Why Pretending That Captive Markets Are Free Markets Doesn't Work

[Stevicus]

Many would disagree.
Misguided government policies prolonged Great Depression
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-0508-25.pdf

That's a lot of speculation there. Besides, FDR didn't start the Depression. The capitalists did that. I would merely look at the results and compare the standard of living between what it was like in America before FDR and after FDR.

Before FDR, this is the world capitalists would have considered idyllic:

And after FDR's policies came to fruition after WW2, this is the legacy he left America:

The interesting thing about it is that, during the Cold War, comparisons between the American system and the Soviet system were common (just as you and I have often talked about). But America during the Cold War was not really a "capitalist" America in the strictest terms. It was the kind of America that capitalists secretly hated and sought to undo in their support of Reagan.

We've covered this extensively in other threads. Reagan's economic policies
were a boon to the economy, but his foreign policy led to later economic downfall.
It was his proxy attack on Iran & supplying Iraq with WMDs which lead to greater
mid-east turmoil, culminating in the devastating wars in started under the Bushes.

The U.S. economy will never have another Golden Age

It was the Golden Age of the U.S. economy, the quarter century between 1948 and 1973, when the U.S. reigned supreme, manufacturing flourished and the American middle class prospered.

During those 25 years, real GDP rose 169%, employment increased by 75% and manufacturing jobs by 30%, while per capita personal income almost doubled.

People of all incomes and education levels could live the American Dream and came to believe that being an American meant your children and grandchildren were almost guaranteed to be better off than you were.

It was, in retrospect, an impossible dream, which ended with the Arab oil embargo and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, followed by the deep recession of the early 1980s.

Still, manufacturing employment kept rising throughout the 1970s, peaking at 19.6 million in June 1979, but inflation was way out of control, and Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker pushed the federal funds rate to an all-time high of 19.1% in June 1981. That crushed inflation but caused the deep recession of 1981-82.

Profits above all else

After that recession, the personal-computer revolution brought advanced analytical tools to office desktops. The academic idea that a corporation’s sole mission was to create shareholder value became a potent weapon in the hands of corporate raiders like T. Boone Pickens and Carl Icahn, who dethroned CEOs of prominent companies.

The bottom line was everything now, foreign competition was fierce, and big U.S. corporations could no longer afford to be private welfare states. They cut benefits and shed jobs to boost earnings and share prices. Steady, well-paying jobs with good benefits became increasingly rare because they were economically unsustainable — and technology enabled employers to outsource work to developing economies like Mexico and China.

The Arab Oil Embargo was noted as a key, pivotal event in causing the US economy to go from boom to bust, although that was part of the larger problem with US foreign policy during the Cold War era. The Cold War also motivated us to help rebuild and prop up the German and Japanese economies, which would later come back to haunt us.

In my view, this points up the key philosophical difference: It was far more important for the capitalists in the US to be anti-communist on a global scale, than it was for them to be pro-American or even pro-freedom or pro-human rights. It didn't matter to us if the Shah of Iran was a murdering despot, just as long as he was anti-communist and US companies could profit. It was the same with Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, and elsewhere throughout the world.

And even the Arab Oil Embargo, after such a blatantly hostile act towards America, we let them get away with it (which the Arabs saw as weakness and became even more brazenly hostile towards us in later decades, up to and including 9/11).

The crash in 2008 was precipitated by 9/11. Instead of deregulation, this crash
was caused & exacerbated by government regulation & control of the lending
industries....decades of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac making high LTV loans,
which put homeowners underwater. The Community Reinvestment Act led
to lenders doing the same for risky borrowers. This is why Countrywide was
the first to fall.
Then, under Obama, over-regulation of lenders greatly slowed recovery.
Moreover, both Obama & Bush gave bailouts to friends on Wall St, but nary
a dime to homeowners. Both wallowed in crony capitalism.

Well, crony capitalism is a problem, isn't it? This is what leads to greed and high prices. It wasn't that the loans were too high; it's that they needed high loans to feed the greed of capitalist sellers. Price controls would have saved money for buyers and much smaller loans. The issue was that these houses weren't really worth what the capitalists believed they were worth.

This, again, is a philosophical position held by most capitalists - the L'Oreal girl who says "I'm worth it." Despite what the article (linked above) said, it's not that the workers felt entitled to good wages and benefits; it's that capitalist executives felt they were entitled to obscenely high profits.

If they only want single payer health care, they wouldn't clamor for "socialism",
which is defined as government owning the means of production. Nor would
they (as we see even on RF) decry the existence of capitalism.

