shovelling manure, day laboring loading trucks from barges, contracting to companies needing help cleaning up industrial sites, and other unsavory jobs. 30 bucks and 3 meals for a 13 hour day putting up barbed wire on a day off was better than being short on the rent. Everytime I got kicked down I got back up and revised my plans.

(01-12-2010 04:12 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  From Wikipedia: "Since 2005 Chávez has aimed to deepen the Revolution with what he has called the "Socialism of the 21st Century", emphasising participatory democracy through Communal Councils and worker-managed cooperatives, ... Now how exactly does this differ from socialism?

"Chavez is more a populist than a socialist." That's what I said. If you wish to quibble over socialist vs populist, fine. I did not say he wasn't a socialist. I suggested that his socialism is more populist than classical if you wish to have it that way.

(01-12-2010 04:12 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  I think where we differ most in view is that I never believed you can make poor men rich by making rich men poor. Is poverty a disease to be cured, or is it in some fashion a measure of the man? ...

It seems that your definition of the measure of a man is simply the money that he has amassed. I suggest two things: You falsely describe socialism singly as a system of wealth redistribution. The concept that wealth naturally distributes itself among people on the single basis of their natural abilities is the product of the outmoded and rejected theory of "Social Darwinism."
The second thing is that you (seem) to claim that a man can amass personal wealth without reference to the culture and physical characteristics of the place where he is.

(01-12-2010 04:12 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  Taxes? ... The rich pay. The poor don't. Despite that, the poor haven't gotten richer, and the rich have. Is that possibly the measure of the man? I don't see any demonstration that the rich as a group don't deserve their wealth, or that somehow the poor deserve the wealth that the rich have acquired. ...

I read the article you linked to and found this in it:
"The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property."

It seems that you very selectively talk about the tax which promotes your belief without taking into consideration of all the other taxes in a very, very complex tax universe.

---

(02-12-2010 08:50 PM)captain_morgan Wrote:  I hate to sound greedy, but I earned my money. I started in poverty ... If I sound a bit angry, you are right. I am getting tired of people who complain that they need more of what I got. ... Everytime I got kicked down I got back up and revised my plans.

I would not subtract from your effort and the obstructions you have overcome.

However, your effort was\is expended in a culture which allows it to happen. Most particularly, it has the resouces to allow it to happen. It is not Sub-Saharan Africa after all.

Your rant about Unemployment Insurance seems to suggest that you prefer private charities as substitute for tax based assistence for those who are or will soon become destitute of food and shelter. That's what Herbert Hoover suggested at the start of the "Great Depression."

Hoover said: I intend... to discuss some of those more fundamental principles upon which I believe the government of the United States should be conducted....

During one hundred and fifty years we have builded up a form of self government and a social system which is peculiarly our own. It differs essentially from all others in the world. It is the American system.... It is founded upon the conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom and equal opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise spur on the march of progress. And in our insistence upon equality of opportunity has our system advanced beyond all the world.

During [World War I] we necessarily turned to the government to solve every difficult economic problem. The government having absorbed every energy of our people for war, there was no other solution. For the preservation of the state the Federal Government became a centralized despotism which undertook unprecedented responsibilities, assumed autocratic powers, and took over the business of citizens. To a large degree, we regimented our whole people temporally into a socialistic state. However justified in war time, if continued in peace-time it would destroy not only our American system but with it our progress and freedom as well.

When the war closed, the most vital of issues both in our own country and around the world was whether government should continue their wartime ownership and operation of many [instruments] of production and distribution. We were challenged with a... choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines ­ doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization... [and] the undermining of the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.

The Republican Party [in the years after the war] resolutely turned its face away from these ideas and war practices.... When the Republican Party came into full power it went at once resolutely back to our fundamental conception of the state and the rights and responsibility of the individual. Thereby it restored confidence and hope in the American people, it freed and stimulated enterprise, it restored the government to a position as an umpire instead of a player in the economic game. For these reasons the American people have gone forward in progress....

