Full Version: When does regulation = socialism?
As I tried to form a thought or six on the conservative debate- I noticed that there is this tendency to label any regulation of business as 'socialism" and any law stopping individuals from doing what they want short of harming others as 'nanny state socialism".
I have worked in and around goverment, from both the developer and against development, a few times now, and realize, that there is not some socialist lawmaker out there just waiting to pounce like the boogeyman on an opportunity to make a communist state
I realize that regulation usually comes through, at worst, a knee jerk reaction to bad guys doing bad things in business. No American lawmaker has ever jumped up, got himself near total power, and promised to make a socialist state- however- many politicians have been accused of being "socialist".
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone?
- how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
I have worked in and around goverment, from both the developer and against development, a few times now, and realize, that there is not some socialist lawmaker out there just waiting to pounce like the boogeyman on an opportunity to make a communist state
I realize that regulation usually comes through, at worst, a knee jerk reaction to bad guys doing bad things in business. No American lawmaker has ever jumped up, got himself near total power, and promised to make a socialist state- however- many politicians have been accused of being "socialist".
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone?
- how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism? 3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom describes three types of monopoly: private monopoly, public monopoly, and public regulation. Here is Friedman's example of public regulation (note in 1967):
Heavy regulation of industry creates defacto monopolies which are the same as private or public monopolies because it hinders competition. Using the ICC as an example, government regulation which was first intended to prevent exploitation actually increased exploitation because it was effected by special interests. Everyone complains about lobbyists, special interests, corporate fatcats, etc... Has anyone figured out that its BECAUSE of government regulation that we have all this money flowing into Washington? If the government didn't regulate a certain industry, then why would someone from that industry bother spending money lobbying their representative?
Socialism does not require an industry to be run directly by the state. Heavy regulation through laws, regulations, and taxes force companies to adhere to certain rules that go counter to the market. The aim is to create more social equality and corporate responsibility. What it actually does is discourage success and progress. It hurts the smaller businesses because usually it is only the largest corporations that can afford to make the changes to adhere to the new rules.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
Currently, Europe can be what is described as a Welfare State. Although this term has no concrete meaning, what it really is is a social democratic ideology that wants to achieve ideals like social justice through democratic means. Socialism was killed as a viable practical option by the USSR and was killed as a philosophical option by the likes of Hayek and Friedman. The Welfare State is what emerged when socialists saw that their utopia was not possible.
To be honest, I can't speak intelligently on the corporate regulations of European business. They are regulated not only by their own nations but also by the EU and also by their WTO agreements. Its possible that, like China, they are taking advantage of certain market mechanisms while still maintaining a welfare state.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
When the line is crossed is subjective to each and every person. Anyone sympathetic to the welfare state will find that line to be way off in the distance while someone like me may see it up close and personal. The only thing i can comment on the issue is the same as I have been saying for a year, when you give the government the power to do good, you give them the power to do evil. And thats the maxim that has to be accepted by all. Unintended consequences are a mainstay when government regulation occurs. For instance, my professor who was working on the Democratic committee told our class a story of where they successfully passed a law to place a luxury tax on yachts. Stick it to the rich people. Well, those same people stopped buying yachts and it hurt the ship builders who were poor and depended on those yachts being sold. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I am forever suspicious of anyone who claims to be doing something for the social good.
Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom describes three types of monopoly: private monopoly, public monopoly, and public regulation. Here is Friedman's example of public regulation (note in 1967):
QUOTE(1967 @ 29)
Railroads in the United States are an excellent example. A large degree of monopoly in railroads was perhaps inevitable on technical grounds in the nineteenth century. This was the justification for the Interstate Commerce Commission. But conditions have changed. The mergence of road and air transport has reduced the monopoly element in railroads to negligible proportions. Yet we have not elimnated the ICC. One the contrary, the ICC, which started out as an agency to protect the public from exploitation by the railroads, has become an agency to protect railroads from competition by trucks and other means of transport, and more recently, even to protect existing truck companies from competition by new entrants. Similarly, in England, when the railroads were nationalized, trucking was at first bought into the state monopoly. If railroads had never been subjected to regulation in the United States, it is nerely certain that by now transportation, including railroads, would be a highly competitive industry with little or no remaining monopoly elements.
Heavy regulation of industry creates defacto monopolies which are the same as private or public monopolies because it hinders competition. Using the ICC as an example, government regulation which was first intended to prevent exploitation actually increased exploitation because it was effected by special interests. Everyone complains about lobbyists, special interests, corporate fatcats, etc... Has anyone figured out that its BECAUSE of government regulation that we have all this money flowing into Washington? If the government didn't regulate a certain industry, then why would someone from that industry bother spending money lobbying their representative?
Socialism does not require an industry to be run directly by the state. Heavy regulation through laws, regulations, and taxes force companies to adhere to certain rules that go counter to the market. The aim is to create more social equality and corporate responsibility. What it actually does is discourage success and progress. It hurts the smaller businesses because usually it is only the largest corporations that can afford to make the changes to adhere to the new rules.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
Currently, Europe can be what is described as a Welfare State. Although this term has no concrete meaning, what it really is is a social democratic ideology that wants to achieve ideals like social justice through democratic means. Socialism was killed as a viable practical option by the USSR and was killed as a philosophical option by the likes of Hayek and Friedman. The Welfare State is what emerged when socialists saw that their utopia was not possible.
To be honest, I can't speak intelligently on the corporate regulations of European business. They are regulated not only by their own nations but also by the EU and also by their WTO agreements. Its possible that, like China, they are taking advantage of certain market mechanisms while still maintaining a welfare state.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
When the line is crossed is subjective to each and every person. Anyone sympathetic to the welfare state will find that line to be way off in the distance while someone like me may see it up close and personal. The only thing i can comment on the issue is the same as I have been saying for a year, when you give the government the power to do good, you give them the power to do evil. And thats the maxim that has to be accepted by all. Unintended consequences are a mainstay when government regulation occurs. For instance, my professor who was working on the Democratic committee told our class a story of where they successfully passed a law to place a luxury tax on yachts. Stick it to the rich people. Well, those same people stopped buying yachts and it hurt the ship builders who were poor and depended on those yachts being sold. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and I am forever suspicious of anyone who claims to be doing something for the social good.
When describing "socialism"- does the state actually have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
The public must establish common control of resources (usually through government) for a system to be properly called socialist.
Regulation as it exist in the US does not meet this criteria, at least not very often.
We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
European states are more accurately called social democracies. Welfare state works too. States that work to directly improve the standard of living of their inhabitants.
Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
Common ownership of resources.
The fact is regulation and many other liberal reforms have done this country a world of good. The proof of things like the FDA is in the pudding. Regulation keeps capitalism from being at the expense of the public.
