Post: #1

I recently read an interview with Paul Craig Roberts in which he was asked which economic system would work best.

His straightforward reply:

Quote:The best economic system would be a mixture of capitalism and socialism, with people free to start businesses but with monopolies regulated and transportation, public utilities, education, and health care socialized.

Agree or disagree?

Post: #2

The US already does this to a large degree.

That's what medicare, Social Security and the like are....as well as Obama Care....socialized.

There are no "true" or "pure" capitalist societies in which members are completely left to fend for themselves.

Post: #3

BTW I highly recommend the novel "Atlas Shrugged" for more info on this topic....fictional novel, but very accurate portrayal of where gradual socialism eventually leads.

Post: #4

(10-05-2016 07:17 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  BTW I highly recommend the novel "Atlas Shrugged" for more info on this topic....fictional novel, but very accurate portrayal of where gradual socialism eventually leads.

I'm not advocating for socialism. But I think most reasonable people would agree that you need to have some sort of safety net for your citizens.

I'd rather not get into Ayn Rand, there is already a thread for that. But I will say that we have attempted to implement her philosophy in the form of Alan Greenspan and the results have been disastrous.

Post: #5

“Without calculation, economic activity is impossible. Since under Socialism economic calculation is impossible, under Socialism there can be no economic activity in our sense of the word … All economic change, therefore, would involve operations the value of which could neither be predicted beforehand nor ascertained after they had taken place. Everything would be a leap in the dark. Socialism is the renunciation of rational economy.” — Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 1981, pp. 103-105.

Post: #6

The US already has this mixture. The markets are not completely free. Government regulations have been in place for a long time. If we had true free markets, the government would not have failed out the big banks and the auto industry in 2008. True capitalism would have allowed those businesses to go under and other companies/industries would have emerged through competition.

Post: #7

most sane people agree this is an ideal system but it depends what %s we're talking about.

USA is super socialist imo - heavy taxes on corporations and middle classes to pay for a gigantic military.

i would set income and corporation tax at flat rate 20% and focus public spending on education and healthcare. i would keep a small military in line with nato targets and smash the welfare budget to pieces.

Post: #8

(10-05-2016 07:42 PM)Dantes Wrote:  The US already has this mixture. The markets are not completely free. Government regulations have been in place for a long time. If we had true free markets, the government would not have failed out the big banks and the auto industry in 2008. True capitalism would have allowed those businesses to go under and other companies/industries would have emerged through competition.

I don't think bailing out the banks is a good example of government regulation. That was purely a favor for the elites and a middle finger to the taxpayers.

If anything, hyper-capitalism has been ramped up under Obama (who is incorrectly portrayed as a "socialist" by the manosphere).

Post: #9

That is what we call fascism in its strictest and political definition not the connotation. I highly suggest you read up on it. Interesting stuff.

Post: #10

(10-05-2016 08:06 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:42 PM)Dantes Wrote:  The US already has this mixture. The markets are not completely free. Government regulations have been in place for a long time. If we had true free markets, the government would not have failed out the big banks and the auto industry in 2008. True capitalism would have allowed those businesses to go under and other companies/industries would have emerged through competition.

I don't think bailing out the banks is a good example of government regulation. That was purely a favor for the elites and a middle finger to the taxpayers.

If anything, hyper-capitalism has been ramped up under Obama (who is incorrectly portrayed as a "socialist" by the manosphere).

What you are referring to is "corporatism" in which little guys cannot start or succeed due to barriers of entry being so high. The EU has this problem because of the excessive regulations on industry.

That is the problem, because what has started to occur is an increase in regulation, in which the small mom and pop shops cannot possibly meet. There is also a dis-incentive for business in many of these countries. We complain about the corporate tax rate in Canada, but in the states, it is obscene.

The only option is off shoring your activities in tax free or massively reduced tax havens because of this, which many of these corporations do.

Post: #11

(10-05-2016 07:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'm not advocating for socialism. But I think most reasonable people would agree that you need to have some sort of safety net for your citizens.

