The lithmust test for socialism v. capitalism.

[Stevicus]

On free speech, he tried to make it illegal for people to publicly object to
adult group homes being established in their neighborhood by applying
fair housing law to those not in a public accommodation business.
Essentially, he'd have treated political speech as commercial speech.
He lost.

I don't recall this particular thing, although it seems rather specific. Not something that would make the "top stories" in the evening news. The greater public tends to react to things that are widely reported over and over, but if it's not really covered by the media, people might miss it.

On jury trials, his administration argued for the Petty Offense doctrine,
which allows judges to unilaterally suspend the right to trial by jury
if the accused faced less than a year in jail. This is now law, despite
the Constitution's guarantee in all prosecutions.

Those are the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, the Constitution guarantees a right to a trial by jury. I didn't know Clinton was personally responsible for this doctrine, or if it's just lawyers and judges looking for ways to cut corners.

But you have a point in that, in the eyes of Clinton's ardent fans, he really could do no wrong. He was the Democrats' answer to Ronald Reagan, who was also someone who could do no wrong in the eyes of his fans. He was also called the Teflon President.

 

[Tambourine]

A funny thing about this "story" is that one needs neither intelligence nor drive to open a restaurant, just a location and enough money to pay for initial expenses. Another funny thing is that the overwhelming majority of private companies go bankrupt within the first 5-10 years of their existence, usually due to mismanagement by their owners.

So much for the entrepreneurial Übermensch.

 

[exchemist]

This is true. As we've seen in the U.S. and other countries, capitalism works best when it is restrained and regulated by government - even as much as capitalists balk and complain about the interference of "big gov." Without the moderating influence of government, capitalism would have self-destructed a long time ago.

But now, a lot of capitalists want to do away with that moderating influence and go back to the laissez faire version of capitalism they enjoyed during the 19th century. This was back in the days when capitalism could thrive on genocide, racism, slavery, child labor, and other such atrocities which are now illegal. That's why capitalists of today are probably more politically dangerous than they were 50-100 years ago, back when capitalists were still reasonable enough to make a deal with labor unions. Now, they don't want to do that anymore, and they seem to be hellbent on some kind of "all or nothing" gambit.

You can see it with the melodrama of the OP and others who treat socialism in apocalyptic terms. But even before that, back during the 70s and 80s, conservative capitalists who followed Reagan seemed obsessed on "fixing" something that was working well and never needed to be fixed. Now that they've had their way, the fact is, they didn't fix it at all; they ruined it.

And now they're wondering why more people are starting to gravitate towards socialism, and they're clearly petrified of the whole idea, thinking the sky will fall or something.

Yes, it seems to me there is a particular weakness of American democracy especially, which is its fatal dependence on the power of money. This puts it to quite a large extent at the mercy of big business and its owners, allowing the lobbying of the corporations an excessive influence of over government policy. It is not nearly as bad in other democracies, where the expenditure of political parties on re-election is controlled by law to modest levels.

There are examples of markets that don't work, in the sense of producing optimal results for society. In the UK, the privatisation of water utilities and the railways has not been a success. The most glaring and intractable example in the US is health provision. A social model for these seems to give better results for the citizens.

Obviously this does not mean the countries that run these services that way are "socialist". That is just a bogeymen scare word. I do think the US would benefit from moving a bit closer to the European approach to some of these issues. I am convinced that if there were curbs on election spending, more socially equitable polices would emerge in time. But from what I understand of Supreme Court decisions around campaign spending, there does not seem to be any prospect of controlling it.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, it seems to me there is a particular weakness of American democracy especially, which is its fatal dependence on the power of money. This puts it to quite a large extent at the mercy of big business and its owners, allowing the lobbying of the corporations an excessive influence of over government policy. It is not nearly as bad in other democracies, where the expenditure of political parties on re-election is controlled by law to modest levels.

There are examples of markets that don't work, in the sense of producing optimal results for society. In the UK, the privatisation of water utilities and the railways has not been a success. The most glaring and intractable example in the US is health provision. A social model for these seems to give better results for the citizens.

Obviously this does not mean the countries that run these services that way are "socialist". That is just a bogeymen scare word. I do think the US would benefit from moving a bit closer to the European approach to some of these issues. I am convinced that if there were curbs on election spending, more socially equitable polices would emerge in time. But from what I understand of Supreme Court decisions around campaign spending, there does not seem to be any prospect of controlling it.

We do have some campaign finance laws in place, and there's a limit as to how much an individual can donate to a political campaign. But it also goes beyond that in terms of how ideas are presented to the public, usually through the privately-owned corporate media, which is also driven by big money.

What I've noticed over the course of my lifetime is that the power of big money can elevate a mediocre, relatively unknown figure and build them up to such a degree that they can become a household word and a presidential contender literally overnight. I saw that with Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Few people had ever heard of those guys before they became presidential candidates, but the media were able to transform these nobodies into demigods in the eyes of the public. That's what I call...magic.