There is [in this election]... submitted to the American people a question of fundamental principle. That is: shall we depart from the principles of our American political and economic system, upon which we have advanced beyond all the rest of the world....

I would like to state to you the effect that... [an interference] of government in business would have upon our system of self-government and our economic system. That effect would reach to the daily life of every man and woman. It would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom....

Let us first see the effect on self-government. When the Federal Government undertakes to go into commercial business it must at once set up the organization and administration of that business, and it immediately finds itself in a labyrinth.... Commercial business requires a concentration of responsibility. Our government to succeed in business would need to become in effect a despotism. There at once begins the destruction of self-government....

It is a false liberalism that interprets itself into the government operation of commercial business. Every step of bureaucratizing of the business of our country poisons the very roots of liberalism ­ that is political equality, free speech, free assembly, free press and equality of opportunity. It is not the road to more liberty, but to less liberty. Liberalism should not be striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it....

Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political freedom is to be preserved. [An expansion of the governmentís role in the business world] would cramp and cripple the mental and spiritual energies of our people. It would extinguish equality and opportunity. It would dry up the spirit of liberty and progress... For a hundred and fifty years liberalism has found its true spirit in the American system, not in the European systems.

I do not wish to be misunderstood.... I am defining general policy.... I have already stated that where the government is engaged in public works for purposes of flood control, of navigation, of irrigation, of scientific research or national defense... it will at times necessarily produce power or commodities as a by-product.

Nor do I wish to be misinterpreted as believing that the United States is a free-for-all and devil-take-the-hindmost. The very essence of equality of opportunity and of American individualism is that there shall be no domination by any group or [monopoly] in this republic.... It is no system of laissez faire....

I have witnessed not only at home but abroad the many failures of government in business. I have seen its tyrannies, its injustices, its destructions of self-government, its undermining of the very instincts which carry our people forward to progress. I have witnessed the lack of advance, the lowered standards of living, the depressed spirits of people working under such a system....

And what has been the result of the American system? Our country has become the land of opportunity to those born without inheritance, not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry but because of this freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to ours.... But she has not had the blessings of one hundred and fifty years of our form of government and our social system.

By adherence to the principles of decentralized self-government, ordered liberty, equal opportunity, and freedom to the individual, our American experiment in human welfare has yielded a degree of well-being unparalleled in the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is proof of it....

The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of [a lack of governmental] control of economic forces distinctly its own ­ our American system ­ which has carried this great experiment in human welfare farther than ever before in history.... And I again repeat that the departure from our American system... will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, and will destroy equality of opportunity not only to ourselves, but to our children....


Sorry - I failed highlight what Hoover said.

On the tax issue... I would simply argue that although trickle-down economics is questioned never fail to underestimate the ability of trickle-down on the taxes applied to the rich. Notice how most governments replace asset based taxes to user fee style taxes? A sales tax (ignoring food) is likely the least regressive tax of them all. All others will have a substantially greater impact on the poor.

(03-12-2010 07:09 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  However, your effort was\is expended in a culture which allows it to happen. Most particularly, it has the resouces to allow it to happen. It is not Sub-Saharan Africa after all.

I could be mistaken but we were discussing the US not Africa. However, I would wager that I would somehow get ahead or get dead in any type of culture or society. Getting ahead in any culture is merely a matter of learning the rules and determining how to properly play the game. Learning to pay attention instead of acting like a sheep is key.

(03-12-2010 07:09 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  Your rant about Unemployment Insurance seems to suggest that you prefer private charities as substitute for tax based assistence for those who are or will soon become destitute of food and shelter. That's what Herbert Hoover suggested at the start of the "Great Depression."

Partially correct. I believe in a basic umbrella in place for a limited duration. The majority of those not working right now after 99 weeks have clearly set their standards too high or sat on their butts for a while before looking. I know quite a few people who took 90 days off instead of looking. Whenever I have been unemployed I have been out there within hours. The people I knew that were laid off that did the best relied as much on local charities as government. The ones that suffered the most were older and forced to take the biggest pay cuts, but most of them planned as well. I don't know if that is part of the culture of the type of people I hang out with or if it is a matter of being older and having to survive during the late 70s and early 80s when things saw a game changer as well. I suspect that it is likely a combination of the two. It is likely not by accident that over the years I have drifted away from those who do not have drive and gravitated towards those who do.

