Comments on Socialism
Posted by Gabriel Kent on November 7th, 2008
Gabriel Kent at 3:02pm November 3
Fearing more war is obvious. I am surprised how little fear people have of socialism these days. I wish I could vote for a free market and not have to settle between 4 more years of bush or 4 years of increasing socialist policy. Even the libertarian candidate is not so free market…wtf.
Rose Roberto at 11:22pm November 3
Comment on socialism: It ain’t that bad. Imagine going to a hospital, having major surgery, like a c-section in my case, then having no medical bills. Then imagine your children getting free prescription drugs until they’re 16. After that you pay like £8 (about $16) for all medicine. I don’t think the US would go for it, really, though.
John Enricco at 11:27pm November 3
Obama, with billionaire businessman Warren Buffett and former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker among his top financial advisers, may support a more equitable America, he is no socialist. Which isn’t to say that an Obama administration couldn’t inspire socialist policies or attitudes . . . Obama’s stance is significant, not because he has proclaimed allegiance to socialist ideology - he hasn’t - but rather because he is expressing support for notions of social solidarity and interdependency and government intervention akin to European social democracy. Surely the majority of Americans don’t link these values to any kind of socialist strain. Unlike Europe, socialism and social democracy are not even part of the American political scene. But Americans are searching for a vision of society different from our present one. (from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/29/barack-obama-socialism-taxes)
Rose Roberto at 6:48am November 4
It’s the 21st century and traditional definitions of “socialism,” “communism,” “capitalism,” “free-market” need to be rethought because they don’t reflect the realities of the digital age. Other things we have defined in the past need to be changed too. For example, you could say Obama is black, or you could say he is multi-racial. Which one is more accurate? And at the end of the day does it really matter as long as he is the man on for the job? Socialism, capitalism; (tomato, “to-ma-toe”) What parts of these theoretical systems work and which things don’t?
Gabriel Kent at 4:04pm November 4
@Rose, RE: socialism: History shows that full socialist states are really bad while semi-socialist states are less bad because they are less socialist.
Your example may sound good to you but for those hoping to preserve individual freedom, it sounds like you are saying that you are glad you don’t have the freedom to pay for your own medical expenses and you are happy to take that freedom from someone else who might rather spend that money on something they care about, such as the environment.
“Everybody wants to spend somebody else’s money. And nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. And that’s a fundamental principle.” - Friedman
RE: definitions: When you start changing definitions, you can make anything mean anything which makes little use of any definition.
Further, speaking theoretically about any social system is also of little use. I agree though, we need to compare the real with the real and fortunately, we have enough empirical data on such social systems to do just that.
I suggest personal freedom and protection from 3rd parties above all other systems. A free market system does just that, for a decent definition see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Gabriel Kent at 4:41pm November 4
@John: I agree, Obama isn’t a socialist oer se. However, he will enlarge the state at the expense of personal liberty… which like it or not, that is ’socialist policy.’
John Enricco at 4:58pm November 4
..I think that’s going to happen regardless of whose in the White House in the future when the “boomers” get to retirement age. since Social Security has the potential to engulf everything and make the state bigger by default.. Not looking forward to that 
Rose Roberto at 10:06pm November 4
Gabriel, I am an American living in Britain, so I’m not giving a theoretical example, but 1st-hand one. I’m not spending money that belongs to someone else when I go to hospital here. I pay for it through my taxes. Anyone who works & pays UK taxes is entitled to medical care, but rather than individuals paying a big bill at the end of treatment which can leave them w/ big debt or without care if the don’t have money, everyone contributes to a big pot that takes care of them when they need it. The current political party in power here is Labour which has socialist roots. These days it’s a watered down version, but my point was a little bit of socialism isn’t bad. Also, if you look at history what was labeled as socialism or free market changes because realities of politics, geography, and new industries make it. For example, Meynard Keynes economics has evolved from Adam Smith’s. We need to try some new things to fix problems, not be afraid of them because of labels.
