Socialism in America

[J.D.]

Dickens was a socialist? :laugh:Now I've heard it all!

Dickens only wrote about what he observed. But, if you want fact as opposed to fiction, then I would recommend you read the Rowntree Report into poverty of 1901 for further enlightenment.

I don't what Dickens was but I've read some of his books. He has an opinion. The thing about your throwing the name Dickens into the discussion is that I've never heard him given a voice in any SERIOUS discussion about economics.

But if you want to include novelists in the mix, I recommend a study in contrast between John Steinbeck and Erskine Caldwell. Steinbeck tends to assume that the poor are noble, oppressed, and kept in poverty by external factors.

Caldwell’s approach is much more realistic, portraying the hapless poor as victims of a complex series of maladies to include oppressive external factors such as greed and heartlessness and their own self-inflictions -their own perpetuations of ignorance, superstition, and immoralities.

While it seems to me that Dickens' opinions are better informed (or perhaps just better expressed) than Steinbeck's, yet they both fall for the simplistic view that because poverty is caused by external factors (industry, business), the solution of it lies in external factors (the state). This develops into a two-tiered, mechanized, impersonal society, for it fails to see that the essence of economics is not demand/supply, capital, distribution, etc.; but the essence of economics is people, and societies formed by people without Big Brother's interference are organic and personal in nature, and recognize that imperfections in the economy is the price of individual freedom. Along with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. This is the American way. If one must be rewarded for effort, then one must also not be rewarded for non-effort.

As for Rowntree, his definition of poverty was not economic, but scientific, and therefore it was superficial (poverty is lack of a specific caloric intake, the solution of which is an adequate wage). Well, no one in their right mind would doubt that in order to buy food and necessities of life, one's wages must be "adequate". But the question becomes, how are "adequate" wages achieved? Rowntree's solution, one which has been widely accepted even in Individualist America, is the Minimum Wage. And yet Rowntree's later studies found "unemployment" as the major contributor to poverty, replacing low wages as the culprit.

Interesting, isn't it? There seems to be a correlation - as the minimum wage goes up, the employment rate rises also. The solution? Government edict and manipulation of the market to force "full" employment along with a minimum wage. And what is the result? Profits decrease, business closures increase, the GDP drags, commodities are rationed due to short supply, innovators emigrate to America, and America becomes the greatest economic success in history (though we now live in its decline because we fail to learn from history).

 

[Matt Black]

I would have thought that conservatives would be against a minimum wage - they certainly are over here - as that's a prime example of interventionist government.

 

[HankD]

Every unrestrained governmental expression of fallen mankind has a predominant evil outcome attached to it:

Evil outcome of socialism - Power - tyrannical rule over the masses.
Evil outcome of capitalism - Greed - neglect of the poor and needy.

In the American form of the self enterprise of a republic with a representative government, one of the essential "checks and balances" which has been compromised is the "consent of the governed".

"let's pass the bill so we can see what's in it".

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Every unrestrained governmental expression of fallen mankind has a predominant evil outcome attached to it:

Evil outcome of socialism - Power - tyrannical rule over the masses.
Evil outcome of capitalism - Greed - neglect of the poor and needy.

In the American form of the self enterprise of a republic with a representative government, one of the essential "checks and balances" which has been compromised is the "consent of the governed".

"let's pass the bill so we can see what's in it".

HankD

The consent of the govern has not been compromised. The electorate can always turn out those who do not represent them properly at the next election. The problem is they don't.

 

[HankD]

The consent of the govern has not been compromised. The electorate can always turn out those who do not represent them properly at the next election. The problem is they don't.

Dear C4K, You have a right, as I do, to a wrong opinion and I may be wrong.

But IMO you are wrong (although I find myself ageeing with you more often than not, i.e the Anwar Al-Awlaki's assassination) in this case..

IMO, the consent of the governed has been compromised.

The manner in which it was stampeded through the houses was unprecedented in that it could not be read by the governed which caught us off-guard and the bill is presently unrepealed.

This compromise of the "consent of the governed" IMO was a bellwether (mostly un-noticed by the sleepy public), as was IMO the Al-Awlaki assassination with probably more to follow.

But yes in this you you are correct, we the people must vote our president out of office and put him into the ranks of the 9.1% unemployed, otherwise - again you are absolutely correct, - we will get what we vote for (or the neglect thereof).

"Fool me once..."

I say that vicariously, because I did not vote for him the last time around.

HankD

 

[J.D.]

The consent of the govern has not been compromised. The electorate can always turn out those who do not represent them properly at the next election. The problem is they don't.

I agree with Hank on this point. Waiting 4 years (6 years in the case of senators) AFTER they have betrayed us to turn them out doesn't work. Recalls and impeachments are in order.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree with Hank on this point. Waiting 4 years (6 years in the case of senators) AFTER they have betrayed us to turn them out doesn't work. Recalls and impeachments are in order.

It only takes two years to turn out the guys and gals who spend the money.

 

[mandym]

It only takes two years to turn out the guys and gals who spend the money.

and in those two years they can do a lot of wrong

 

[HankD]

It only takes two years to turn out the guys and gals who spend the money.

Like I said C4K, they caught us off guard.

Too bad not enough were awakened to turn the senate.

Hopefully next time around - but like someone said a lot can happen twixt now and then both "good" and "bad" (i.e. assassinating American citizens).

Personally I am amazed at the shrewdness of these social experiments designed (again IMO) to test the resolve of we the sheep (oops I mean "people").

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

and in those two years they can do a lot of wrong

That is a good point and raises a valid question. With modern technology should we consider an amendment to require annual elections for the House? Another possibility would be to require that any new non-emergency spending bills do not take affect until the next Congress and they would have to be ratified by the next Congress. If the people like the bill they can vote that Congress back in, if not they can replace them.