Unintended consquences pale in comparison to the intended good of regulation.
The public must establish common control of resources (usually through government) for a system to be properly called socialist.
Regulation as it exist in the US does not meet this criteria, at least not very often.
We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
European states are more accurately called social democracies. Welfare state works too. States that work to directly improve the standard of living of their inhabitants.
Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
Common ownership of resources.
The fact is regulation and many other liberal reforms have done this country a world of good. The proof of things like the FDA is in the pudding. Regulation keeps capitalism from being at the expense of the public.
Unintended consquences pale in comparison to the intended good of regulation.
QUOTE
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
To qualify for the title of "socialist" I'd have to say that the state has to own the given business/industry. "Heavy regulation" is a subjective title and I'm sure more than a few view envornmental, labor, EEOC, and other laws as "heavy regulations"
While a business is privately owned, it is not an island unto itself. The roads, airways, communication systems, legal system, and other infrastructure available allow it to prosper. The policeman makes sure that the place isn't robbed. The highways allow for goods to be shipped out, the labor market allows for the goods to be made in the first place. What we have here is a "social compact" of sorts and part of living in a democratic society is to cede some privileges "to the common good" as the majority have decided. We are not a democratic society with a republican form of government, with little independent fiefdoms all over the land. Society benefits from the corporation, and the corporation benefits from society. It's hubris for either to suggest that only they make the equation whole.QUOTE
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
- how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?Once again, there is some form of "social compact" at work here. The companies that do the best are the ones who are also labeled: "Top companies to work for" and that provide amenities on top of amenities. Workers who have a meaningful say in how things are run and who are treated decently, work the hardest. I honestly doubt anyone would argue that they would kill themselves working for a boss or employer they despise.
QUOTE
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
It is one thing for government to determine how much or when a given product is sold. It's quite another to attempt to root out insider trading, discrimination in hiring/firing, not to mention illegal dumping in streams or rivers. The former is "socialist" while the latter is what a responsible republican government would do. You have to balance out the rights of the company with that of the common good, which is composed of the citizenry.
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
Maybe the better term here is Socialistic. In any case IMO if it interferes with the “market” (this may not include regulation applied to all players) it is socialistic. The only way “regulation” can fall into this category is when it limits competition or tries to regulate price, availability or any other maket determined perameter.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
No they are welfare, high tax, states and the individuals and companies that live/work there pay more to the “state” than US companies do. Often as well corporations are constrained by laws that restrict the layoff of employees. This makes these companies less efficient and less profitable –Companies in France and Germany have serious problems with these laws.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
Hard to say and subjective. IMO if it interferes in the operation of the free market it is hurting that market and all served by it. Regulation can be just fine and is needed as long as it applies to all players and/or “levels the playing field”.
Some regulation is simply misguided.
EPA Called Upon To Suspend Costly Gasoline Regulation Causing Harmful Urban Pollution
EarthVision Environmental News
(EMAILWIRE.COM, February 11, 2005) DENVER -- Mr. Orr, Chairman of NAFA, a scientific-based organization, called upon the EPA to suspend its costly new gasoline regulation, which is adding up to $ 0.50/gallon in extra cost and increasing harmful urban ground-level ozone (smog) nationwide. NAFA claims EPA justified its national regulation on the evidence of a single test vehicle, which it modified, and whose results were “forced” and then introduced into the record after it was too late for public comment. www.altfuels.us
http://www.gnet.org/ColdFusion/News_Page1....679&start=1
Maybe the better term here is Socialistic. In any case IMO if it interferes with the “market” (this may not include regulation applied to all players) it is socialistic. The only way “regulation” can fall into this category is when it limits competition or tries to regulate price, availability or any other maket determined perameter.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
No they are welfare, high tax, states and the individuals and companies that live/work there pay more to the “state” than US companies do. Often as well corporations are constrained by laws that restrict the layoff of employees. This makes these companies less efficient and less profitable –Companies in France and Germany have serious problems with these laws.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
Hard to say and subjective. IMO if it interferes in the operation of the free market it is hurting that market and all served by it. Regulation can be just fine and is needed as long as it applies to all players and/or “levels the playing field”.
Some regulation is simply misguided.
EPA Called Upon To Suspend Costly Gasoline Regulation Causing Harmful Urban Pollution
EarthVision Environmental News
(EMAILWIRE.COM, February 11, 2005) DENVER -- Mr. Orr, Chairman of NAFA, a scientific-based organization, called upon the EPA to suspend its costly new gasoline regulation, which is adding up to $ 0.50/gallon in extra cost and increasing harmful urban ground-level ozone (smog) nationwide. NAFA claims EPA justified its national regulation on the evidence of a single test vehicle, which it modified, and whose results were “forced” and then introduced into the record after it was too late for public comment. www.altfuels.us
http://www.gnet.org/ColdFusion/News_Page1....679&start=1
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actually have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
Yes, it has to own the company, and what's more, it has to actively manage the direction of that company's activities, not be a silent partner. The French power company EDF, for example, is free to buy up utility businesses in other countries and is not directed to do so by French government policy. It may be owned by the French taxpayer, and if it were ever to be in a position to lose money, it would most likely be bailed out by them. However, while it's making money, everyone in France is perfectly happy for EDF to do whatever they like.
(Of course, it creates an interesting paradox for other countries like the UK, who allow their utility businesses to be bought and sold willy-nilly and refuse to renationalise them, when a business nationalised in another country is treated as if it is just another capitalist enterprise. Utilities are allowed to be nationalised, "socialist" businesses in the UK, just so long as it isn't the UK taxpayer who benefits from any profits made.)
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
I will answer these together.
First off, despite the protestations of the American Right, there hasn't been a socialist state in continental Europe since the break-up of Yugoslavia. Europe has "social democracies". There are socialist parties, and quite a number of socialist voters, but even when they've been in power they've been limited in the "socialist-ness" of their policies by the realities of international politics, by EU rules, and by the simple necessity of some kind of consensus, in the public of not in the parliament, that comes with being a democracy.
In "proper" socialism, there is no market, or rather, the market is not just regulated by the state, but run by it. This hasn't been true anywhere in Europe since the fall of communism, and has never been true in the homelands of Nokia, BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, BMW, Volkswagen-Audi, etc.
So the implicit argument in the first question is moot - the private European businesses that do so well are operating in regulated markets, not in socialist ones.
And - let's be clear here - ALL markets are regulated. Without a defined legal system (defined, that is, by laws and regulations, which are set and enforced by governments) there can be no enforceable contracts, and without enforceable contracts, the buying and selling upon which not just stock markets but simple consumer transactions are based cannot reliably happen - whoever has the most power will exploit whoever has the least. In other words, you cannot have a market that is completely "free" i.e. unregulated.