From what I can see, very few people are actually clamoring for socialism. In fact, it's mostly been the opposite, where capitalists and conservatives called Obama a "socialist" when nothing could be further from the truth. In terms of economic policies, Obama (and Clinton) would be more correctly referred to as "Bush Lite."

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a lot of speculation there. Besides, FDR didn't start the Depression. The capitalists did that. I would merely look at the results and compare the standard of living between what it was like in America before FDR and after FDR.

Before FDR, this is the world capitalists would have considered idyllic:

And after FDR's policies came to fruition after WW2, this is the legacy he left America:

The interesting thing about it is that, during the Cold War, comparisons between the American system and the Soviet system were common (just as you and I have often talked about). But America during the Cold War was not really a "capitalist" America in the strictest terms. It was the kind of America that capitalists secretly hated and sought to undo in their support of Reagan.



The U.S. economy will never have another Golden Age





The Arab Oil Embargo was noted as a key, pivotal event in causing the US economy to go from boom to bust, although that was part of the larger problem with US foreign policy during the Cold War era. The Cold War also motivated us to help rebuild and prop up the German and Japanese economies, which would later come back to haunt us.

In my view, this points up the key philosophical difference: It was far more important for the capitalists in the US to be anti-communist on a global scale, than it was for them to be pro-American or even pro-freedom or pro-human rights. It didn't matter to us if the Shah of Iran was a murdering despot, just as long as he was anti-communist and US companies could profit. It was the same with Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, and elsewhere throughout the world.

And even the Arab Oil Embargo, after such a blatantly hostile act towards America, we let them get away with it (which the Arabs saw as weakness and became even more brazenly hostile towards us in later decades, up to and including 9/11).



Well, crony capitalism is a problem, isn't it? This is what leads to greed and high prices. It wasn't that the loans were too high; it's that they needed high loans to feed the greed of capitalist sellers. Price controls would have saved money for buyers and much smaller loans. The issue was that these houses weren't really worth what the capitalists believed they were worth.

This, again, is a philosophical position held by most capitalists - the L'Oreal girl who says "I'm worth it." Despite what the article (linked above) said, it's not that the workers felt entitled to good wages and benefits; it's that capitalist executives felt they were entitled to obscenely high profits.



From what I can see, very few people are actually clamoring for socialism. In fact, it's mostly been the opposite, where capitalists and conservatives called Obama a "socialist" when nothing could be further from the truth. In terms of economic policies, Obama (and Clinton) would be more correctly referred to as "Bush Lite."

Perusing the highlights, you have some novel thoughts there.
Alas, there is little common ground, other than opposing crony capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

Perusing the highlights, you have some novel thoughts there.
Alas, there is little common ground, other than opposing crony capitalism.

Like I said, this is a philosophical discussion, and we have different philosophies. I don't mind.

My only real point in all of these long arguments is that I care about the future of America. I don't want to see the country go down the drain due to recklessness and irresponsibility. Even capitalists should be able to recognize the economic consequences to political upheaval and instability.

That's why the smart capitalists backed FDR once upon a time, but they all seem to have died off or vanished by now. And now that capitalism is more on a global scale these days, we're finding that the much smarter capitalists are not from America.

That's the larger forest that can't be seen through the trees here. Forget the standard bleeding heart arguments which focus on the trees - the struggling single mothers or the poor factory worker or miner who got laid off by the greedy executives. I think society can find ways of helping those people, but we also have to examine exactly what the problem is and what causes it.

A key phrase in the article I linked upthread was "Foreign competition is fierce," and the bottom line is that our own American capitalists are letting our side down. For whatever reason, they just can't cut the mustard anymore, and they have to be stopped before they do any more damage to America. It's that simple.

It's for the sake of America; that's what it's all about. You make it seem like it's all about slackers who want free stuff and only live to watch Wheel of Fortune, but that's missing the point entirely. You keep bringing up the point that "socialism has never worked anywhere else," but we haven't tried it in America yet. We don't know how it's going to turn out, do we? Not until we've tried it.

In any case, we've already tried capitalism - had some good championship years, but now we've hit a slump and need to change our strategies.

It just seems as if capitalism has hit a dead end. It's like we're entering a period where, at best, civilization will stagnate and fail to progress any further than we are now. Human society will undoubtedly survive and might even adapt, just as humans lived under feudalism for centuries. Humans have endured all measures of suffering and hardships, from plagues, disasters, wars, atrocities, tyrannies.