(03-12-2010 07:09 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  Liberalism should not be striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it....

Both the Romans and Greeks found out the effects of an ever growing bureaucracy. I believe you could even say that of quite a few European nations today. Bureaucracy unbound in essense becomes a living entity which will strive hard to survive and block all attempts at what it considers a fatal wound. Doing more than putting it on a modest diet would be difficult at best since often times the Bureaucracy is able to interpret and manipulate budgets.

I regard a man's (or woman's) measure by what they have accomplished, Coco. I do find it very amusing here that while disparaging the current system, you inadvertently defend it by stating Captain Morgan couldn't have advanced so far if we didn't have this system. With no rule of law, and limited property rights, you need look no further for an example of social Darwinism than the former Soviet Union's successor states. Hoover was quite correct in that, wasn't he?

And what is it with you and the Tea Party, anyway?

(03-12-2010 07:09 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  Perhaps its failure was its inability to renew itself in the face of new challenges. That failure can be laid at the feet of the dictator not the system. Cuba's centralized planning is undergoing a renewal because the dictator is fading away, but the emergency of attack from the U.S. is not fading.

"Income Redistribution" = a profanity to be applied any tax which applies to you rather than someone else. Political equality is O.K. only if it can not lead to economic equality.

I would submit that the system is what generates the dictator. The Constitution was carefully constructed to prevent such dictatorships, the authors having the examples of despotic kings in mind. So, basic rights were established, and further elaborated under the Bill of Rights. The checks and balances are multiple; a bicameral legislature, an executive branch, and a legal branch. None can achieve supremacy. The president may be impeached, the laws nullified by the supreme court if unconstitutional, the courts circumvented by Constitutional Amendment or by slow change through appointment (which has to be approved by Congress.

You cannot enslave a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

Income redistrubution is really an unreasonable search and seizure of property. You imply that somehow the wealthy have no right to their wealth.

(04-12-2010 03:30 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  ... Income redistrubution is really an unreasonable search and seizure of property. You imply that somehow the wealthy have no right to their wealth.

That's not really a valid implication from what I say. I say explicitly that the individual's property rights are not absolute. I say that property is held more or less temporarily under rules established by the state. Property is not a gift from God which vests in an individual because of righteousness -- as in the Medieval concept that a king was anointed directly by God.

On the other hand, you say rather directly that accumulating and holding property is an absolute right and success is a mark of a superior person. You say that the government has no authority at all to interfere or regulate the holder of property. You also say that redistribution of wealth (or income or property) in a flow from those with little to those with much is quite alright. You say that such a flow is based on the moral depravity of the poor and the righteousness of the wealthy. Any flow in the other direction is an affront to the natural order of things.

(03-12-2010 08:52 PM)captain_morgan Wrote:  On the tax issue -- ... A sales tax (ignoring food) is likely the least regressive tax of them all. All others will have a substantially greater impact on the poor.

I think that wouldn't be validated by a closer examination. The application of sales taxes can be described only as a wide spectrum which has highly various impacts on segments of society. There's the European variety generally called "Value Added Tax" which is very pervasive. The typical U.S. experience is with a tax only on retail sales of goods. Try to extend it to services and watch the lawyers go ballistic, followed quickly by the doctors. I suggest the key is "disposable" income vs "disposed" income -- available to be spent vs what is spent. Unless the sales tax is actually a universal transaction tax, I opine that its administration will center its effect on the easy to administer mass markets dominated by the "poor" as they immediately spend their income on necessities ; while the wealthier will spend more in markets not subject to the tax.

(03-12-2010 07:09 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  Liberalism should not be striving to spread bureaucracy but striving to set bounds to it....

I appologize! I really did not say that. I failed to denote properly the quote from Herbert Hoover that I included.