So, can we all just admit that this whole left-right, socialist-capitalist, US-EU argument is not really about any of those things, but is about the extent and nature of the regulations that different people think are or should be applied?
I'll admit that I'm personally in favour of rather more regulation, not less - and in today's globalised markets, where governments and nations can be held to ransom in a race to the lowest corporate taxation and the lightest corporate regulation - "lower our taxes or we'll move this or that operation off shore" - I think some of that regulation should be harmonised globally to level the playing field so that governments are again more powerful than corporations. I only live under one government, but if it is not supreme, a whole host of corporations can have an impact on my life. Nominally they are "democratic", but I can't afford to buy shares in them all, and I don't know many people who can.
Yes, it has to own the company, and what's more, it has to actively manage the direction of that company's activities, not be a silent partner. The French power company EDF, for example, is free to buy up utility businesses in other countries and is not directed to do so by French government policy. It may be owned by the French taxpayer, and if it were ever to be in a position to lose money, it would most likely be bailed out by them. However, while it's making money, everyone in France is perfectly happy for EDF to do whatever they like.
(Of course, it creates an interesting paradox for other countries like the UK, who allow their utility businesses to be bought and sold willy-nilly and refuse to renationalise them, when a business nationalised in another country is treated as if it is just another capitalist enterprise. Utilities are allowed to be nationalised, "socialist" businesses in the UK, just so long as it isn't the UK taxpayer who benefits from any profits made.)
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? w00t.gif - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
I will answer these together.
First off, despite the protestations of the American Right, there hasn't been a socialist state in continental Europe since the break-up of Yugoslavia. Europe has "social democracies". There are socialist parties, and quite a number of socialist voters, but even when they've been in power they've been limited in the "socialist-ness" of their policies by the realities of international politics, by EU rules, and by the simple necessity of some kind of consensus, in the public of not in the parliament, that comes with being a democracy.
In "proper" socialism, there is no market, or rather, the market is not just regulated by the state, but run by it. This hasn't been true anywhere in Europe since the fall of communism, and has never been true in the homelands of Nokia, BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, BMW, Volkswagen-Audi, etc.
So the implicit argument in the first question is moot - the private European businesses that do so well are operating in regulated markets, not in socialist ones.
And - let's be clear here - ALL markets are regulated. Without a defined legal system (defined, that is, by laws and regulations, which are set and enforced by governments) there can be no enforceable contracts, and without enforceable contracts, the buying and selling upon which not just stock markets but simple consumer transactions are based cannot reliably happen - whoever has the most power will exploit whoever has the least. In other words, you cannot have a market that is completely "free" i.e. unregulated.
So, can we all just admit that this whole left-right, socialist-capitalist, US-EU argument is not really about any of those things, but is about the extent and nature of the regulations that different people think are or should be applied?
I'll admit that I'm personally in favour of rather more regulation, not less - and in today's globalised markets, where governments and nations can be held to ransom in a race to the lowest corporate taxation and the lightest corporate regulation - "lower our taxes or we'll move this or that operation off shore" - I think some of that regulation should be harmonised globally to level the playing field so that governments are again more powerful than corporations. I only live under one government, but if it is not supreme, a whole host of corporations can have an impact on my life. Nominally they are "democratic", but I can't afford to buy shares in them all, and I don't know many people who can.
QUOTE
Yes, it has to own the company, and what's more, it has to actively manage the direction of that company's activities, not be a silent partner. The French power company EDF, for example, is free to buy up utility businesses in other countries and is not directed to do so by French government policy. It may be owned by the French taxpayer, and if it were ever to be in a position to lose money, it would most likely be bailed out by them. However, while it's making money, everyone in France is perfectly happy for EDF to do whatever they like.
I disagree. Surely for pure Socialism the “state” has to “own” the “means of production” but in the “social democracies” we have a “socialistic” system that is nearly as bad in that the state owns the company but does not manage it from outside – they DO allow it to be a monopoly and they do allow it to be dreadfully inefficient though. Prices are set by the state and with no competition you can bet they are higher then they would be otherwise.
Compare this to our USPS. The “post office” has the exclusive right to deliver your “first class mail”. If they ever had competition they would have been gone (or mush improved and cheaper) decades ago.
So you are right there has been no pure “socialist” state in Europe for a long time but their socialistic states do have “socialized medicine” and other disastrous, and inefficient industries.
You can have it – give me good competition any day – and regulation of “markets” is fine and very capitalist. Its when there is no competition an the state sts the price and availability of the product that you have problems.
1) When describing "socialism"- does the state actualy have to own the company- or is heavy regulation of an industry also socialist in your understanding?
As others have pointed out, social democracy is probably the most accepted label for the form of socialism that does not require state ownership of companies. It is probably the most popular form of European socialism today, if I'm not mistaken. The same movement originally called itself "democratic socialism" because it tried to accomplish the ideals of socialism in a free-market context through high taxation and heavy regulation, such that the control and profits of the private sector winds up in government hands, one way or another. DS eventually divided in half, the more traditionally socialist keeping "democratic socialism", and the less traditional branch adopting "social democracy"; but the terms remain somewhat interchangeable in informal discussions. "Neosocialism" currently applies to the same philosophy, but is a little broader because it can refer to any popular break from traditional forms of socialism, not just with regard to outright government ownership.
So, even though there might not be many overt socialists in American politics, there are far more real, honest-to-goodness socialists and social democrats in the U.S. Democratic Party than it is comfortable publicizing. Even though I disagree with them, I personally don't have any objection to socialists who want to participate in the U.S. political system without the stigma attached to last century's labels. However, let's not lure ourselves into believing they don't exist, either.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone? - how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?
The official position of Socialist International, the successor to Second International (the major worldwide socialist movement), is that socialist ideals can be accomplished within the context of capitalism through regulation and taxation, while sharing profits and control with private interests. That's probably the most common (popular, mainstream) form of official socialism today, even though it's not exactly what the founders of socialism may have had in mind.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
I don't know that being onerous is necessarily the litmus test. Perhaps it's how much of the profits are taken by the government in taxes, and how much control the government exerts on the daily operations or overall direction of a company or industry. The intent to do social good is probably there all along, the question is to what degree is it really necessary for the government to control and tax companies when the same social good might also be accomplished with significantly less taxation and less pervasive regulation? Are there creative alternatives that could accomplish as much social good with only minimal government encroachment on property rights?