 

[mandym]

That is a good point and raises a valid question. With modern technology should we consider an amendment to require annual elections for the House? Another possibility would be to require that any new non-emergency spending bills do not take affect until the next Congress and they would have to be ratified by the next Congress. If the people like the bill they can vote that Congress back in, if not they can replace them.

The difficulties that arise with this is congress would always be in campaign mode.

 

[Matt Black]

The consent of the govern has not been compromised. The electorate can always turn out those who do not represent them properly at the next election.

If there is a candidate who presents a viable alternative in real terms. And if there isn't, if you have enough $millions to stand as a viable candidate yourself. One way perhaps to address the latter would be to have a cap on the amount of $s a candidate can speand on campaigning.

 

[J.D.]

That is a good point and raises a valid question. With modern technology should we consider an amendment to require annual elections for the House? Another possibility would be to require that any new non-emergency spending bills do not take affect until the next Congress and they would have to be ratified by the next Congress. If the people like the bill they can vote that Congress back in, if not they can replace them.

I think the original intent of the founders was for congress to be made up of common citizens, not the career political class. Hence term limits. Nothing would make a consgreeman more accountable than the knowledge that he must return to the community he represents.

And yes, DEFINITELY, lame-duck bills should not be passed unless for a bonified emergency.

 

[J.D.]

The difficulties that arise with this is congress would always be in campaign mode.

Not if their terms are limited.

 

[J.D.]

If there is a candidate who presents a viable alternative in real terms. And if there isn't, if you have enough $millions to stand as a viable candidate yourself. One way perhaps to address the latter would be to have a cap on the amount of $s a candidate can speand on campaigning.

Term limits would not only make alternative candidates viable, but necessary. And contributions would much more likely come from constituents rather than outside entities, both individual and corporate.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think the original intent of the founders was for congress to be made up of common citizens, not the career political class. Hence term limits. Nothing would make a consgreeman more accountable than the knowledge that he must return to the community he represents.

And yes, DEFINITELY, lame-duck bills should not be passed unless for a bonified emergency.

I hesitate to support term limits. I think the voters, despite their seemingly foolish choices, should have the right to send the same idiot back as many times as they want to.

 

[InTheLight]

an investment banker, an arizona voter and a mexican immigrant are all sitting round a table on which there are 12 cookies. The banker takes 11, nudges the voter and points to the immigrant saying "i'd watch him - he's after your cookie."

Liked it!!!!

 

[HankD]

an investment banker, an arizona voter and a mexican immigrant are all sitting round a table on which there are 12 cookies. The banker takes 11, nudges the voter and points to the immigrant saying "i'd watch him - he's after your cookie."

After which the banker steals the table as well.

HankD

 

[Eric B]

You are making an assumption that is not valid. If you have a job and the only job you can get is making less or no job at all, you probably should do something to make yourself more marketable. If there are no other jobs for you, then it is fair that the employers pay you less, you are worth less as there are a myriad of others who would take your place if you quit.

I hired people and had one person threaten to quit because we paid them too little (or they didn't get enough of a bonus). The fact was, I had hundreds of applicants for his job willing to make less than I paid him. In actuality, he would have done me a service to quit, I would have saved thousands of dollars. However, he realized that he couldn't find another comparable job that paid as much.

I was in that situation. I didn't want to go back into the ministry full time but I wanted to make more money. So, I began a year and a half quest to make myself more marketable and worth more to people. This included getting my MBA, getting expertise in other areas, joining organizations that would help give me more credentials, and much more. I became a leader in several non-profit organizations and was recognized for some great things that I accomplished.

Would it be unfair for my company to pay me more? Yes, because I couldn't make more money elsewhere. Was it fair for me to improve myself and then take another job for more money? Yes!

Both are Capitalistic.

Sometimes it sounds like in the ideal version of this system, everyone would be a CEO, in order to live decently. (And of course, anyone who is not, is "lazy", and deserves their plight. And that would be "fair". Though people at the same time try to justify this by saying "life is not fair"--as in don't expect it to be).

Still, this ignores other factors, such as the ar being constantly raised, in various ways. The cost of living going up. And even the requirements for "marketability". Like here in NY, they raised the qualifications to get a counselor's license. So my wife's Masters' was instantly rendered worthless, and instead of making money now, we're paying for basically, a second Master's.

These types of things are never taken into consideration, and call them lazy if you will, but a lot of other people will give up in that situation. Others might be incapable of making it.
But we seem to be setting up a system where you have to spend decades in school, and work 20 hours a day to be "worth" enough to make it, and we hold those people who do this (many of them having a problem of "workaholism", where even their health and families suffer) up as the "fair" norm of "hard work" and "success" (by which anything less is "laziness"), but clearly, something is lopsided there, and that's part of what people are complaining about.

 

[Max Fenster]

Balanced view. The sad thing is that this road started in the US in 1932, kind of leveled off for a while, but has been picking up speed a spiraling out of control since 1989.

Is 22 years of unchecked socialism too much to recover from? It seems like it may be too far gone. Even if a non-socialist president were elected he/she would still have to deal with a socialist Republicrat Congress.

George Wallace nailed it in 1968 when he said there was not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. Today there is not a cent's worth. Both are given over to the big government socialist mindset.

Roger,

I've read this comment several times over the last several days and racked my brain to figure out the significance of 1989. The only things that come to my mind are the fall of the Berlin wall (end of the cold war) and the globalization of finance. Neither seems to fit the bill.

I'm truly curious - not bating. What happened in 1989 that I'm not recognizing?