

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Daryl
Posts: 3607
|
This is the proper area to discuss current politics & then possibly we can report back as to how they may be extrapolated into the future (Terran federation).
A problem I have is that I can't understand how any reasonable person could object to a government elected freely by a majority of eligible citizens passing laws to ensure that all citizens have sufficient resources for basic survival, yet many in the previous discussion obviously do object. Tyranny of the majority, restriction of liberty, and such comments just don't compute for me. It is proven beyond doubt that a modern state can afford to provide basic welfare for all citizens, without external supplementation. Check out the net foreign debt per citizen across the countries and those with extensive welfare nets have less than many others. An argument can be made that it is cheaper to provide a parking dole to unproductive members of society than to incarcerate them after they commit crimes to get money to live. The argument that Norway and Australia fund their welfare net by exporting energy doesn't hold as these exports are not as large a percentage of GDP as many think. I realize that the conceptual chasm is too large to bridge with logic, but need to reiterate that an efficient modern society can operate with an adequate welfare net. If the term socialism is offensive then use another, like welfare or caring for the common good. Most economists agree that the most effective production system is regulated free enterprise capitalism. This is not incompatible with looking after the less capable members of society. A world wide system could operate quite efficiently while maintaining social programs. The term Terran federation implies a joining together of numerous countries that still maintain some individual characteristics. - - - Fully agree & I'll open a topic there. Possibly then we can cross reference back to how the discussion is relevant to the Terran federation? KNick wrote:I think it has become time to move this discussion from this forum to the Politics sub-forum. That is why I asked Duckk to set it up in the first place. If you wish to talk about the military or historical situation, this is the place. If, however, you want to talk about current geo-political topics, move it over there. That is what it is specifically set up for. |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
BrightSoul
Posts: 1368
|
Personally I don't feel we can hold much faith in any of the standard economic ideologies. The older I get the less such simplistic views work. Either one will inevitably destroy the society that nurtured it.
The vaunted "Free Market" of current conservative ideology has a single end point and it is inevitable. It creates an environment where profit trumps all other considerations, right and wrong no longer exist save in terms of supporting that belief structure. In the end what we will have is what we already see in several industries today, there are so few players and they have such wealth an power to preclude competition and stifle growth. This is especially critical when considering the Multinational corporations. They might be run by citizens of a country but their choices and decision making is predicated on maximizing profit. If they can't get the deal they WANT from a country they move, abandoning the employees, and infrastructure for greener pastures. Look at American exports and compare them to when we were at our peak and you'll find we make very little in this country that we can export. At the same time our imports have grown exponentially. The other most pointed to option is socialism, an ideology that has been demonized since the McCarthy era. Unchecked "socialism" as a welfare state can only end in a single end. The dole. Not an ideal way to encourage our citizens to better themselves. As someone has already pointed out on these boards, this system only works if there is enough export income for the nation to cover its costs. The people on welfare are a net negative for the nation as a whole. One of the most common errors I've seen from the anti-socialism activists is the idea that Social Security is somehow welfare. It isn't, it wasn't and in no way should it be. Where that program got into trouble was that our "illustrious idiots" in government and the financial sector dipped into those funds for purposes other than supporting the people who had spent their lives working and contributing to the system, now they are facing the complete shut down of the system to gratify the people who abused the funds intended to support the system. A "Free Market" only works so long as the plutocrats ensure that the market remains free and competitive, at their own expense if needed. A "Socialist" system only works so long as the people running it ONLY support the real needs of the society. Any welfare system needs to be deliberately sparse. No buying nintendo for the kids or a pack of smokes for yourself, those are luxuries you haven't earned. Basic food (healthy food not Kraft crap or soda pop. It makes it easier to keep the population healthy if we make sure they eat healthy), basic healthcare (no healthcare costs more in the long run that simple preventative maintenance), good education (can't make workers out of idiots, nor do they make informed voters) and a place to rest your head. Neither of these systems have it figured out. Unfortunately no one wants to try to find another solution. Nope, its far easier for us to shout dogma at each other than to find a new solution. |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Spacekiwi
Posts: 2634
|
The peoples republic is what happens when socialism goes overboard. The SL is what happens when free market policy goes overboard, along with bureaucracy overload. Ideals only work in an ideal world.
`
![]() ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ its not paranoia if its justified... ![]() ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Donnachaidh
Posts: 1018
|
The Ferengi from Star Trek and Rapture from Bioshock are both decent examples of free market capitalism with little to no regulation.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Invictus
Posts: 215
|
It seems to me that a LOT of the dogmatists seem to forget that they can both be right. A free market society, with some way to make it harder for big business to legislate itself out of trouble (ie. government bailouts) combined with a basic personal safety net such as the one described by Brightsoul, would seem to me to be the best of both worlds. You get the creativity, efficiency, and chance for personal achievement of the free market. You also get turnover of the big companies if they are allowed to fall when they screw up enough. At the same time, people in that company that has failed are still going to be able to eat and keep a roof over their heads while they look for work.
"When you talk about damage radius, even atomic weapons pale before that of an unfettered idiot in a position of power." Sam Starfall |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Daryl
Posts: 3607
|
Thank you for saying what I meant less ponderously than I would.
|
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
I believe you conflate two things. A free market simply means that economic activity is not compelled on either participant. Your use of big business implies you are discussing capitalism. The two are not the same. One can use private property and property rights to force a party to engage in economic activity.
The classic American western story has a land owner daming a river and denying his neighbor the river water needed to manage his farm. The antagonist hopes to force the neighbor to sell his land for a very low price. Classic involuntary transaction, hence not a free market but does follow private property rights central to capitalism. I simply cannot see how an economic system that enshrines voluntary exchange can lead to abuse. I can see using private property to harm others. I can also see using the government's monopoly on coercive power to harm people. I can't see how mandating that all economic exchange be voluntary could harm anyone.
|
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
7thsealord
Posts: 213
|
Depends (IMO) on what people define as "voluntary". That quote about making offers one cannot refuse is what springs readily to my mind. *
---------------------------------------------------- “I want my epitaph to be ‘Doggone If He Wasn’t Trying His Best’.” “I want mine to be ‘We Buried What Pieces We Could Find’.” Wondermark |
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
Norway exports $76.1 billion more than it imports (Exports-$162.7 vs. Imports-$86.8) but runs a fisscal surplus of 15.2%. It is using that surplus to pay down its debt at a rate of 3.5% of GDP in the past year(~$15 billion).
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/norway/norway_economy.html I would say that a 15.2% more exports than imports qualifies for significant foreign contributions. Asutralia is deferring welfare payments to future generations. As of August 2012 the Federal Debt is AUD 2.4TR on a GDP of AUD ~1.57TR. There is still a fiscal deficit of about 3% of GDP. So Australia is allowing the future generations who do not recieve current benefits to pay for current benefits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_national_debt This is also shifting the burden of paying for benefits to people who do not recieve benefits. The bottom line is that all welfare systems depend on finding non-recipients to support the benefits given to beneficiaries. One solution is a very free market approach called charity. The US voluntarily gives massive amounts of private wealth to charitable causes. The compulsion inherent in socialism isn't the only solution or even the best one.
|
Top |
Re: Socialist policies in the future - viable or not | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Spacekiwi
Posts: 2634
|
What about NZ then? only $160 million surplus in 2012, and since 1951, our average yearly trade balance is a deficit of 38 million.
`
![]() ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ its not paranoia if its justified... ![]() ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Top |