Some level of taxation is necessary, and some level of policing and auditing is required to protect the People from corporate malfeasance; but once the government takes more than half the profits through taxation and sets more than half the agenda through regulation, then the government is clearly running the show as surely as if it owned controlling interest, and free-market capitalism is, at best, only a secondary concern. If the gov has more influence and takes a bigger cut than the top private shareholder, a similar case could be made; but the first milestone I'd like to reach is to get overall taxation and regulation below 50%.
In many states, the all-inclusive corporate tax burden expressed as a percentage of profits is already well above 50%, depending on which set of figures you use, but it can vary widely from state to state. In 2001, the federal corporate income tax alone was 34%-35%, not counting state taxes or other federal taxes (TF). This is somewhat lower than in most of Japan and socialist Europe, but in the same ballpark (WH). I'll keep looking for Web sources to cite with figures similar to my paper reports.
Can American Democrats who support the same level of taxation and regulation as Socialist International does, and who are members of the same party that is indirectly aligned with Socialist International through SDUSA and DSA, honestly escape the "socialism" label their European counterparts wear so proudly? Only if you split hairs enough to assert modern socialism, or neosocialism, is no longer the same as historical socialism. True enough. But, it's still mainstream modern socialism, whether they like it or not.
Edited to add...
Also, a lot of socialist and communist theory insists it is the People, not the government, who own the means of production, and government officials just act as delegates of the People. To us captialists, that tends to sound like six of one and a half-dozen of another, but it's probably the crux of what allows modern socialism to let the private sector share control and profits with the government-- both the public and private sectors can be construed to constitute or represent the People, from a particular perspective.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 24 2007, 04:55 PM) 
As I tried to form a thought or six on the conservative debate- I noticed that there is this tendency to label any regulation of business as 'socialism" and any law stopping individuals from doing what they want short of harming others as 'nanny state socialism".
Socialism is almost as fuzzy a label as liberal or conservative. There are a wide variety of political philosophies that call themselves "socialist", or are seen by others as de facto socialism. Wikipedia has a pretty good series explaining the similarities and differences among the various types of socialism, but you have to be wary of defacement.As others have pointed out, social democracy is probably the most accepted label for the form of socialism that does not require state ownership of companies. It is probably the most popular form of European socialism today, if I'm not mistaken. The same movement originally called itself "democratic socialism" because it tried to accomplish the ideals of socialism in a free-market context through high taxation and heavy regulation, such that the control and profits of the private sector winds up in government hands, one way or another. DS eventually divided in half, the more traditionally socialist keeping "democratic socialism", and the less traditional branch adopting "social democracy"; but the terms remain somewhat interchangeable in informal discussions. "Neosocialism" currently applies to the same philosophy, but is a little broader because it can refer to any popular break from traditional forms of socialism, not just with regard to outright government ownership.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 24 2007, 04:55 PM)
I realize that regulation usually comes through, at worst, a knee jerk reaction to bad guys doing bad things in business. No American lawmaker has ever jumped up, got himself near total power, and promised to make a socialist state- however- many politicians have been accused of being "socialist".
That's because there has been a real socialist tradition in the U.S., even though there have been no self-described authoritarian socialist presidents or dictators, with the arguable exception of FDR. Socialism and communism were not dirty words in the U.S. until the cold war-- although most Americans opposed the ideas, the philosophies were not really seen as much more threatening to the American way than any other political theory. The U.S. Socialist and Communist Parties enjoyed increasing membership from the early 1900s to the mid-1930s when FDR brought many of them into the Democratic Party, and more began bolting from SPUSA and CPUSA as Leninism, Stalinism and the cold war made the "socialist" and "communist" labels extremely unpopular. SPUSA divided several times, but its most direct descendents still functioning are Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which no longer nominate their own candidates, but endorse nominees of the U.S. Democratic Party. SDUSA and DSA are the two official U.S. branches of Socialist International, the worldwide social democracy movement including the UK's Labour Party (Tony Blair) and the long-reigning French Socialist Party.So, even though there might not be many overt socialists in American politics, there are far more real, honest-to-goodness socialists and social democrats in the U.S. Democratic Party than it is comfortable publicizing. Even though I disagree with them, I personally don't have any objection to socialists who want to participate in the U.S. political system without the stigma attached to last century's labels. However, let's not lure ourselves into believing they don't exist, either.
2) We call Europe "socialist states"- while they have thriving big corporate entities that compete quite nicely with anyone in the globe- Ikea, Nokia, BP or totalfinaelf anyone?
- how can this dichtonomy happen? Isn't socialism 180* out from corporate profits and growth? Or is it the level of regulation they are confined in a part of socialism?The official position of Socialist International, the successor to Second International (the major worldwide socialist movement), is that socialist ideals can be accomplished within the context of capitalism through regulation and taxation, while sharing profits and control with private interests. That's probably the most common (popular, mainstream) form of official socialism today, even though it's not exactly what the founders of socialism may have had in mind.
3) Where is the line to be crossed between nanny state and social good, and when does regulation, any regulation, of business become so onerous as to be labeled "socialist"?
I don't know that being onerous is necessarily the litmus test. Perhaps it's how much of the profits are taken by the government in taxes, and how much control the government exerts on the daily operations or overall direction of a company or industry. The intent to do social good is probably there all along, the question is to what degree is it really necessary for the government to control and tax companies when the same social good might also be accomplished with significantly less taxation and less pervasive regulation? Are there creative alternatives that could accomplish as much social good with only minimal government encroachment on property rights?
Some level of taxation is necessary, and some level of policing and auditing is required to protect the People from corporate malfeasance; but once the government takes more than half the profits through taxation and sets more than half the agenda through regulation, then the government is clearly running the show as surely as if it owned controlling interest, and free-market capitalism is, at best, only a secondary concern. If the gov has more influence and takes a bigger cut than the top private shareholder, a similar case could be made; but the first milestone I'd like to reach is to get overall taxation and regulation below 50%.
In many states, the all-inclusive corporate tax burden expressed as a percentage of profits is already well above 50%, depending on which set of figures you use, but it can vary widely from state to state. In 2001, the federal corporate income tax alone was 34%-35%, not counting state taxes or other federal taxes (TF). This is somewhat lower than in most of Japan and socialist Europe, but in the same ballpark (WH). I'll keep looking for Web sources to cite with figures similar to my paper reports.
Can American Democrats who support the same level of taxation and regulation as Socialist International does, and who are members of the same party that is indirectly aligned with Socialist International through SDUSA and DSA, honestly escape the "socialism" label their European counterparts wear so proudly? Only if you split hairs enough to assert modern socialism, or neosocialism, is no longer the same as historical socialism. True enough. But, it's still mainstream modern socialism, whether they like it or not.
Edited to add...