Would it not depend on the safety net? We currently have a big Government safety net in all of the developed world. How is that working? I contend badly in every category. We now have the backlog in the V.A. as if it never went away. The largest employeer in G.B. is the National Heath Service and it is marginally better than the 70's medicine. You can't get a colonoscopy in Canada if you life depended upon it, and it is for far too many Canadians. Social Security is going bankrupt atleast in the US, and I am sure in many other nations.

We used to have a safety net that was not centrally planned, that was called family and community support. You would not starve, and someone would find a roof over your head if your family and community could help it. If you alienated them too much, a mooch, or a bum, then you were out on your own.

We can blame technology, or urban living, but I don't buy that. We had at least two major recessions between 1900 and 1929,(more modern times than not) before any "safety nets" were officially in place. Including the Great Depression most people supported each other through the community and family rather than Government welfare. I have family stories to attest to that, and I don't think that I am alone. We all know that family and community has been systemically eroded since the 60's for a collective big government.

Post: #12

(10-05-2016 08:06 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:42 PM)Dantes Wrote:  The US already has this mixture. The markets are not completely free. Government regulations have been in place for a long time. If we had true free markets, the government would not have failed out the big banks and the auto industry in 2008. True capitalism would have allowed those businesses to go under and other companies/industries would have emerged through competition.

I don't think bailing out the banks is a good example of government regulation. That was purely a favor for the elites and a middle finger to the taxpayers.

If anything, hyper-capitalism has been ramped up under Obama (who is incorrectly portrayed as a "socialist" by the manosphere).

That is when push comes to shove in an economy that you are talking about, however. No Government will every allow to have a third of their working citizens out in the streets if they have the tools to prevent it. The sin of government officials is vanity, and a scenario like this makes them look bad.

Comte has it right, you are referring to Fascism when you want a mix of socialism and capitalism. In Fascism there at times has an unholy alliance between big government and big corporate. However in Fascist Government, the government is the master when it comes down to the end game. If you have not, watch "Schindler's List" and see how many times that Oscar Schindler had to bribe someone in the Nazi government in order to do what he wanted. No one can't ignore an overbearing government, but people can refuse to do business with most corporations or industries. I would admit that disconnecting from all corporate exposure is a one-way ticket to Amish country, however.

I would also point out that most of the developed world is under some form of fascist regime, the only difference between now and the goosestep is that we occasionally vote which side of fascism that we want for the next few years.

Post: #13

The trap people fall for here is believing that they get to put a system in place and that they can keep that system static.

In this instance you might say "I think that Germany circa 1980 is a good model for a prosperous society". Well guess what. Germany of 1980 led to Germany of 2016.

You don't get to set your system in stone, certainly not under a democracy. The closest you get is to have an iron clad constitution and in the US we can see that even such an arrangement is eroded over time.

The sad fact is that in any nation where government power meets with a free market the first things to be sold and bought are the powers of government. From there the voter base is impoverished one demographic at a time and then led to the voting booths to pull the lever for the welfare candidate, who is in reality ALWAYS the totalitarian candidate.

If you have no faith in humans to feed the hungry and clothe the poor then taking money from them at gunpoint to do the same via government is not some grand moral effort. As always charity will become welfare will become entitlement, sourced from the grudging, provided to the ungrateful by way of an ever expanding government.

Fun fact. Charity existed before socialism, either administered by the individual or a church, but you didn't get squat if it turned out you were just a freeloading asshole because the people giving the charity had the power to yank it at their whim.

Under socialism? Not so much.

Post: #14

People have been looking for the mythical "Third Way" for over a century now. It doesn't really work, but most economies are mixed as is. Laissez-faire capitalism is hardly practiced in the real world these days. People equate Capitalism with rich people and elitism, but that's not necessarily true. In fact, it was the Capitalist merchants who were the first champions of Socialism who saw it as a way to seize power from the Aristocracy.

Free enterprise is something that everyone seems to value, but never really practice. Socialist policies only work so long as the healthy aspect of the economy, which is inherently rooted in the market, functions properly.