Ed Trillo at 10:25pm November 4
Yeah good point. I ain’t too afraid of socialism making some big grand entrance into this country - it’ll never happen, way too many opposed to it. Every once in a while something will get pushed through like that FU*KIN BAILOUT PLAN, but we’ll never turn into a France or anything. Didn’t happen with Clinton, it wont happen with Obama.
John Enricco at 9:46am November 5
We’re way too big a country for that ..hopefully. Usually it’s works better in small countries that can get away with it. Trying to socialize 500 million people (est. in 2030)..yikes!
Gabriel Kent at 2:58pm November 5
@Ed, sure… I guess… but look around, what isn’t socialized besides small businesses ? money, school, medical, welfare… I suppose what isn’t socialized is merely highly subsidized and fraught with price and wage controls…
@Rose, that is precisely my point. The less money you pay in taxes the more money you have to choose what to spend it on. If you are indeed concerned about the health of others, than with the extra money you save from taxes you may donate to a private aid organization. In terms of freedom, you are stating that you are happy to have someone else spend your money, which is a loss of your freedom of choice. You may agree with medical spending but what about your fellow citizen who doesn’t, they are forced to have their money spent on something they don’t believe in.
Further, its a guarantee that the UK social medical system is less efficient than a free market counterpart. This conclusion comes from research into networks, groups and information loops. Any one person/group cannot have absolute information to make the best decision from, but a network can make infinitely smaller decisions which provide a greater benefit to the entire system. Case in point: how much better are we informed/involved since news is being distributed from major broadcast to narrowcast internet-based media? You can think of it as spreading the risk/information.
Fundamentals don’t change. Socialism is in inverse proportion to personal freedom. I think you mean people’s attitudes toward socialism and free markets have changed because the labels themselves haven’t and history hasn’t.
Keynes work was build upon Smith by virtue of Smith’s work coming first and being so definitive. As for ideology, Keynes work is actually at cross purposes with the majority of Smith’s insights.
I highly recommend you watch the 80’s version of Freedom to Choose (avail free): http://ideachannel.tv/
I argue to stop the loss of personal liberties and believe in peoples ability to choose to thrive together and sadly it sounds like you are in favor of loosing some of that freedom so you can have your medical bills paid, in part, by someone else.
Rose Roberto at 12:33am November 6
Ed and I are obviously right when we said most in the US would never go for complete socialism, as demonstrated by Gabriel’s expressed fears. I have an opinion based on living here for 5 yrs, traveling & observing other countries, you’re quoting statistics which I’m guessing you didn’t publish in a medical or health mgt.journal? Here are a couple stats: life expectancy in UK: 78.54, in US: 77.85, Not big statistically, but I think this means the UK’s medical system ain’t too bad and *everyone* has access to it. There are also no malpractice lawsuits on the scale you get in the US, because medical bills don’t ruin people here. I also think “choice” is a bogus argument. Most people would chose to go to the closest doctor’s office for preventative care, which for me 2 blocks away, then where an insurance company selects, like in US.
Not everything is better here. My point was that we should pick and chose what works & adapt it or parts of it & be pragmatic not idealogical.
As for freedom, I think Gabe has a strange concept of it. It is NOT a commodity like oil, needing to be rationed or it will run out. If people contribute to the common good that is NOT a bad thing that makes me less free & you more free, or vice versa. There are 4 freedoms according to FDR (quoted by Obama in his book) that if everyone had would lead to a just and better world: Freedom of speech, of religion, from fear and from want. “You cannot have the first two without the second two and you need all four to have a strong democracy,” he writes. If everyone’s basic needs were met there would be fewer problems all around. Generosity isn’t only determined by income as Gabe seems to think. I do give very generously of my time & money to charities even though I’m taxed higher here. Statistically, the US and other countries with low taxes do not contribute the most to global charities, its the socialized Scandinavian countries.