Also, a lot of socialist and communist theory insists it is the People, not the government, who own the means of production, and government officials just act as delegates of the People. To us captialists, that tends to sound like six of one and a half-dozen of another, but it's probably the crux of what allows modern socialism to let the private sector share control and profits with the government-- both the public and private sectors can be construed to constitute or represent the People, from a particular perspective.
Seamus- your litmus test seems to be of the "more than half" ideal- the corporate tax rate, if I am not mistaken, in the US, is around 39%, correct?
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Good points CruisingRam, and ones that I use often to describe the corporatist manner in which we run healthcare in this country. Medicine is one of the better examples of an incredible amount of regulation from what drugs can be used to how many doctors there can be in the country. By all accounts, healthcare is already quite socialized with not only regulation but medicare and medicaid and other social programs. The jump to a full universal system isnt really that big of a leap. The free market has never really be attempted, and I would much rather try and fail at that then go head on into a fully socialized system.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
Seamus- your litmus test seems to be of the "more than half" ideal- the corporate tax rate, if I am not mistaken, in the US, is around 39%, correct?
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Come on please – what has drug companies, who do compete by the way, have to do with socialized medicine which is a far broader field???
Not much.
Socialized medicine would be a disaster for this country. IMO the biggest problem we have in medicine now is the big stupid weight of the Medicare bureaucracy and the billions wasted filling out forms.
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 26 2007, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Good points CruisingRam, and ones that I use often to describe the corporatist manner in which we run healthcare in this country. Medicine is one of the better examples of an incredible amount of regulation from what drugs can be used to how many doctors there can be in the country. By all accounts, healthcare is already quite socialized with not only regulation but medicare and medicaid and other social programs. The jump to a full universal system isnt really that big of a leap. The free market has never really be attempted, and I would much rather try and fail at that then go head on into a fully socialized system.
Are you kidding that a free market health care system has never been tried? The reason the FDA was created was because of people trying to pass off non-medical substances as "cures" for a range of ailments. Without those regulations, we would still be seeing that "free market" of drugs that reach the market without testing, and possibly people dying from them.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jun 26 2007, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 26 2007, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Good points CruisingRam, and ones that I use often to describe the corporatist manner in which we run healthcare in this country. Medicine is one of the better examples of an incredible amount of regulation from what drugs can be used to how many doctors there can be in the country. By all accounts, healthcare is already quite socialized with not only regulation but medicare and medicaid and other social programs. The jump to a full universal system isnt really that big of a leap. The free market has never really be attempted, and I would much rather try and fail at that then go head on into a fully socialized system.
Are you kidding that a free market health care system has never been tried? The reason the FDA was created was because of people trying to pass off non-medical substances as "cures" for a range of ailments. Without those regulations, we would still be seeing that "free market" of drugs that reach the market without testing, and possibly people dying from them.
People die from drugs all the time that were approved by the FDA. What is important is for all the effects and consequences of the drug to be known beforehand so that the consumer can make an informed decision. It is not in a company's interest to create a drug that does not work or is harmful because they will be exposed and tied up in litigation. And if they do create a drug with harmful effects but is possibly beneficial at curing a disease, then it should be the consumer's decision, not the FDA's.
QUOTE
No they are welfare, high tax, states and the individuals and companies that live/work there pay more to the “state” than US companies do. Often as well corporations are constrained by laws that restrict the layoff of employees. This makes these companies less efficient and less profitable –Companies in France and Germany have serious problems with these laws.
Really?, The EU outranks the U.S. in GDP. In regards to just Europe, Germany and France are #'s 1 & 3 respectively in regards to GDP. If their corporations were so terribly hindered, their rank would not be so great. By the way, Hong Kong, the capitalist love child model, is #36 when it comes to GDP rank when you look at the nominal list.
GDP is an excellent way to measure progress or lack of growth in regards to this topic as the numbers would reflect any stifling of growth. QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 26 2007, 12:33 PM)
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jun 26 2007, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE(lederuvdapac @ Jun 26 2007, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 02:49 PM)
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
I can not, for instance, open up my own drug store, selling any drug I see fit, without massive regulations, in fact, about 90% of those decisions for business will be set by the goverment- maybe even higher.
IN fact, the US goverment DOES NOT ALLOW copetition in the field of Pharmacy at all- you have to follow a schedule of drug rules regarding every drug you sell.
I think that is what makes folks that work and know something about the medical field roll thier eyes when idiots say "oh, we don't want socialized medicine, it is communist thing to do"- when, in fact, there has NEVER been a free market medical field since the 1960s-ish.
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
Good points CruisingRam, and ones that I use often to describe the corporatist manner in which we run healthcare in this country. Medicine is one of the better examples of an incredible amount of regulation from what drugs can be used to how many doctors there can be in the country. By all accounts, healthcare is already quite socialized with not only regulation but medicare and medicaid and other social programs. The jump to a full universal system isnt really that big of a leap. The free market has never really be attempted, and I would much rather try and fail at that then go head on into a fully socialized system.
Are you kidding that a free market health care system has never been tried? The reason the FDA was created was because of people trying to pass off non-medical substances as "cures" for a range of ailments. Without those regulations, we would still be seeing that "free market" of drugs that reach the market without testing, and possibly people dying from them.
People die from drugs all the time that were approved by the FDA. What is important is for all the effects and consequences of the drug to be known beforehand so that the consumer can make an informed decision. It is not in a company's interest to create a drug that does not work or is harmful because they will be exposed and tied up in litigation. And if they do create a drug with harmful effects but is possibly beneficial at curing a disease, then it should be the consumer's decision, not the FDA's.
It wouldnt be in a company's interest to disclose all the side-effects of a drug, either. This leaves the consumer in the dark, and *hoping* that he doesn't die if he takes some medication...And there's no way for recourse if he does die, or is seriously ill...Hey, the seller wasn't doing anything illegal. In fact, part of the reason people did die before the FDA and other regulatory laws had to with the fact that the people hawking the medicines 1) knew that they were selling stuff that was totally bogus and 2) didn't care too much about a "repeat" business. It may not be in a company's best interest to kill their consumers, but it is in Joe Witchdoctor, if he's only interested in making a quick buck.
What I dislike about free-market advocates is that they fail to take into account that we aren't living in a perfect economic vacuum. If we are self-interested creatures, why would we be compelled to disclose information about our products that go directly against our self-interest? Additionally, not all illnesses that arise from medication (or food, or preservatives or whathaveyou) is not easily attributable to that particular medication (etc). Perhaps a symptom merely looks like the common cold, and no one thinks to relate it to a certain medication; when in fact that medicine caused the problem. This why clinical trials *are* important, and long periods of testing.