I've often believed that, given enough money and media backing, even Mickey Mouse could be elected president. (If you don't believe me, look at who we have for president now.)

But it's not just the money. Another major weakness of democracy is the general gullibility of the public. Too many people fall for the media magic. They don't question enough; they're not cynical enough. These are the weak links among the people.

As far as free markets vs. socialism, I think a lot of it comes down to personal satisfaction and a degree of independence. A lot of anti-socialists try to argue that there's "no incentive to try harder" and cite that it's "human nature" to be greedy. But I honestly don't think that people are really so mercenary as all that. Sure, everyone likes nice things, and we have the cultural phenomenon of "keeping up with the Joneses." But we've also had times when people have had to make sacrifices, tighten their belts, as well as pull together during tough times. Most Americans haven't always been as selfish and greedy as some people would make us out to be. It's just that those who are, they seem to get the most attention and have the loudest voices.

I will concede that, for some things, the private sector might do it better than the public sector. But if it's a product or resource which we absolutely have to have in order to sustain human life, then it would be better controlled by the public sector. Socialism for the necessities, capitalism for the luxuries.

 

[exchemist]

We do have some campaign finance laws in place, and there's a limit as to how much an individual can donate to a political campaign. But it also goes beyond that in terms of how ideas are presented to the public, usually through the privately-owned corporate media, which is also driven by big money.

What I've noticed over the course of my lifetime is that the power of big money can elevate a mediocre, relatively unknown figure and build them up to such a degree that they can become a household word and a presidential contender literally overnight. I saw that with Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Few people had ever heard of those guys before they became presidential candidates, but the media were able to transform these nobodies into demigods in the eyes of the public. That's what I call...magic.

I've often believed that, given enough money and media backing, even Mickey Mouse could be elected president. (If you don't believe me, look at who we have for president now.)

But it's not just the money. Another major weakness of democracy is the general gullibility of the public. Too many people fall for the media magic. They don't question enough; they're not cynical enough. These are the weak links among the people.

As far as free markets vs. socialism, I think a lot of it comes down to personal satisfaction and a degree of independence. A lot of anti-socialists try to argue that there's "no incentive to try harder" and cite that it's "human nature" to be greedy. But I honestly don't think that people are really so mercenary as all that. Sure, everyone likes nice things, and we have the cultural phenomenon of "keeping up with the Joneses." But we've also had times when people have had to make sacrifices, tighten their belts, as well as pull together during tough times. Most Americans haven't always been as selfish and greedy as some people would make us out to be. It's just that those who are, they seem to get the most attention and have the loudest voices.

I will concede that, for some things, the private sector might do it better than the public sector. But if it's a product or resource which we absolutely have to have in order to sustain human life, then it would be better controlled by the public sector. Socialism for the necessities, capitalism for the luxuries.

I'm not sure I'd go along with all of that. The market seems to be perfectly good at providing food and consumables - indeed, it is responsible for giving us all an imaginative variety to choose from. It's more the things where the power of the (collective) consumer is weak compared to that of the supplier where it breaks down.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm not sure I'd go along with all of that. The market seems to be perfectly good at providing food and consumables - indeed, it is responsible for giving us all an imaginative variety to choose from. It's more the things where the power of the (collective) consumer is weak compared to that of the supplier where it breaks down.

IIRC, throughout the Western world, agriculture is heavily subsidized, to the point that a large number of countries significantly overproduce in relation to the global market, and have to literally destroy produce in order to keep market prices stable.

 

[exchemist]

IIRC, throughout the Western world, agriculture is heavily subsidized, to the point that a large number of countries significantly overproduce in relation to the global market, and have to literally destroy produce in order to keep market prices stable.

Yes that's a fair point re food production. I was forgetting. The market alone would be too brutal for farmers to manage.

 

[Tambourine]

Yes that's a fair point re food production. I was forgetting. The market alone would be too brutal for farmers to manage.

A friend of mine did a paper on agricultural subsidies in Austria for his Economics major. A lot of farming and herding here is done on marginal land in the Alps, and IIRC about a third of these businesses would simply cease to exist without subsidies. Even so, they are still struggling, and would probably not be able to survive economically without the additional income from Alpine tourism.

 

[exchemist]

A friend of mine did a paper on agricultural subsidies in Austria for his Economics major. A lot of farming and herding here is done on marginal land in the Alps, and IIRC about a third of these businesses would simply cease to exist without subsidies. Even so, they are still struggling, and would probably not be able to survive economically without the additional income from Alpine tourism.

Yes it is becoming more and more the case in Europe that farmers are being seen as curators of the landscape, and of agricultural diversity (range of breeds of animals and vegetables), just as much as food producers. This is partly because the supermarkets have too much market power compared to the producers, I think.