The President went to NY. I say NY rather than Wall Street because his intent was NOT to recognize the street as it deserves to be recognized.
Mr. Obama's visit was to threaten, warn and insult American business and add emphasis by snubbing the traditional walk through the NYSE. It is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not hate capitalism and American business. His administration so far seems to be an endless continuation of the campaign filled with endless populist speeches. It would be good to see this President spend some time in the oval office actually working on how to generate jobs.
It seems in his best interest to have unemployment high as it creates an excuse to develop social programs that grow government and add layers of socialism and taxes to government.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Socialism*: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I have included the above definition because it is always good to understand the topic of discussion. The definition of socialism as given by Merriam-Webster while correctly presenting the concept does not reveal the inherent malevolence of the idea or more importantly the ideal. Since the purpose of this discussion is to point out socialisms flaws it will be good to understand the difference between it and other political systems and ideas.
Socialism is one of those ideas that on the surface seems positive towards quality of life and appears benevolent in its goals. However, like many ideas that initially sound good, once the reality of the concept is truly grasped in its totality there are inherent problems with establishing and maintaining that reality.
Many have been cultured to see Socialism as some benign method of providing aid to those in need. Many stanch socialists would readily tell you this is indeed their prime motivation and no doubt be sincere in their belief, yet they are incorrect despite their intent. Socialism is not a viable method or system, it is merely an ideal who’s tenets are impossible to implement as a unified and organized form of governance.
To be fair, this is marginally true of most forms of governance from democracy to dictatorships. No form of political rule yet conceived is perfect in its execution. The goal is not perfection but stability and consistency in the application of law to support individual freedoms and rights. In totalitarian systems, the support of individual freedoms would be minimal in the extreme and are usually contrived or only found in the lip service used to present a false face to the world where needed. In a Democracy the level of individual freedoms and rights of individuals can vary depending on the form of democratic rule and the strength of the rule of law. Generally the greater the scope of individual rights and freedoms the greater the economic benefit and quality of life. Quality always comes at a greater cost and greater freedoms and rights require a constant and consistent review through a system of checks and balances. In the United States this is performed by the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. While it can be argued the American system provides the most freedom to the individual, few would make the case it is the perfect system. This is actually by design as the American system is an admitted experiment, meant to be capable of change and growth. While the original concepts persist, their definitions and interpretations are under constant attack and defense, and herein lays both the greatest weakness and strength of our system.
There are many variants and flavors of democracy employed across the globe, I will not go into each, nor their differences except to point out that most use a parliamentary system, and many attempt to incorporate socialism into their mix. Suffice to say that while the United States is still a relatively young nation compared with the rest of the world, it has the distinction of having the oldest continuously operating successful government and constitution in the world. While the growth of democracy in the world is welcome, the forms it takes do not always provide the greatest level of individual rights or freedoms. In some cases and locations, centuries of culture may make it very difficult for the population to grasp the concept of individuality never mind live in a free society.
Socialism is not a political system of government, neither for that matter is democracy. Democracy is a “manner” of governance which favors social equality and individual freedom, the form of Democracy taken determines the level of individual rights the society has. Likewise socialism is a concept as defined above and how it is applied is arbitrary and dependant on the level of control those in power wish to exert on the populace. Once enabled though that level generally moves in the direction of total control rather than lesser.
When comparing Communism, who’s history has exposed that political systems requirement for totalitarian oppression and penchant for mass murder in order to achieve control over the population, a constitutional republic such as that in the United States is as close to utopia as has been so far envisioned. So far being the operative term. I do not differentiate Communism from Socialism just as I would not differentiate one dictatorship from another or one armed robber from another. One despot is the same as another or whatever system they allege to be ruling under.
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I have included the above definition because it is always good to understand the topic of discussion. The definition of socialism as given by Merriam-Webster while correctly presenting the concept does not reveal the inherent malevolence of the idea or more importantly the ideal. Since the purpose of this discussion is to point out socialisms flaws it will be good to understand the difference between it and other political systems and ideas.
Socialism is one of those ideas that on the surface seems positive towards quality of life and appears benevolent in its goals. However, like many ideas that initially sound good, once the reality of the concept is truly grasped in its totality there are inherent problems with establishing and maintaining that reality.