Is the FDA incredibly flawed? Yes. However, nothing is ever sure-fire, but that is hardly a reason to call for a free-market on products that people ingest. Have you ever been to a country where there was no safety inspections on food or medicine? I've been to places that have had lax laws, and I was inspecting everything I ate, hoping to detect if something was afoul. I was also highly suspicious of going to the doctor (and promptly received some medicine that looked like it was from the1970s...Turns out I didn't die.) It's a terrible situation to be in, to not be able to trust what you're doctor gives you, or your grocer.
I can see when some instances of regulation may seem ridiculous, and Im split on how I think the FDA should be doing pharmaceutical trials.
If the role of the government is the protect the people, I would say that making sure that private and public enterprises don't kill citizens is one way to fill that role.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
It wouldnt be in a company's interest to disclose all the side-effects of a drug, either. This leaves the consumer in the dark, and *hoping* that he doesn't die if he takes some medication...And there's no way for recourse if he does die, or is seriously ill...Hey, the seller wasn't doing anything illegal. In fact, part of the reason people did die before the FDA and other regulatory laws had to with the fact that the people hawking the medicines 1) knew that they were selling stuff that was totally bogus and 2) didn't care too much about a "repeat" business. It may not be in a company's best interest to kill their consumers, but it is in Joe Witchdoctor, if he's only interested in making a quick buck.
Of course it is in a company's interest to disclose all the side-effects of a drug. That is part of the free market position on healthcare. Fraud is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If they lie about the quality of their product or run false advertisements, than that is criminal activity. But if they display all of the effects of the drug, good and bad, then it should be up to the consumer to choose whether to take them.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
What I dislike about free-market advocates is that they fail to take into account that we aren't living in a perfect economic vacuum. If we are self-interested creatures, why would we be compelled to disclose information about our products that go directly against our self-interest? Additionally, not all illnesses that arise from medication (or food, or preservatives or whathaveyou) is not easily attributable to that particular medication (etc). Perhaps a symptom merely looks like the common cold, and no one thinks to relate it to a certain medication; when in fact that medicine caused the problem. This why clinical trials *are* important, and long periods of testing.
Because if the company is revealed to be a fraud, then their company will be prosecuted, sued, and be put out of business because people will not buy from them. If I knew a company lied about the quality of their drugs, I wouldn't trust them any more. It is in the company's interest to establish trust with the consumer because that is the only way they can turn a profit. And who says clinical trials will not occur without the FDA? Companies will still be compelled to prove that their drug is effective.
QUOTE(kimpossible)
Is the FDA incredibly flawed? Yes. However, nothing is ever sure-fire, but that is hardly a reason to call for a free-market on products that people ingest. Have you ever been to a country where there was no safety inspections on food or medicine? I've been to places that have had lax laws, and I was inspecting everything I ate, hoping to detect if something was afoul. I was also highly suspicious of going to the doctor (and promptly received some medicine that looked like it was from the1970s...Turns out I didn't die.) It's a terrible situation to be in, to not be able to trust what you're doctor gives you, or your grocer.
But here's the thing, even drugs or food that IS approved by the FDA may not be good. You are under the assumption that it is good because it was approved by the FDA. But if a friend or relative told you some story about a particular product, you would probably shy away from the product despite it's FDA approval. The free market position works along the same principle. The quality of the products produced will be determined by the consumer. If the consumers become dissatisfied with the product, then the company will have to adjust.
However, the biggest point is probably that oversight of drugs does not need to necessarily be a government function. If there is a market for information, then the private sector can do just as good (if not better) a job as the government. Magazines, journals, websites and other independent mediums that deal with consumer affairs can help inform the public about products or companies.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 01:49 PM)
Seamus- your litmus test seems to be of the "more than half" ideal- the corporate tax rate, if I am not mistaken, in the US, is around 39%, correct?
As I mentioned, the baseline federal income tax in 2001 was 34%-35% (34% on less than $10mil/yr, 35% on more than $10mil/yr, with some bubble rates as high as 39% for edge cases ), not counting any other taxes or deductions. All kinds of fees and regulatory adjustments are added atop that, as are state and local taxes, then various deductions and targeted incentives can be taken, so the actual total tax burden as a % of profits (total taxes actually paid / pre-tax profits) is different for each company, and can vary greatly-- it's well over 50% for many companies, but often less than 20% for others. Big employers often negotiate away their local taxes, and sometimes state taxes, in return for "bringing jobs" to an area. However, big cities have less need to waive taxes, so state and local taxes in places like NYC and San Francisco can be relatively hefty. The 50% is for an absolute maximum, not a happy average, and I reserved the right to adjust it downward to match the same influence and profits as the top shareholder. But for starters, it would be a nice start to cap the actual corporate tax burden (federal, state, local, everything) for any specific company at 50%, even if it's a purely theoretical limit most companies will never reach.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 01:49 PM)
However- "running the company through regulation"- that is an interesting angle- because some industries in the world fit that mold quite well, thogh no one calls them "socialist"
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
Take- oh, the drug industry in America. I would say, by your definition, we have a socialized drug system- however, it doesn't benefit the taxpayer or consumer at all- it benefits the stock of the drug companies, and thier CEOs.
Wherever there's a public health or safety issue, there's at least some degree of flexibility in most libertarian economic philosophy, including mine. Naturally, we need to be sure drug companies are accurately reporting risks, side effects, effectiveness, etc. We need to weed out the quacks. We need to be sure vital drugs are on hand for folks whose lives might be threatened without them. Apparently, I'm coming down somewhere between leder and kim's positions here. I'd like to try private consumer watchdog advocacy, but if it goes bankrupt or stops serving consumers reliably, the government needs to provide some safety net, at least temporarily.
Stated more generally,
1. Regulation: When natural market forces incentivize private interests to victimize citizens, government on some level may need to perform basic policing roles through regulation, while developing counter-incentives of some kind (hopefully that don't require tax money) to help balance the system long-term with reduces intervention. When the system can remain balanced without as much government intrusion, the government needs to reduce its role to the minimum necessary to maintain order.
2. Spending: Pumping tax money into a service might be necessary, at least temporarily, if the service is vital to the public interest, but private interests are incapable or unwilling to perform satisfactorily without taxpayer funds at some level, at least temporarily. The goal of that help should be to develop a self-sufficient system that no longer needs taxpayer money to operate reliably, understanding that some critical services may require long-term taxpayer support.
3. Jurisdiction: Whenever a service must be provided by government (see 1 and 2), unless there's a clear Constitutional issue, local government should provide it. When there's a clear state constitutional issue and no federal Constitutional issue, the state government should provide the service. The federal government should only get involved when there is clear permission given in the U.S. Constitution. Some services, but certainly not most, will necessitate a mix of intrusion by multiple levels of government.