Hoover was imprecise too. He was ranting about government bureaucracy while ignoring the private sector bureaucracy. Does any sane person really expect private businesses - whether for profit or non-profit - to operate without a complicated, overhead staff proportional to the size of the operation? WalMart doesn't have a bureaucracy? HO ho ho & hee hee hee!

(04-12-2010 04:56 AM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  I regard a man's (or woman's) measure by what they have accomplished, Coco. ... if we didn't have this system. With no rule of law, and limited property rights, you need look no further for an example of social Darwinism than the former Soviet Union's successor states. Hoover was quite correct in that, wasn't he?

And what is it with you and the Tea Party, anyway?

You have a measure - a ruler, a standard, a weight on a balance scale - which you call "accomplishment" against which you test all individuals. It appears that measure is overwhelmingly the size of the pile of property they have accumulated. You say that no one living outside of our God inspired Constitutional "system" -- such as the heathens in the USSR successor states -- can register on your scale.

I said, The concept that wealth naturally distributes itself among people on the single basis of their natural abilities is the product of the outmoded and rejected theory of "Social Darwinism." How do you jump from that to the USSR successor states? And how do they relate to "no rule of law" and "limited property rights?" You are claiming that individuals have no limits on their right to property? You are also claiming that the "rule" of law can somehow be magically imposed without the voluntary acceptance of the vast majorty of the population - especially those with money (property) and power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

Hoover was an intelligent man, but a captive of his era. He certainly was no better than Wilson in his racial and cultural beliefs. He was unable to cope with the economic collapse because his experience did not allow him to grasp enough of the underlying causes. He certainly had nothing to say about the USSR's successor states, having been dead for some time.

I don't think I have been hammering on the "Tea Party." They are claiming responsibility for almost all of the Republican "surge" in last month's election. That makes them a subject of comment. My view of the positions they have taken is that they have brought out Herbert Hoover's political philosophy in slightly renewed form. Probably in the next election their candidate will be running against Franklin D Roosevelt as much as against Barack Obama. She will have to be briefed in depth.

(04-12-2010 04:36 PM)CoconutKid Wrote:  

(04-12-2010 03:30 PM)Baltic Trader Wrote:  ... Income redistrubution is really an unreasonable search and seizure of property. You imply that somehow the wealthy have no right to their wealth.

That's not really a valid implication from what I say. I say explicitly that the individual's property rights are not absolute. I say that property is held more or less temporarily under rules established by the state. Property is not a gift from God which vests in an individual because of righteousness -- as in the Medieval concept that a king was anointed directly by God.

On the other hand, you say rather directly that accumulating and holding property is an absolute right and success is a mark of a superior person. You say that the government has no authority at all to interfere or regulate the holder of property. You also say that redistribution of wealth (or income or property) in a flow from those with little to those with much is quite alright. You say that such a flow is based on the moral depravity of the poor and the righteousness of the wealthy. Any flow in the other direction is an affront to the natural order of things.

I say that respect for rights, including property rights, is the foundation of our system of government. Among other rights, a person has the right to his wealth, and to be free from unreasonable seizure. If a man holds land, and the right of eminent domain (the people) require it, he should definitely be justly compensated for his loss.

This principle is clearly outlined in the Fourth Amendment. It is based on earlier philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as John Locke. In his "A Letter Concerning Toleration" he wrote in 1689 "Civil interest I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things..." It found further refinement in the first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776; written by George Mason, it states:

"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

In many other nations, other forms of government, the individual has different rights, and often very different limits. The state, as you put it, may at its whim take anything and everything from the individual, including his very life, at its whim. You favor such a state, obviously.

Your straw man argument about moral depravity of the poor and righteousness of the wealthy is patently absurd. Our system allows for considerable social mobility, limited primarily by the abilities of the individual. Now, Richard Cumberland, another seventeenth-century English philosopher, wrote that promoting the well-being of our fellow humans is essential to the "pursuit of our own happiness."