Many have been cultured to see Socialism as some benign method of providing aid to those in need. Many stanch socialists would readily tell you this is indeed their prime motivation and no doubt be sincere in their belief, yet they are incorrect despite their intent. Socialism is not a viable method or system, it is merely an ideal who’s tenets are impossible to implement as a unified and organized form of governance.
To be fair, this is marginally true of most forms of governance from democracy to dictatorships. No form of political rule yet conceived is perfect in its execution. The goal is not perfection but stability and consistency in the application of law to support individual freedoms and rights. In totalitarian systems, the support of individual freedoms would be minimal in the extreme and are usually contrived or only found in the lip service used to present a false face to the world where needed. In a Democracy the level of individual freedoms and rights of individuals can vary depending on the form of democratic rule and the strength of the rule of law. Generally the greater the scope of individual rights and freedoms the greater the economic benefit and quality of life. Quality always comes at a greater cost and greater freedoms and rights require a constant and consistent review through a system of checks and balances. In the United States this is performed by the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. While it can be argued the American system provides the most freedom to the individual, few would make the case it is the perfect system. This is actually by design as the American system is an admitted experiment, meant to be capable of change and growth. While the original concepts persist, their definitions and interpretations are under constant attack and defense, and herein lays both the greatest weakness and strength of our system.
There are many variants and flavors of democracy employed across the globe, I will not go into each, nor their differences except to point out that most use a parliamentary system, and many attempt to incorporate socialism into their mix. Suffice to say that while the United States is still a relatively young nation compared with the rest of the world, it has the distinction of having the oldest continuously operating successful government and constitution in the world. While the growth of democracy in the world is welcome, the forms it takes do not always provide the greatest level of individual rights or freedoms. In some cases and locations, centuries of culture may make it very difficult for the population to grasp the concept of individuality never mind live in a free society.
Socialism is not a political system of government, neither for that matter is democracy. Democracy is a “manner” of governance which favors social equality and individual freedom, the form of Democracy taken determines the level of individual rights the society has. Likewise socialism is a concept as defined above and how it is applied is arbitrary and dependant on the level of control those in power wish to exert on the populace. Once enabled though that level generally moves in the direction of total control rather than lesser.
When comparing Communism, who’s history has exposed that political systems requirement for totalitarian oppression and penchant for mass murder in order to achieve control over the population, a constitutional republic such as that in the United States is as close to utopia as has been so far envisioned. So far being the operative term. I do not differentiate Communism from Socialism just as I would not differentiate one dictatorship from another or one armed robber from another. One despot is the same as another or whatever system they allege to be ruling under.
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Saturday, September 5, 2009
America is at yet another crossroads. This is not unusual as the pace of change in the world has continued to accelerate and they are bound to pop up more frequently as we built more roads and bridges crisscrossing our expanding culture. They also appear as we endeavor to coexist in a complex world where the roads can be both ancient and in bad repair or newly paved yet the rules of the road are foreign and untenable.
This is not a new through-way, we approached this crossroad a nearly a century ago following the first great war of the twentieth century who’s anniversary is not too distant. At that time we failed to negotiate the turn and were left in the ditch for a long time before we could extract ourselves and some of the damage from the decisions made in that era yet lingers. As we approach this crossroad yet again, it is hoped that the lessons of the past will help in negotiating a safer passage this trip.
Many today speak of the “new” global economy, yet this is not a new phenomena. At the turn of the last century global commerce existed on a wide scale and trade was a growing affair between the powerful nations and empires of the day. This was changed by the events of the First World War and its aftermath. The economic and political decisions made in the global economic downturn that followed the war led to worldwide depression, enabled the growth of totalitarianism in the form of Communist regimes and opened the door for socialist policy that setback individual freedoms and global markets for decades.
We are at the same crossroads today under very similar conditions. At this point in history we are breathing a sigh of relief as we seem to have dodged the bullet of another Depression and it seems as if Capitalism and Democracy have been setting strong deep roots across the world. Yet the constant watchwords heard daily from political and economic leaders are “green shoots” and “not out of the woods yet” with “less worse” thrown in to add to the uncertainty. There may yet be more woods to traverse or we may hit open ground any time, this time can be very different or very similar but we need to be aware that decisions are waiting.