Because some services are more vital than others, it makes sense that government is going to impose heavier regulations with regard to the health care industry, fire and rescue services, police and peacekeeping services, educational services, defense services, communications infrastructure, etc. However, even though these services may need to be more heavily regulated and may need some taxpayer support, there are also significant private interests in each of those areas. To the extent increasing the freedom for private citizens/groups to provide some of these services would have no damaging side effects, government should not impinge such liberties. There are opportunities for private health services, private rescue support services, private investigators, private guard services, bounty hunters, private schools, private defense services, and private contractors who supply products needed by all of the above. Do private companies have more than a 50% "market share" or decision influence in such areas? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Is the current health care system socialist?
It might be heavily regulated to the point of being dominated by government regulations, but there are also enough significant decisions made between doctors and patients that as an overall system, it may not yet be to the point where health care decisions are controlled more by government than by patients, doctors, and insurance companies. It's a toss up. Maybe the system is already neo-socialist to the extent that it controls more of the decisions; however, the socialization of health care generally refers to paleo-socialism in which the government owns and controls everything-- fixing prices, deciding who gets remedies, when they get them, and in many cases, who lives and who dies.
Like most of America, I oppose Hillarycare because I don't see any proof that it would actually fix anything that's broken in the current system, while making most things worse. The government would be one big HMO monopoly which isn't allowed to care how much you pay in, and therefore has no financial incentive to fight for any individual's best interest, but only the overall system. That results in under-the-table bribes, which would be more likely to be accepted when admins, doctors, and nurses get paid by the same folks who budget such luxurious salaries for schoolteachers and firemen. If a dispute arises bad enough for court, the case will be Jane Citizen v. Government, with Government also mediating the case; I like my chances better as Joe Citizen and Insurance Company Lawyers v. Health Care Conglomerate (or vice versa) with the Government only mediating. Without the financial incentive for smart folks to become doctors, the best and brightest will choose more lucrative careers as lawyers, software engineers, etc., decreasing the competency of the system. As broken as our allegedly neo-socialist system might be, a paleo-socialist system would be far, far worse.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 26 2007, 01:49 PM)
Does the pharmacy field also need to give up 50% of its income as well as 50% run by regulation to meet your definition,or is it one or the other- or do they both need to be present?
It's either-or. The government takes 50% of profits for taxes (or any other number higher than top private shareholder, such as 29%), then the government is benefiting from private investment more than the top private shareholders would. If the government controls that same percentage of the important decisions (definitely a subjective guesstimate), then the "company" is effectively a government puppet agency.But 50%-ish is just the starkest upper limits beyond which it becomes unethical for the government to increase taxation, except possibly in the case of a major war on the scale of WWII, or some major nationwide catastrophe on a similar scale. The actual percentage I'd be happy with as a good little libertarian is the minimum that is absolutely necessary-- 15% or less in both columns would be a good target considering the current state of things, then try to get them as close to 0% as possible without turning us over to mob rule.
Here are a few stats explaining my 15% number. Because my 50% test was expressed as a portion of corporate profits, I'd really need the stats on total national corporate taxes expressed as a percentage of taxable national corporate profit, but I haven't found them online yet. The best I'm doing with Web references right now is % GDP, which is significantly different (total market value of products generated in a year within a nation's borders). Corporate profits are usually only about 9-10% the size of GDP, although they were near 12% in 2006 (Finfacts). For now, I'll settle for the GDP percentages with the footnote that these proportions could increase significantly when expressed in relation to corporate profit (or, they could decrease in a corporate welfare situation-- we'll see). Note that I'm just transposing my 15% to GDP, because its a ballpark figure, anyway.
In 2005, the national tax burden (total tax revenue of all kinds as portion of GDP) in the US was 29.6% (includes federal, state, local, school districts, deductions, corporations, individuals, etc.). The U.S. percentage has nearly tripled since it was 9.5% in 1929. Of our recent 29.6% burden, about 16-18% is federal, with about 12-14% state and local (Urban Institute). A 17% federal flat tax would thus keep tax revenues at about the current level, where we should stay while reducing spending until the debt is under control. Afterwards, I believe 17% federal is at least three times as high as it probably needs to be, so if we then reduce spending so that we only need about 5% federal, 5% state, and 5% local, then the total national burden could be 15%, long-term-- still a third higher than in 1929, but a worthy goal.
As a comparison to neo-socialist countries, the 2005 US tax burden of 29.6% was ranked 23rd-highest among OECD countries, behind 20 neo-socialist European nations, Canada, and Australia (Wikipedia, sourced). Japan wasn't on the current lists I found on the Web, and my printed sources put it close to the US in 2005, so I'll keep looking for a more complete list. With this one, the median neo-socialist tax burden is the UK's 37.2%. It looks to me that we're already at the low end of neo-socialist tax levels. It might be a good idea to put in some automatic spending limitations to be sure we never creep any higher up this economic oppression scale than we already are.
This is a debate question I have not settled for myself either, and I kind of like the way this thread is going- okay Seamus- you want some self sufficiency in taxpayer started industries or whatever- here is another quandry- there has been some attempt to "privatize" (a very, very poor definition or word in this case- since it is still about 90% taxpayer funded) the mental health hospitals across the US. Well, we go no bidders here, and darn few nation wide- because it is nearly impossible to make a profit on the chronically mentally ill- as they have cut ties to the family, are not employable (EVER) and don't EVER have insurance.
How do you deternmine which industries SHOULD be goverment run, outside of the "obvious"- like police and the army- and those that actual provide security through keeping poeple from being so desperate they start messing up commerce?
Take welfare for example- what is the alternative? Do you let women and children starve as an incentive to make others work harder?
After many years of travelling, and seeing places that are run by Kleptocracy, or in near armed camps due to run away poverty, and hordes of starving beggers on streets- I wander if a free society is somewhat dependent on not having too high a population density?
Our "golden age" of small goverment also was at a time when we had, what, less than a 1/4 of the national population we have now? Or even a tenth?
Does more regulation and more goverment go hand in hand with very large populations?
Leder- I am very familiar with Milton Friedman- but I have to say- he has some real gaping holes in his grasp of the reality of corruption, and how corruption can stifle true free market as much as any true "socialist" state.
I feel we are on our way to a kleptocracy run by corporations in a veneer of "democracy" that allows no real candidates to the poeple outside corporate control.
How do you deternmine which industries SHOULD be goverment run, outside of the "obvious"- like police and the army- and those that actual provide security through keeping poeple from being so desperate they start messing up commerce?
Take welfare for example- what is the alternative? Do you let women and children starve as an incentive to make others work harder?
