There has been a lively debate going on in the comments of my gas prices post. It has been mostly polite and on topic. Part of the discussion concerns socialism and it appears that we are debating without a working definition of socialism. Here is what the dictionary has to say:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
This is communism lite and the the definition the anti-socialism commentors are using. I think Marieke, and she can correct me if I am wrong, is working from a definition more like this:
An economic system that uses the power of government to moderate the excesses of capitalism and distribute resources for the common good.
This could explain why she says there are socialist parties that are center right. I have to admit that I know very little about the politics in the Netherlands. I do know about France and Germany, however, since I have to deal with them at TCIDNN (The Company I Dare Not Name).
To us in the United States, France and Germany are very socialist countries and we are amazed that Chirac is considered right of center. Here in the United States he would probably be to the left of Dickhead Gephardt.
The problem with socialism is letting the gummint control the economy. Currently in France and Germany, the unemployment rate is 10%. We are bitching about a 5.6% unemployment rate. Why the big difference?
One of the reasons is all the gummint mandated rules and regulations and employee benefits. Look at what France is going through with its generous retirement benefits. Also, it is next to impossible to lay people off. So a company has to be very careful not to hire too many people during an economic upturn since they will have to carry them during a recession.
Another problem with socialism is it costs too much. Taxes are higher in socialist countries. Taxes are also a drag on the economy. There is a reason why we have the most vibrant economy in the world.
Who has the best medical system? We do, but probably not for long. We will eventually have socialized medicine in the United States based on the Canadian model. (Where are the Canadians gonna go to get their health care that Canada cannot provide then?) It is inevitable. Costs are skyrocketing (Due to gummint meddling and the high cost of medical malpractice insurance thanks to lawyers like John Edwards.). People are gonna demand that gummint "do something", and we will get socialized medicine which will have the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the compassion of the IRS. Will it be cheaper? As P. J. O'Rourke said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
I have often said in this space that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. I know Marieke disagrees with me, but the Netherlands hasn't quite hit full scale socialism yet. Neither has Sweden, but I remember reading somewhere that Sweden is experiencing some problems because their unemployment benefits are way too generous and that has decreased the incentive for many to work.
That is a problem that we are trying to solve here. It's not that our benefits are too generous, but our poor are able to survive OK. They get adequate housing, in most cases. They get foodstamps. They get medical care. They have color TV's. We have multigenerational welfare families. We have people who know nothing but welfare. Now that is sad, because these are wasted people.
I've written on poverty many times and I know what it is like to be poor. I didn't like it. my sister and I came from a dysfunctional home with an alcoholic as a father. We both overcame it with education and hard work. We both have net worths over $1 million. I love capitalism.
In a nutshell, here is why I hate socialism. It seeks to provide equality of results. That is impossible because people are not equal. If you tell people that they are gonna all get the same, no matter how hard they work, where is the incentive to work? What you need is a system that provides equality of opportunity. That is what we have here.
I mean, look at Michael Jackson. Only in America could a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman.
We live in a wonderful country. I really think that Europeans like Marieke don't really get the full story of America. I base that on some of her comments and comments I get from other people in Europe. We don't have people starving due to our harsh social policies. I had a troll try to tell me that. He was using Department of Agriculture statistics that were based on one question: Were you or your children hungry at any time in the past year? Hell, I'm hungry now. I guess I qualify.
Right now in this country our Republicans are becoming socialists and our Dimocrats are becoming communists. It was the Republicans who passed our latest entitlement, the prescription drugs for seniors. I can guarantee it will cost twice the estimated amount.
Lest you think that I believe in unfettered capitalism, you are wrong. Capitalism does have excesses. Monopolies come to mind. Some gummint regulations are necessary. Many are not. I'm a cripple and I think that a lot of the stuff in the Americans With Disabilities Act is total bullshit!
And finally, if you want to know what economic school your beliefs place you in, here is a quiz that you can take. I got the link from the Lady Jessica. If you plan on taking the quiz, set aside some time. It will take a while. In case you're curious, my score was 73. One of my answers was from the socialist school. For shame!