Humans will survive, and someday, America's rapid rise and fall will be seen by historians as nothing more than an insignificant "blip" in the historical record.

But I think America can still do better. I just think we need to adopt and embrace a different way of doing things. We need to think outside the box and come up with a new plan.

 

[Shad]

Let's say there are only two gas stations in a town. One on the east side and the other on the west. And until now, they have both charged the same price per gallon of gas, thinking that if they raise it, their customers will go to the other station for gas. But today, the owner of the eastern gas station decides that this is not the case. He decides that his customers are not going to bother driving all the way to the other station to get their gas if he raises his own gas price by a penny per gallon, because the cost of the drive would erase the savings gained by it. So he does raise his price by a penny. And it turns out that he's right. People don't bother driving across town to save one penny per gallon on their gas.

Now, the owner of the west side gas station sees this, and sees that he has gained no new customers by keeping his gas price a penny lower, so he decides to raise his gas price by two pennies, thinking that if it worked for the west side owner, it'll work for him. And it does! Because even though he has raised his gas price by two cents per gallon, his patrons would still have to pay one cent per gallon more if they drove across town. So all they would be saving themselves is one cent per gallon, and that savings would be eaten up by the extra mileage. So they pay the two cents more for the convenience of not driving to the other side of town for their gas.

Now let's say this little 'price war' goes on for a while, and it results in both station owners charging 10 cents more per gallon for their gas, because the only alternative for their customers is to drive to the next town to buy cheaper gas. And, of course, the drive would just use up ten cent-per-gallon savings on the extra mileage incurred, getting there and back. So they aren't happy about it, but they have to pay the high price, because they have to have gasoline for their cars.

And anyway, we all know that the station owners in the next town will raise their prices accordingly because the station owners in the first town did, and they got away with it.

The problem, here, is that people have to buy gas for their cars, and the people providing that commodity all know it. So the sellers are not going to compete with each other for the lowest price and biggest share of customers. That would only hurt their profit margin (giving more, and getting less). Their goal is not to sell more product, but to sell less product for significantly more money. Because they profit more by giving less out and taking more in. And they ALL share this same goal. So they don't have to meet in back rooms and price-fix to pursue it. They will collude simply by all pursuing the same goal. Price-fixing and price gouging are technically illegal, and so is collusion, but they are nearly impossible to prove when the participants never have to meet or even speak to each other, to do it.

A captive market is a market in which the buyers have to buy from someone, and the sellers all know it. It changes the dynamics considerably when the buyers cannot refuse to buy. As they can in a "free market". Here in the U.S. most of us think we are living in a "free market economy". But in fact everything that we NEED TO BUY to live in a modern, interdependent society is in fact being sold in a captive market. And for that reason the prices go up until the greater portion of buyers simply cannot pay any more than they are.

Those goes to groups like OPEC not the gas station. The gas station is as much a victim as the consumer as the station is not the supplier but distributor.

 

[PureX]

Those goes to groups like OPEC not the gas station. The gas station is as much a victim as the consumer as the station is not the supplier but distributor.

I'm curious why you felt the need to defend fictitious gas station owners in a fictitious town, in a story intended to make a point about how captives markets lead to collusion and price gouging.

 

[wellwisher]

In a captive market, such as with this example, if the profit gets high enough; extra 10 cents per gallon, other competitors will see an opportunity and will enter the market, to share in the higher local profits. The extra station can result in excess supply, forcing prices down. The new stations needs to establish itself so he will drop prices enough to peel off some customers.

There are ways for prices to rise, that does not cause other competitors to enter the inflated price market. The first is called raising taxes on gas. This increases the costs, which is passed on to the consumer, so everyone in the free market gets screwed. The second is government creating regulations which require extra expenses, before you can sell gas. These can keep competitors out of the market, allowing a semi-monopoly; only two stations in town.

Sometime politicians will sell out the free market for campaign donations.In the example, if two stations can work together, they can grease a political palm for a new zoning regulation, while themselves being grandfathered in. Now the free market is by-passed and the inflated prices can remain, without risk from competition driving down the price.

 

[PureX]

In a captive market, such as with this example, if the profit gets high enough; extra 10 cents per gallon, other competitors will see an opportunity and will enter the market, to share in the higher local profits. The extra station can result in excess supply, forcing prices down. The new stations needs to establish itself so he will drop prices enough to peel off some customers.