I have written elsewhere on the importance of charity. http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.204586/ is as I mentioned one of my favorites. I regard their accomplishments very favorably. Did you ever look over Hoover's early life by the way? Befor our entry into WW I Hoover worked 14-hour days from London, administering the distribution of over two and one-half million tons of food to nine million war victims. He crossed the North Sea forty times to meet with German authorities and persuade them to allow food shipments, becoming an international hero. After the war, as a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, Hoover organized shipments of food for millions of starving people in Central Europe. Hoover provided aid to the defeated German nation after the war, as well as relief to famine stricken Bolshevik controlled areas of Russia in 1921, despite the opposition of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and other Republicans. When asked if he was not thus helping Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, "Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"

That, to me, is a notable accomplishment. He did not, incidentally, become wealthy from it. By the way, I wouldn't lay the economic collapse at his feet. The collapse came from the earlier return of Great Britain to the prewar gold standard, the contraction of the money supply engineered by the Federal Reserve, and most prominently, to the failure of the Creditanstalt. As a side note, the parallels to today are multiple; the euro is essentially a gold standard, the Fed is still the Fed, and the Creditanstalt ... is probably coming shortly.

Part of the Argument here, is what is Socialism?
I presume, from the definitions given, that Communism being discussed is really defined more as Socialism, as though there a difference between the two (besides the difference in restraint when i t comes to violence and terror)

I borrow from a British Chap who said it well 88 years ago:

Quote:"Socialism is one of the simplest ideas in the world.

It has always puzzled me how there came to be so much bewilderment and misunderstanding and miserable mutual slander about it.

At one time I agreed with Socialism, because it was simple. Now I disagree with Socialism, because it is too simple.

Yet most of its opponents still seem to treat it, not merely as an iniquity but as a mystery of iniquity, which seems to mystify them even more than it maddens them. It may not seem strange that its antagonists should be puzzled about what it is. It may appear more curious and interesting that its admirers are equally puzzled. Its foes used to denounce Socialism as Anarchy, which is its opposite.

Its friends seemed to suppose that it is a sort of optimism, which is almost as much of an opposite.

Friends and foes alike talked as if it involved a sort of faith in ideal human nature; why I could never imagine.
The Socialist system, in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other.

It seems extraordinarily simple and even obvious; and so it is.
It is too obvious to be true.
But while it is obvious, it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.

I am myself primarily opposed to Socialism, or Collectivism or Bolshevism or whatever we call it, for a primary reason not immediately involved here: the ideal of property....."

And in the same book, he discussed the common argument that Socialism is like the Post Office, not very efficient but it does its job

Quote:"...It can be stated most truly by putting another model institution and edifice side by side with the Post Office. It is even more of an ideal republic, or commonwealth without competition or private profit. It supplies its citizens not only with the stamps but with clothes and food and lodging, and all they require. It observes considerable level of equality in these things; notably in the clothes. It not only supervises the letters but all the other human communications; notably the sort of evil communications that corrupt good manners. This twin model to the Post Office is called the Prison. And much of the scheme for a model State was regarded by its opponents as a scheme for a model prison; good because it fed men equally, but less acceptable since it imprisoned them equally.

It is better to be in a bad prison than in a good one. From the standpoint of the prisoner this is not at all a paradox; if only because in a bad prison he is more likely to escape. But part from that, a man was in many ways better off in the old dirty and corrupt prison, where he could bribe turnkeys to bring him drink and meet fellow-prisoners to drink with. Now that is exactly the difference between the present system and the proposed system. Nobody worth talking about respects the present system. Capitalism is a corrupt prison. That is the best that can be said for Capitalism. But it is something to be said for it; for a man is a little freer in that corrupt prison than he would be in a complete prison. As a man can find one jailer more lax than another, so he could find one employer more kind than another; he has at least a choice of tyrants. In the other case he finds the same tyrant at every turn."

I see Four parts of the question, and only one economic system may be yes as the 'final answer'
Communism Yes/No
Socialism Yes/No
Big Business Capitalism Yes/No
Small Business Capitalism Yes/No

Just as some see no difference between the first two, others too see no diiference between the last two.