After many years of travelling, and seeing places that are run by Kleptocracy, or in near armed camps due to run away poverty, and hordes of starving beggers on streets- I wander if a free society is somewhat dependent on not having too high a population density?
Our "golden age" of small goverment also was at a time when we had, what, less than a 1/4 of the national population we have now? Or even a tenth?
Does more regulation and more goverment go hand in hand with very large populations?
Leder- I am very familiar with Milton Friedman- but I have to say- he has some real gaping holes in his grasp of the reality of corruption, and how corruption can stifle true free market as much as any true "socialist" state.
I feel we are on our way to a kleptocracy run by corporations in a veneer of "democracy" that allows no real candidates to the poeple outside corporate control.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
Take welfare for example- what is the alternative? Do you let women and children starve as an incentive to make others work harder?
Umm... what happened prior to 1935 when Welfare wasn't a federal responsibility?
Welfare is and always was a trap. In a nation with such wealth, I believe that welfare (and government intervention in this arena) is counter productive.
Here's a great Larry Elder quote.
QUOTE
Welfare distorts behavior, makes one less personally responsible and reduces the role of private charity.
Paul Ciotti has a great analogy about stray cats too. Read this.
http://www.larryelder.com/welfare/welfare.htm
The truth about charitable giving in the US is that welfare is often a moral impediment to giving to those that truly NEED the help. People before welfare weren't starving in the streets in the US.
This isn't a 3rd world nation, and believe it or not Americans give MORE charitably than any other nation as a % of GDP.
Sure. Some people will fall on hard times without welfare. However- consider this, how Good is welfare? Is it a nice/comfortbale life? Should it be?
The government takes 4 hours to get you a drivers license and pays $4000 for hammers (to use a cliche). What makes anyone believe that a socialist take on "helping out poor people" should be different? It's just not.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
This is a debate question I have not settled for myself either, and I kind of like the way this thread is going- okay Seamus- you want some self sufficiency in taxpayer started industries or whatever- here is another quandry- there has been some attempt to "privatize" (a very, very poor definition or word in this case- since it is still about 90% taxpayer funded) the mental health hospitals across the US. Well, we go no bidders here, and darn few nation wide- because it is nearly impossible to make a profit on the chronically mentally ill- as they have cut ties to the family, are not employable (EVER) and don't EVER have insurance.
Like I said, if a service needs to be provided (prisons, mental hospitals) and the private sector isn't stepping up, then taxpayers foot the bill until a better solution is found.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
How do you deternmine which industries SHOULD be goverment run, outside of the "obvious"- like police and the army- and those that actual provide security through keeping poeple from being so desperate they start messing up commerce?
Measure levels of success/failure by setting measurable minimum and target goals, then take the measurements over time. When services don't measure up, re-evaluate how critical the service is to the public and whether the goals are realistic for level of service the public really needs, while developing a recovery plan. Present it to private interests as an ultimatum-- volunteers can choose to step up, or partner with the government until enough voluntary support can be generated to be self-sufficient. It's a fairly routine part of the foreign aid process, but only rarely performed with domestic spending.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
Take welfare for example- what is the alternative? Do you let women and children starve as an incentive to make others work harder?
Nope. Before the Depression, our private charity system was the envy of the world. It could be again, if the government weren't taking so much of our money that many (according to Arthur C. Brooks' research, mostly on the leftward side of the spectrum) refuse to donate to social services charities as much anymore. Naturally, if we were to ever hit an economic depression again where private charity were unable to keep pace with need, the government should temporarily step in to provide a safety net, probably using deficit spending because there's be nowhere else to get the money during a depression-- all to be paid back later, of course. When not co-opted by the government or depleted by depression, however, private charity works extremely well.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
After many years of travelling, and seeing places that are run by Kleptocracy, or in near armed camps due to run away poverty, and hordes of starving beggers on streets- I wander if a free society is somewhat dependent on not having too high a population density?
Our "golden age" of small goverment also was at a time when we had, what, less than a 1/4 of the national population we have now? Or even a tenth?
So what? there's still plenty of open countryside to move to if you don't like the city, CR. Plenty more jobs to do out here, too. The U.S. geography is still predominantly rural.Our "golden age" of small goverment also was at a time when we had, what, less than a 1/4 of the national population we have now? Or even a tenth?
Also, the U.S. does not have runaway poverty like you've seen in other countries; and not usually because the government is paying vast swaths of the population not to riot. Here's a graph of the percent of U.S. population on welfare 1960-1999. It was about 1.7% in 1960 and 2.5% in 1999, with a high point of 5.5% in 1994 when Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in ages. In 2003, adjusted income showed the richest 20% earned only $4.21 for each $1.00 earned by the poorest 20%; relatively flat compared to the neo-socialist world so intent on redistributing wealth they end up destroying it. So, it's not like the U.S. has some huge economic underclass so desperate it's threatening to destabilize society. Sure, we, as charitable private citizens, still need to help more folks work their way out of poverty-- it's not a problem than will ever go away entirely-- but we just don't have the horrible economy like you and I have seen elsewhere. Even in those horrible economies, it's the job-providing capitalists who have the best shot of turning the economy around, not the taxing neo-socialists-- and the people most affected often know it.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
Does more regulation and more goverment go hand in hand with very large populations?
Politically, yes, but necessarily, no. We need look no farther than the infamous district-by-district red-blue maps of the 2000 and 2004 elections and various pop-density variations to see pretty clearly that the highest local densities of big-government voters tend to live in big cities. Although big cities will need more expansive services (fire, police, etc.) than smaller communities, these are predominantly local or state services; yet voters in big cities tend to side with big federal government, too, quite unnecessarily. Federal investment in big cities has far less of a benefit per capita than federal investment in rural areas, which is why Senator Byrd's name is so commonly found on federal pork projects throughout rural and suburban WV countryside, but only sparsely within big cities. More voters for the buck out there.QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 28 2007, 05:10 AM)
I feel we are on our way to a kleptocracy run by corporations in a veneer of "democracy" that allows no real candidates to the poeple outside corporate control.
I disagree. I don't think the candidates are beholden to corporate interests as much as to non-profit special interests that want to grow the encroachment of government at the expense of liberty, and can use their sway to be sure politicians who spearhead support their causes will be rewarded with more influence and power when the pork is enacted. Most corporate interests (aside from Defense contractors and poorly-run industries like Airlines) want the government to get smaller and stay out of the way, and that just hasn't happened much since 1929. Neo-socialists are a far, far greater threat to freedom than capitalists. This gets to the core of the disagreement between left-libertarians like Murray Rothbard and right-libertarians like Ron Paul. Or, the split between libertarian socialists and libertarian conservatives.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.