If they enter the market, it's not going to be to sell gas cheaper than everyone else, except perhaps as a short term measure, to gain a market share. And being that their plan is not to sell cheap gas, they are not likely to enter a market that is already being fully served simply because the prices are up. That would be foolish for exactly the reason you pointed out. No matter how you look at it, the prices are not going down except in a rare, momentary price war. The prices are not being set based on availability. They are being sat based on the buyer's need for the product and ability to pay. The prices will only stop rising when the buyers stop buying.

There are ways for prices to rise, that does not cause other competitors to enter the inflated price market. The first is called raising taxes on gas. This increases the costs, which is passed on to the consumer, so everyone in the free market gets screwed. The second is government creating regulations which require extra expenses, before you can sell gas. These can keep competitors out of the market, allowing a semi-monopoly; only two stations in town.

Gas taxes are targeted taxes used to build and repair the roads that the cars drive on. It's just a part of the cost of that kind of transportation. Greedy sellers like to blame their high prices on taxes instead of on their own greed. But the taxes are determined by the monetary need, and the overall gallons sold. The sellers also like to blame everything on gas taxes because the taxes cut into their profits, and the more money they make, the more of it they want to keep. But really, the taxes are irrelevant to this discussion because we are not debating the automobile as our main means of transportation. Roads cost what they cost and the people who pay that cost are the people who drive on them.

Sometime politicians will sell out the free market for campaign donations.In the example, if two stations can work together, they can grease a political palm for a new zoning regulation, while themselves being grandfathered in. Now the free market is by-passed and the inflated prices can remain, without risk from competition driving down the price.

Corruption increases when the sellers in these captive markets pile up big profits, or pool their profits to push support for their own agenda. That money gives them power, and power corrupts. First it corrupts them, and then it corrupts those they pay to influence laws and policies in their favor. Yet everyone only seems to want to blame the corrupted politician, while ignoring the corrupted profit conglomerates that are bribing them.

 

[Shad]

I'm curious why you felt the need to defend fictitious gas station owners in a fictitious town, in a story intended to make a point about how captives markets lead to collusion and price gouging.

I corrected you as you confused a distributor with a producer. Also raising the price by one cent is not price gouging. OPEC and such create a captive market by dictating who can buy oil not the gas station.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Socialism does not require that the state be given "control of everything". But all governments exist to control the way humans interact with each other, so as to protect them from each other. All economic socialism proposes is that the controls be designed to enable and protect everyone involved in the commerce, and not just the capital investor. What is it that you find so wrong with this? It would seem completely logical and practical, to me.

Keep in mind that you are not living in a "free market economy", now. Just because the capitalists tell you that we are, does not mean that we are. And if you are worried about dictatorships, why aren't you concerned about the fact that under capitalism, nearly every business enterprise that exists is being operated as a dictatorship, rather than a cooperative?

I will also keep in mind that I may be living in a free market economy and that just because you say so, does not mean that I am not.

So you have no answer to a very big problem with socialism that can be readily found in the examination of historical record associated with socialism and that is the fact that they seem very vulnerable to transition to dictatorship.

It is stretching things a lot to compare business ventures with totalitarian governments. Silly in fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Capitalism as a system does not care who the investors are, how much they invest, or how socially responsible they are. It is designed with one intent, and that is to return a maximum profit on the capital invested. It does this by giving all the control in the invested commercial enterprise to the owner/investor (regardless of who or how many). And all the decisions being made within that commercial enterprise will be based on that singular goal: to maximize the return on the capital invested. Yet that same enterprise will involve the lives and livelihood of many other people besides the owner/investor, and their needs will be antithetical to the singular goal of returning the maximum profit on the capital invested; thus creating an inherently antagonistic business structure that needs a balance of power to avoid exploitation. In years past, the non-investors formed labor unions to establish that balance of power, and to keep the workers from being exploited. But as the big investors gained ever greater wealth from a system that gives them too much commercial control, they used that wealth to corrupt the government, buy the media, and used they power and influence to break the unions. And labor has been exploited for ever greater profits ever since. This is just one of the ways in which giving too much control to the capital investor has created the same corrupted government, social animosity, and extreme economic divergence that occurs under those totalitarian dictatorships that you fear. Where the dictators and their well paid functionaries and enforcers reap all the benefits, while the people who generate that wealth get relegated to working harder and longer just to survive.