Gabriel Kent at 3:02pm November 3
Fearing more war is obvious. I am surprised how little fear people have of socialism these days. I wish I could vote for a free market and not have to settle between 4 more years of bush or 4 years of increasing socialist policy. Even the libertarian candidate is not so free market…wtf.
Rose Roberto at 11:22pm November 3
Comment on socialism: It ain’t that bad. Imagine going to a hospital, having major surgery, like a c-section in my case, then having no medical bills. Then imagine your children getting free prescription drugs until they’re 16. After that you pay like £8 (about $16) for all medicine. I don’t think the US would go for it, really, though.
John Enricco at 11:27pm November 3
Obama, with billionaire businessman Warren Buffett and former US Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker among his top financial advisers, may support a more equitable America, he is no socialist. Which isn’t to say that an Obama administration couldn’t inspire socialist policies or attitudes . . . Obama’s stance is significant, not because he has proclaimed allegiance to socialist ideology - he hasn’t - but rather because he is expressing support for notions of social solidarity and interdependency and government intervention akin to European social democracy. Surely the majority of Americans don’t link these values to any kind of socialist strain. Unlike Europe, socialism and social democracy are not even part of the American political scene. But Americans are searching for a vision of society different from our present one. (from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/29/barack-obama-socialism-taxes)
Rose Roberto at 6:48am November 4
It’s the 21st century and traditional definitions of “socialism,” “communism,” “capitalism,” “free-market” need to be rethought because they don’t reflect the realities of the digital age. Other things we have defined in the past need to be changed too. For example, you could say Obama is black, or you could say he is multi-racial. Which one is more accurate? And at the end of the day does it really matter as long as he is the man on for the job? Socialism, capitalism; (tomato, “to-ma-toe”) What parts of these theoretical systems work and which things don’t?
Gabriel Kent at 4:04pm November 4
@Rose, RE: socialism: History shows that full socialist states are really bad while semi-socialist states are less bad because they are less socialist.
Your example may sound good to you but for those hoping to preserve individual freedom, it sounds like you are saying that you are glad you don’t have the freedom to pay for your own medical expenses and you are happy to take that freedom from someone else who might rather spend that money on something they care about, such as the environment.
“Everybody wants to spend somebody else’s money. And nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. And that’s a fundamental principle.” - Friedman
RE: definitions: When you start changing definitions, you can make anything mean anything which makes little use of any definition.
Further, speaking theoretically about any social system is also of little use. I agree though, we need to compare the real with the real and fortunately, we have enough empirical data on such social systems to do just that.
I suggest personal freedom and protection from 3rd parties above all other systems. A free market system does just that, for a decent definition see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Gabriel Kent at 4:41pm November 4
@John: I agree, Obama isn’t a socialist oer se. However, he will enlarge the state at the expense of personal liberty… which like it or not, that is ’socialist policy.’
John Enricco at 4:58pm November 4
..I think that’s going to happen regardless of whose in the White House in the future when the “boomers” get to retirement age. since Social Security has the potential to engulf everything and make the state bigger by default.. Not looking forward to that
Rose Roberto at 10:06pm November 4
Gabriel, I am an American living in Britain, so I’m not giving a theoretical example, but 1st-hand one. I’m not spending money that belongs to someone else when I go to hospital here. I pay for it through my taxes. Anyone who works & pays UK taxes is entitled to medical care, but rather than individuals paying a big bill at the end of treatment which can leave them w/ big debt or without care if the don’t have money, everyone contributes to a big pot that takes care of them when they need it. The current political party in power here is Labour which has socialist roots. These days it’s a watered down version, but my point was a little bit of socialism isn’t bad. Also, if you look at history what was labeled as socialism or free market changes because realities of politics, geography, and new industries make it. For example, Meynard Keynes economics has evolved from Adam Smith’s. We need to try some new things to fix problems, not be afraid of them because of labels.