80 years ago the passive decisions made and steps not taken, led to a decade of ruin, today with lessons learned, decisive action is helping gain some control over the downturn. The global situation however is not totally dependent on stabilized economic conditions. In a time when we should be concentrating on maintaining our economic place in the world our attention is being turned inward and toward less significant issues made to seem looming large through rhetoric and misplaced priorities. While isolationism is not even a buzzword in the modern lexicon, we may achieve the same results from disregarding the growth of the world economy and delaying decisions while debating over internal issues.
Our governments reaction to the causes of the recession is not to take on realistic issues but to address it from an idealistic position. Rather than address the critical issues of unemployment, trade and foreign competition, we are mired in a Donnybrook over health-care and the impossible task of eliminating risk. While health care is an admittedly real issue that needs addressing, its priority in the current state falls much farther down the list than repairing the financial system and reducing unemployment, while the concept of eliminating the risk of economic downturns through regulation of financial markets is pure fantasy. Both these issues are merely the modern pretext to institute deeper levels of socialism into the system.
I do not mean this to be a harsh accusation but rather an indictment of the mindset and worldview of the current administration and congress. Ideological fervor and an eagerness to seem to make progress on the promise of change are obscuring the greater priority of the economy over party ideals and campaign promises. While I have no doubt most members of the administration and congress do not self identify as socialists, they are never the less pursuing a socialist agenda rather than and over the immediate needs of the nation.
I’d like to make sure I am clear on what I see as the difference between social programs and socialism. While I am a financial conservative who believes in free market capitalism as the best economic system, I do not see all social programs as being incompatible with or detrimental to the republic. While many social programs can have commonalities with socialist goals, this does not mean they are not beneficial to a society regardless the form of government. Being beneficial to the society does not immediately mean something is socialist or wrong, what counts is whether the program reduces individual rights and freedoms..
Many of my conservative friends do not understand how I can understand and agree with their objections to socialized medicine yet see something such as Social Security as an acceptable and valuable program. This is because they are dogmatically fixated on seeing anything government operated as being potentially contrary and a danger to free markets and individual freedoms. Such a narrow view is actually in opposition to a truly capitalist viewpoint, since flexibility and an understanding of the value proposition are critical components of capitalism. Yet while I have many criticisms of the Social Security system as it currently exists and would more than likely have objected to its original creation, I do not see why it can not be a well designed and operated public benefit rather than an entitlement. I am sure I will elaborate on this in the future.
Here lays the rub, while socialism is inherently destructive regardless the benevolent intent, so too would pure capitalism be unsustainable. Down deep I truly believe capitalism and free markets are the perfect system. Yet reality also tells me that in order for Capitalism to work perfectly, every single person in the world or yet to be born would need to accept this truth as I do, live by it and be scrupulously honest, not a very likely scenario.
The same issue is true of Socialism. For any socialist based system to succeed, every member of society would have to willingly surrender their individuality to the will of the state. Since self-determining individuals tend to be more ubiquitous than altruistic automatons again, not a very likely scenario.
Like most things in life, we go through cycles and generations begin to forget the lessons learned by decades of misery and despair caused by the emergence of socialist and communist systems and begin to think maybe a utopia where everyone’s needs are met is yet possible.
Those who’s wishful thinking gives hope for such a utopia do not have to embrace socialism to be catalyst in its reemergence. They merely have to believe that some loss of individual freedom is a small and necessary price to pay to create what they see as a more equitable system. The problem with this slippery slope is each slice of liberty becomes easier to sacrifice to the common good by those who would be benevolent dictators.
We are in an age where the economic situation can allow socialist dogma to seem palatable, even workable, the dangers of this acceptance can loose us our status as a world leader leaving us floundering for direction while the rest of the world moves forward to embrace freedom, capitalism and prosperity.
This is not a new through-way, we approached this crossroad a nearly a century ago following the first great war of the twentieth century who’s anniversary is not too distant. At that time we failed to negotiate the turn and were left in the ditch for a long time before we could extract ourselves and some of the damage from the decisions made in that era yet lingers. As we approach this crossroad yet again, it is hoped that the lessons of the past will help in negotiating a safer passage this trip.
Many today speak of the “new” global economy, yet this is not a new phenomena. At the turn of the last century global commerce existed on a wide scale and trade was a growing affair between the powerful nations and empires of the day. This was changed by the events of the First World War and its aftermath. The economic and political decisions made in the global economic downturn that followed the war led to worldwide depression, enabled the growth of totalitarianism in the form of Communist regimes and opened the door for socialist policy that setback individual freedoms and global markets for decades.