We have been here before in this country, and it was a very ugly time in our history. Blood ran in our streets during the battles between workers and their very wealthy capitalist overlords who owned the politicians, the media, the police, and nearly everything else. We are headed for another of these bloody revolutions if we don't take back some control, and the accumulated wealth from these billionaire capitalists, and share it with the people who actually produce the wealth, again. I am not saying that we stop capital investment, or that we turn to what you think is "communism". This is not about that. It's about restoring a balance of control, and a better distribution of wealth, so that a few very wealthy, unscrupulous capitalists can't 'collude' to buy our government, our media, and our police, as they are now doing and have done in the past, and using these to exploit everyone else for ever greater profit to themselves. This has to stop, and soon. The longer we allow this exploitation to continue the worse it will get, until either the economy collapses or a real revolution breaks out. Because humans aren't going put up with the low wages, price gouging, corruption, pollution, bad schools, crumbling infrastructure, endless wars, and dishonest media bullsh*t, indefinitely.

I am neither progressive or conservative, but hold a mix of views from within those two opposites. I was just curious how you would address questions and points.

As far as my comments about idealists, my personal view is that while some of what an idealist may have to say is worth hearing, often idealists hold their views in much the same way that religious extremists do. There is no room for compromise. There is no room for pragmatism. There is only room for the ideal and the idealist is the only one that can show us the way.

All I see is that you have highlighted some problems with the system. Your answers give me something to think about, but I hope you do not think that just because you present a position, that I should abandon rational thought and critical review and just sign on. That is not going to happen. There were questions that I asked that you did not answer. You tried to turn that around and pose the same questions to me. Your argument has as much emotional baggage as those made by the 'conservatives' you decry. I keep that in mind too.

By the way, you missed an understanding of how I used 'progress', however, I do think it is my place to judge progress at any level. Judging is not playing god. That is just silly. That is just you trying to make me feel bad instead of providing me with valid information.

I had previously pointed out some flaws that I see with capitalism. You missed that in your zeal to show me up. It was a waste of your time, but it was your time. What I got out of it was that you just want to change who we work for. Go from some wealthy, cigar-smoking fat cat to some low performer that has no interest in doing any work for himself. I really doubt you mean that, but that is what comes across.

 

[PureX]

I will also keep in mind that I may be living in a free market economy and that just because you say so, does not mean that I am not.

Except that I have explained how you are not (with the exception of luxury markets). So if you disagree, you should be able to explain how I am wrong. And I am not seeing any such reasonable explanations. Only empty resistance.

So you have no answer to a very big problem with socialism that can be readily found in the examination of historical record associated with socialism and that is the fact that they seem very vulnerable to transition to dictatorship.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the U.S. is "transitioning to a dictatorship" right before our eyes. Our current president sees himself very much as a dictator, and is literally tearing down the checks and balances built into our governmental system because those checks and balances keep getting in his way.

Any form of government can be corrupted. Ours certainly has been. And once they have been corrupted, they still like to call themselves "democracy", or "socialist", when all they are is another totalitarian dictatorship.

It is stretching things a lot to compare business ventures with totalitarian governments. Silly in fact.

Is it? Doesn't the owner/investor make ALL the decisions, regardless of how they effect everyone else engaged in the business enterprise? How is this not a dictatorship?

 

[PureX]

I am neither progressive or conservative, but hold a mix of views from within those two opposites. I was just curious how you would address questions and points.

As far as my comments about idealists, my personal view is that while some of what an idealist may have to say is worth hearing, often idealists hold their views in much the same way that religious extremists do. There is no room for compromise. There is no room for pragmatism. There is only room for the ideal and the idealist is the only one that can show us the way.

Ideals are like lighthouses. They are intended to be used as landmarks to navigate BY, not to aim directly AT. Most humans understand this, or they don't fare very well in the real world. "Thou shall not kill" is an ideal. And it's a good ideal to live by. But the world is not ideal, and there are unfortunately times when killing may become necessary. That doesn't make it
right, it just makes it necessary.

The system of commercial activity being engaged in by humans should benefit all the humans engaged in it, not just the humans with investment capital, or the humans with the biggest guns, or the humans with the most political clout. This is a very logical and reasonable ideal for us to steer our ship of commerce BY. That's the ideal of 'socialism': that the people within the society control the mechanisms of production and distribution, not the dictator (in a dictatorship), or the owner/investor (in capitalism), or the common majority (in an unregulated democracy).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except that I have explained how you are not (with the exception of luxury markets). So if you disagree, you should be able to explain how I am wrong. And I am not seeing any such reasonable explanations. Only empty resistance.

You are familiar with empty resistance, You brought that to bear with several of my questions. I am not going to blindly jump on your train. Behave yourself.

Reminding you that just because you say it does not make it so is not a statement of disagreement that I have to explain. You do that a lot too. You answer just a little different point than the one made. This is the information I am looking for. Thank you.