Post: #15

I think some of you guys are a little too obsessed with "freeloaders" and "welfare leeches". Look, there are definitely lazy people out there. But welfare and social expenditures are noewhere near to what we're currently spending on the military and other unnecessary shit.

Libertarians get their panties in a twist about poor people getting assistance but no fucks given about the ~40 billion we just handed over to Israel...

Post: #16

(10-05-2016 11:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I think some of you guys are a little too obsessed with "freeloaders" and "welfare leeches". Look, there are definitely lazy people out there. But welfare and social expenditures are noewhere near to what we're currently spending on the military and other unnecessary shit.

Libertarians get their panties in a twist about poor people getting assistance but no fucks given about the ~40 billion we just handed over to Israel...

If you include Welfare with Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security, then that's 60% of the budget. Even more so if you include stuff like Veterans' benefits and bureaucrat pensions.

Cutting defense spending isn't going to offset that, Social Security is already insolvent now and is having disability payments take money from pension payouts.

Social Security, Medicare (especially with Obamacare), and Medicaid are blowing up the budget because they have no real checks on costs.

Post: #17

(10-05-2016 11:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I think some of you guys are a little too obsessed with "freeloaders" and "welfare leeches". Look, there are definitely lazy people out there. But welfare and social expenditures are noewhere near to what we're currently spending on the military and other unnecessary shit.

There are whole classes of people who never work in the US because they simply get on welfare and play the system, the way their parents did, the way the kids they start having at 15 years old will.

I am perfectly fine with a safety net. Say, 3 years of assistance total and once you're back on your feet you can pay back some portion of the assistance you got to earn back time on your individual safety net. Anyone who's going to fix their life will certainly do it in less than 3 years, and anyone responsible will pay the token amount back. People who can't get their shit together 3 years, or who don't take responsibility and pay back in can rely on family or charity, not my tax dollars.

What we actually have, instead of a safety net, is a lifelong cocoon of welfare. And the welfare class grows larger in proportion to the working class every single year. It is obviously unsustainable for that to continue. No society will survive when less than half the population is productive, and we're going to reach that point sooner rather than later.

Post: #18

(10-06-2016 12:25 AM)weambulance Wrote:  What we actually have, instead of a safety net, is a lifelong cocoon of welfare. And the welfare class grows larger in proportion to the working class every single year. It is obviously unsustainable for that to continue. No society will survive when less than half the population is productive, and we're going to reach that point sooner rather than later.

We're not gonna reach that point. Studies on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have repeatedly shown that an overwhelming percentage of them receive aid for five years or less, that they have an average of 2 kids per family, and so on. Again, the echo chamber in the manosphere wants to make welfare a big issue. It isn't. Even if it were true, we're talking about the richest country in the history of the world;the US could easily provide for its population 2 lifetimes over if it wanted to. Not to mention that 1/4 of welfare recipients are children.

But we're going beyond the scope of my original question here.

Post: #19

(10-05-2016 07:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'm not advocating for socialism. But I think most reasonable people would agree that you need to have some sort of safety net for your citizens.

(10-05-2016 07:53 PM)britabroad Wrote:  most sane people agree this is an ideal system but it depends what %s we're talking about.

The parts in bold are the first thing people should notice. Whenever you have to prefix something with phrases like that, something is clearly up.

I think this "third way" illusion primarily stems from two things:
- Desiring to view the status quo optimistically
- Failing to understand the nature of leftism

Socialism, a variety of leftism, is not a "way". It is not like "I'll choose to drive a motorbike this year instead of a car". And then you can take a middle-road of "50% car, 50% motorbike". It is a process. It is a fire, starting small, and eventually engulfing the whole building.

There is no particular reason why "transportation, public utilities, education, and health care" should be socialized, other than they already are (deferring to the status quo). And whenever you start debating those points, the interlocutor immediately starts reeling off his reasons why those industries are "special". Same way the USSR experts could reel off reasons why everything they socialized was "special" and could be done better by government. The only difference is the number.

