RE: Socialism?
I'm not sure where you got this idea?
I'm beginning to think you actually do not know what socialism is. Even more to the point, I wonder if you even know that everything you offer is socialism.
Socialism involves state control of the economy. It functions as a planned economy without free markets or with limited and/or state controlled markets. It also borrows redistributionism from communism. Because a planned economy cannot function without redistributionism, the government must confiscate wealth from one group and redistribute it to another.
My ideas involve going back to some of FDR's programs before WWII, reviving something similar to the CCC...
The WPA, CCC, and other depression era programs were unadulterated socialism. They involved the government redistributing wealth to create artificial employment. Social security is another Roosevelt-era socialist program. Sadly, we're still living with it.
Yes, this would be a government-supported program. But it would employ many, many people at all skill and educational levels.
In other words, you know, deep down, that it is socialism, but you excuse it because you think it does someone good. What problem are you trying to solve? Those kinds of programs were used to address rampant unemployment rates of 25% and more on a temporary basis. Our unemployment rate is 5%. That's full employment. The poor do not exist because there are no jobs. They exist because they lack the skills, motivation, and/or opportunity to stop being poor. Furthermore, because of redistributionist entitlements, many of the poor are not motivated to go dig ditches for the government for minimum wage or less because they can bring in that much from government assistance. Ah, you say, so pay them a higher wage. More socialism. Now you have to artificially inflate the wage to motivate workers to take the job. And how are we going to pay for these higher wages? More redistributionism. The government will have to bloat the wage above the market level turning the project into an economic loss. It will have to be subsidized with more taxpayer money. Now you've sent more people who were on the borderline of poverty into poverty level because you confiscated more of their money to give it to someone else. Oh, you say, you'll only confiscate from the rich. But now the rich will shelter more of their money or they will stop being rich, so there will be less investment in the private sector economy, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages. Now you have created more unemployed and sent more people into poverty.
Talk about a feeling of accomplishment!
Who cares about a feeling of accomplishment when you've just lost your job because the government is running fat social programs? Making a living wage and being self-sufficient provides a feeling of accomplishment far superior to having something handed to you by the nanny state.
This isn't to say that private industry wouldn't have a role, but the government would oversee the program.
Socialism. The only difference between this and communism is the illusion of a private sector. Private industry isn't private if it is being overseen by the government, it's just another arm of the government.
Would this eliminate poverty? No way.
Indeed, as I have illustrated above, it would probably create more poverty.
Would it help to hire many who are unemployed and stimulate the economy?
Again, the poor are not poor because of a lack of employment. And this would do nothing more than would removing the system of entitlements and forcing those who live on welfare to enter the private sector. Indeed, the latter would be self-sustaining and would have the added benefit of cutting down on illegal immigration. As Americans came off welfare and took the jobs they refused to do before, the demand for illegals to take these jobs would decline.
And when the next disaster hit, they wouldn't sit around the projects wondering when the government was going to come save them.
I'm beginning to think you actually do not know what socialism is. Even more to the point, I wonder if you even know that everything you offer is socialism.
Socialism involves state control of the economy. It functions as a planned economy without free markets or with limited and/or state controlled markets. It also borrows redistributionism from communism. Because a planned economy cannot function without redistributionism, the government must confiscate wealth from one group and redistribute it to another.
My ideas involve going back to some of FDR's programs before WWII, reviving something similar to the CCC...
The WPA, CCC, and other depression era programs were unadulterated socialism. They involved the government redistributing wealth to create artificial employment. Social security is another Roosevelt-era socialist program. Sadly, we're still living with it.
Yes, this would be a government-supported program. But it would employ many, many people at all skill and educational levels.
In other words, you know, deep down, that it is socialism, but you excuse it because you think it does someone good. What problem are you trying to solve? Those kinds of programs were used to address rampant unemployment rates of 25% and more on a temporary basis. Our unemployment rate is 5%. That's full employment. The poor do not exist because there are no jobs. They exist because they lack the skills, motivation, and/or opportunity to stop being poor. Furthermore, because of redistributionist entitlements, many of the poor are not motivated to go dig ditches for the government for minimum wage or less because they can bring in that much from government assistance. Ah, you say, so pay them a higher wage. More socialism. Now you have to artificially inflate the wage to motivate workers to take the job. And how are we going to pay for these higher wages? More redistributionism. The government will have to bloat the wage above the market level turning the project into an economic loss. It will have to be subsidized with more taxpayer money. Now you've sent more people who were on the borderline of poverty into poverty level because you confiscated more of their money to give it to someone else. Oh, you say, you'll only confiscate from the rich. But now the rich will shelter more of their money or they will stop being rich, so there will be less investment in the private sector economy, meaning fewer jobs and lower wages. Now you have created more unemployed and sent more people into poverty.
Talk about a feeling of accomplishment!
Who cares about a feeling of accomplishment when you've just lost your job because the government is running fat social programs? Making a living wage and being self-sufficient provides a feeling of accomplishment far superior to having something handed to you by the nanny state.
This isn't to say that private industry wouldn't have a role, but the government would oversee the program.
Socialism. The only difference between this and communism is the illusion of a private sector. Private industry isn't private if it is being overseen by the government, it's just another arm of the government.
Would this eliminate poverty? No way.
Indeed, as I have illustrated above, it would probably create more poverty.
Would it help to hire many who are unemployed and stimulate the economy?
Again, the poor are not poor because of a lack of employment. And this would do nothing more than would removing the system of entitlements and forcing those who live on welfare to enter the private sector. Indeed, the latter would be self-sustaining and would have the added benefit of cutting down on illegal immigration. As Americans came off welfare and took the jobs they refused to do before, the demand for illegals to take these jobs would decline.
And when the next disaster hit, they wouldn't sit around the projects wondering when the government was going to come save them.
posted by Anonymous | 5:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home