We are at the same crossroads today under very similar conditions. At this point in history we are breathing a sigh of relief as we seem to have dodged the bullet of another Depression and it seems as if Capitalism and Democracy have been setting strong deep roots across the world. Yet the constant watchwords heard daily from political and economic leaders are “green shoots” and “not out of the woods yet” with “less worse” thrown in to add to the uncertainty. There may yet be more woods to traverse or we may hit open ground any time, this time can be very different or very similar but we need to be aware that decisions are waiting.
80 years ago the passive decisions made and steps not taken, led to a decade of ruin, today with lessons learned, decisive action is helping gain some control over the downturn. The global situation however is not totally dependent on stabilized economic conditions. In a time when we should be concentrating on maintaining our economic place in the world our attention is being turned inward and toward less significant issues made to seem looming large through rhetoric and misplaced priorities. While isolationism is not even a buzzword in the modern lexicon, we may achieve the same results from disregarding the growth of the world economy and delaying decisions while debating over internal issues.
Our governments reaction to the causes of the recession is not to take on realistic issues but to address it from an idealistic position. Rather than address the critical issues of unemployment, trade and foreign competition, we are mired in a Donnybrook over health-care and the impossible task of eliminating risk. While health care is an admittedly real issue that needs addressing, its priority in the current state falls much farther down the list than repairing the financial system and reducing unemployment, while the concept of eliminating the risk of economic downturns through regulation of financial markets is pure fantasy. Both these issues are merely the modern pretext to institute deeper levels of socialism into the system.
I do not mean this to be a harsh accusation but rather an indictment of the mindset and worldview of the current administration and congress. Ideological fervor and an eagerness to seem to make progress on the promise of change are obscuring the greater priority of the economy over party ideals and campaign promises. While I have no doubt most members of the administration and congress do not self identify as socialists, they are never the less pursuing a socialist agenda rather than and over the immediate needs of the nation.
I’d like to make sure I am clear on what I see as the difference between social programs and socialism. While I am a financial conservative who believes in free market capitalism as the best economic system, I do not see all social programs as being incompatible with or detrimental to the republic. While many social programs can have commonalities with socialist goals, this does not mean they are not beneficial to a society regardless the form of government. Being beneficial to the society does not immediately mean something is socialist or wrong, what counts is whether the program reduces individual rights and freedoms..
Many of my conservative friends do not understand how I can understand and agree with their objections to socialized medicine yet see something such as Social Security as an acceptable and valuable program. This is because they are dogmatically fixated on seeing anything government operated as being potentially contrary and a danger to free markets and individual freedoms. Such a narrow view is actually in opposition to a truly capitalist viewpoint, since flexibility and an understanding of the value proposition are critical components of capitalism. Yet while I have many criticisms of the Social Security system as it currently exists and would more than likely have objected to its original creation, I do not see why it can not be a well designed and operated public benefit rather than an entitlement. I am sure I will elaborate on this in the future.
Here lays the rub, while socialism is inherently destructive regardless the benevolent intent, so too would pure capitalism be unsustainable. Down deep I truly believe capitalism and free markets are the perfect system. Yet reality also tells me that in order for Capitalism to work perfectly, every single person in the world or yet to be born would need to accept this truth as I do, live by it and be scrupulously honest, not a very likely scenario.
The same issue is true of Socialism. For any socialist based system to succeed, every member of society would have to willingly surrender their individuality to the will of the state. Since self-determining individuals tend to be more ubiquitous than altruistic automatons again, not a very likely scenario.
Like most things in life, we go through cycles and generations begin to forget the lessons learned by decades of misery and despair caused by the emergence of socialist and communist systems and begin to think maybe a utopia where everyone’s needs are met is yet possible.
Those who’s wishful thinking gives hope for such a utopia do not have to embrace socialism to be catalyst in its reemergence. They merely have to believe that some loss of individual freedom is a small and necessary price to pay to create what they see as a more equitable system. The problem with this slippery slope is each slice of liberty becomes easier to sacrifice to the common good by those who would be benevolent dictators.
We are in an age where the economic situation can allow socialist dogma to seem palatable, even workable, the dangers of this acceptance can loose us our status as a world leader leaving us floundering for direction while the rest of the world moves forward to embrace freedom, capitalism and prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)