The interjection of religion into economics is one of the concerns I have. That religion does not have to be Abrahamic.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the U.S. is "transitioning to a dictatorship" right before our eyes. Our current president sees himself very much as a dictator, and is literally tearing down the checks and balances built into our governmental system because those checks and balances keep getting in his way.

So you claim. That still does not address my points, but is dancing around them.

All I see is that you have political issues and your answer is not to fix them but to replace the whole system. I would look for problems and solutions, before I consider that the house should be burned down and we start from scratch and build something radically different.

Any form of government can be corrupted. Ours certainly has been. And once they have been corrupted, they still like to call themselves "democracy", or "socialist", when all they are is another totalitarian dictatorship.

So you do not know of a solution to a glaring weakness of socialism. That would be an important thing to have covered, considering the history and your position. Maybe some hybrid that is not socialism, but has bits and pieces of it. Something like what we have now.

Is it? Doesn't the owner/investor make ALL the decisions, regardless of how they effect everyone else engaged in the business enterprise? How is this not a dictatorship?

Much like your house is a dictatorship, but nothing like how Stalinist Russia was dictatorship. It is a silly analogy. People do not have to remain at the job and get another. They can start their own business. Look at you trying to be the dictator of this discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ideals are like lighthouses. They are intended to be used as landmarks to navigate BY, not to aim directly AT. Most humans understand this, or they don't fare very well in the real world.

So are you saying I am not human? Are you saying I am a failure? What? How have you established that I do not know your 'truth' of ideals? This point seems more geared to a statement about me, than about ideals.

I know that there is an entire history of ideals, idealists and the actions and outcomes of those idealists. I choose not to ignore that.

"Thou shall not kill" is an ideal. And it's a good ideal to live by. But the world is not ideal, and there are unfortunately times when killing may become necessary. That doesn't make it
right, it just makes it necessary.

So you are not really against playing God, you just do not want others to do it? It is OK if it is necessary?

That there are ideals with benefits is not something I denied or supported. I was talking about idealists. Not ideals.

I am a little concerned that you went to killing as your example.

The system of commercial activity being engaged in by humans should benefit all the humans engaged in it, not just the humans with investment capital, or the humans with the biggest guns, or the humans with the most political clout. This is a very logical and reasonable ideal for us to steer our ship of commerce BY. That's the ideal of 'socialism': that the people within the society control the mechanisms of production and distribution, not the dictator (in a dictatorship), or the owner/investor (in capitalism), or the common majority (in an unregulated democracy).

So socialism will recognize me as a person. It will care about me and my values. It will help me be the bestest I can be guaranteed. All the problems that I see with it will magically not exist because the people behind it are good and true.

I am not really against employing aspects of socialism to our system or allowing socialist concepts to develop within our system. My big concern is and has always been the people selling the idea and how they sell it.

 

[Revoltingest]

So are you saying I am not human?

Pssssst....you're a rabbit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pssssst....you're a rabbit.

Oh. I forgot that. Was it my ears? I thought holding them down made me look more human.

I could be wrong. I recognize that possibility and try to keep an open mind to new or different ideas. But I am very hesitant about the idea of magic bullets. That we will all be OK if we just radically alter everything for some untried paradigm instead of trying to fix the one that we have now. I have seen some good points made on here from both sides. Several have highlighted problems of our current system. Points I agree with and highlights I recognize.

At one time, this nation was an untried experiment, but that experiment was set up in completely different conditions than those that exist now. Saying that we should just do it again, since it worked once, neglects all those differences.

I do not want to see people fail and suffer either. I do not want greed to be the guiding factor. I just do not see from history that a switch to socialism would fix that while avoiding the problems that have been experienced by governments that have formed around socialist ideas.

My great grandfather was a socialist and he came to this country with nothing. He took advantage of his own skills and abilities and started a small, thriving business that eventually--through hard work and good sense--brought him wealth. Rather than try to turn the system around to the one he knew, he employed aspects of it in the operation of his business. He supported and helped with the formation of unions that did not prevent him from gaining wealth, while helping the people that worked in his community. He spoke out against practices like child labor. He championed many socialist ideas, but did so in the framework of our economic system.

I seem always to find myself positioned between two opposing views. On the one hand recognizing the value in retaining those things that work, while realizing the value of experimenting and testing new ideas. It is just that I have difficulty seeing how a system that does not encourage and reward individual achievement will promote progress, growth and stability. That may be an oversimplification, but that is where I am at.