So no, the best system is 100% capitalism. Everything else is the insidious, creeping use of politics to control and possess other people, and all ideas contrary are mere side-effects of government propanda. After all, propaganda is how it best sustains its pervasive anti-social behaviour.

Indeed the individual mentioned in OP, Paul Craig Roberts, was a civil servant -- United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy in 1981, followed by a professor of economics. Number 1 employer of economists, and Number 1 booster of their fame and careers? The government. His words should be first seen as self-serving furtherment of his own career and ego massaging himself that he's spent his life well, rather than as any kind of neutral objective wisdom.

Post: #20

(10-05-2016 11:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I think some of you guys are a little too obsessed with "freeloaders" and "welfare leeches". Look, there are definitely lazy people out there. But welfare and social expenditures are noewhere near to what we're currently spending on the military and other unnecessary shit.

Libertarians get their panties in a twist about poor people getting assistance but no fucks given about the ~40 billion we just handed over to Israel...

This would infer that the cost to society of welfare parasites is purely what they draw in financial benefits.

Nope.
Those people vote.
Those people contribute disproportionately to levels of crime.
Those people compete in the marketplace with money taxed from the very workers they are competing with.
Those people demoralise the rest of us that work, often for little more that the parasites get for doing nothing.
Some of those people use their infinite free time to actively undermine our society.
In nations where medical care is socialised we pay ridiculous amounts to fix the health problems their dead-shit lifestyles cause.

I could go on. I wont. Socialism is the lazy man's morality.

Post: #21

(10-06-2016 12:54 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  We're not gonna reach that point. Studies on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have repeatedly shown that an overwhelming percentage of them receive aid for five years or less, that they have an average of 2 kids per family, and so on. Again, the echo chamber in the manosphere wants to make welfare a big issue. It isn't. Even if it were true, we're talking about the richest country in the history of the world;the US could easily provide for its population 2 lifetimes over if it wanted to. Not to mention that 1/4 of welfare recipients are children.

But we're going beyond the scope of my original question here.

Five years? And that's not a blaring air-raid siren?

Do you have any studies on how many business models are un-viable due to tax burdens? How many of these people would have walked on to a different job day one except for the fact that job never existed because because the taxes required to put that family on welfare dragged that level of the economy below the water line or pushed it overseas?

Complaining about the military or Israeli aid is beside the point. You guys can't afford ANY of that stuff and have been drowning in red ink for decades now.

Post: #22

It depends on one's own interpretation of the role of government.

A judicial system? making laws and enforcing them? security/defense? infrastructure (like roads)? all important questions.

Some may go as far as to claim education and healthcare for it's citizens is a default role of government. Try to detach the idea of "socialism" for a moment here.

And again - ask yourself, what is the role of government?

Side note: I hate it when college marxists use arguments like "hurr the US is already socialist bro, havent you ever heard of medicare? the fire department? etc" such a dumb argument.

Post: #23

Even without entering discussions about the theoretical fallacies of socialism, a simple look on history shows us that it simply doesn't work. It's a corrupt system that only brings misery to those who practice it.

100% liberal capitalism on the other hand, is a libertarian nerd utopia that cannot exist. What can exists however, is a system with as little elements of socialism as humanly possible.

I have nothing against government monopolies in defense, law enforcement and the judiciary. We can also talk about the extent the government should be involved in healthcare or the elementary education. It can also build roads and park benches.

But government-funded NGOs? Minimal wage? Unequal tax burdens for the rich? Agricultural subsidies? No thank you.

Post: #24

(10-05-2016 07:26 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'd rather not get into Ayn Rand, there is already a thread for that. But I will say that we have attempted to implement her philosophy in the form of Alan Greenspan and the results have been disastrous.

Huh? What did Alan Greenspan implement that Ayn Rand wanted?

Post: #25

Socialists are very good at spending other peoples money until it runs out.

That being said I am not sure a pure capitalist system is going to work. So you need a bit of state to make sure things society ticks off but it needs to be kept to an absolute minimum.

I see people voting for socialist governments as people that want the state to sort out all their problems and any problems they have are the states fault.