Ed Trillo at 10:25pm November 4
Yeah good point. I ain’t too afraid of socialism making some big grand entrance into this country - it’ll never happen, way too many opposed to it. Every once in a while something will get pushed through like that FU*KIN BAILOUT PLAN, but we’ll never turn into a France or anything. Didn’t happen with Clinton, it wont happen with Obama.
John Enricco at 9:46am November 5
We’re way too big a country for that ..hopefully. Usually it’s works better in small countries that can get away with it. Trying to socialize 500 million people (est. in 2030)..yikes!
Gabriel Kent at 2:58pm November 5
@Ed, sure… I guess… but look around, what isn’t socialized besides small businesses ? money, school, medical, welfare… I suppose what isn’t socialized is merely highly subsidized and fraught with price and wage controls…
@Rose, that is precisely my point. The less money you pay in taxes the more money you have to choose what to spend it on. If you are indeed concerned about the health of others, than with the extra money you save from taxes you may donate to a private aid organization. In terms of freedom, you are stating that you are happy to have someone else spend your money, which is a loss of your freedom of choice. You may agree with medical spending but what about your fellow citizen who doesn’t, they are forced to have their money spent on something they don’t believe in.
Further, its a guarantee that the UK social medical system is less efficient than a free market counterpart. This conclusion comes from research into networks, groups and information loops. Any one person/group cannot have absolute information to make the best decision from, but a network can make infinitely smaller decisions which provide a greater benefit to the entire system. Case in point: how much better are we informed/involved since news is being distributed from major broadcast to narrowcast internet-based media? You can think of it as spreading the risk/information.
Fundamentals don’t change. Socialism is in inverse proportion to personal freedom. I think you mean people’s attitudes toward socialism and free markets have changed because the labels themselves haven’t and history hasn’t.
Keynes work was build upon Smith by virtue of Smith’s work coming first and being so definitive. As for ideology, Keynes work is actually at cross purposes with the majority of Smith’s insights.
I highly recommend you watch the 80’s version of Freedom to Choose (avail free): http://ideachannel.tv/
I argue to stop the loss of personal liberties and believe in peoples ability to choose to thrive together and sadly it sounds like you are in favor of loosing some of that freedom so you can have your medical bills paid, in part, by someone else.
Rose Roberto at 12:33am November 6
Ed and I are obviously right when we said most in the US would never go for complete socialism, as demonstrated by Gabriel’s expressed fears. I have an opinion based on living here for 5 yrs, traveling & observing other countries, you’re quoting statistics which I’m guessing you didn’t publish in a medical or health mgt.journal? Here are a couple stats: life expectancy in UK: 78.54, in US: 77.85, Not big statistically, but I think this means the UK’s medical system ain’t too bad and *everyone* has access to it. There are also no malpractice lawsuits on the scale you get in the US, because medical bills don’t ruin people here. I also think “choice” is a bogus argument. Most people would chose to go to the closest doctor’s office for preventative care, which for me 2 blocks away, then where an insurance company selects, like in US.
Not everything is better here. My point was that we should pick and chose what works & adapt it or parts of it & be pragmatic not idealogical.
As for freedom, I think Gabe has a strange concept of it. It is NOT a commodity like oil, needing to be rationed or it will run out. If people contribute to the common good that is NOT a bad thing that makes me less free & you more free, or vice versa. There are 4 freedoms according to FDR (quoted by Obama in his book) that if everyone had would lead to a just and better world: Freedom of speech, of religion, from fear and from want. “You cannot have the first two without the second two and you need all four to have a strong democracy,” he writes. If everyone’s basic needs were met there would be fewer problems all around. Generosity isn’t only determined by income as Gabe seems to think. I do give very generously of my time & money to charities even though I’m taxed higher here. Statistically, the US and other countries with low taxes do not contribute the most to global charities, its the socialized Scandinavian countries.
Posted in Free Market, conversation, healthcare, overseas, socialism | Comments (0)