Requesting constructive feedback on this discussion... (Socialism vs 'socialist capitalism'??)

[Reason]

So... I posted the following article:
https://mises.org/blog/millions-bill...ism-once-again

& Said "How many people have to die before we get the message? Not only is socialism morally bankrupt, it doesn't f**king work."

I just got the following reply...

There's a difference between all out socialism and socialist capitalism. There is a balance that will work. It does other places around the world and definitely can here. People need to quit attacking "socialism" and realize that the United States will never be socialist but could adopt some of the ideologies and put them to use within a capitalist structure. It's simply better regulated capitalism.

I have a few thoughts on how to respond but I am interested in some constructive feedback keeping in mind that I like this person, they are well intentioned, and I think I would like to try my hardest to be effective in attempting to get this individual to reconsider their position on the issue.

[acptulsa]

Socialist capitalism is another name for fascism, the combination of corporation and state. It is mainly marked by cronyism and never features a level playing field; those who can afford to buy the most influence win, and that means small businesses lose. Which not only stifles innovation, because corporations cannot afford to take risks and small businesses cannot afford not to, but it hardly qualifies as the basis for a 'land of opportunity'.

It also only pretends to be capitalism.

[luctor-et-emergo]

I probably live in those 'other places around the world' but it's not really working here, let me tell you.

[kcchiefs6465]

The regulations are written by those connected to the industries that are to be regulated. It is derived from a ideological conception of might equaling right. That is, they believe in collectivism or that a majority has legitimate authority to impose laws upon all. It is the basis of practically, if not virtually, all of the evil ideologies plaguing mankind.

No one is wise enough to be more adequate at maintaining order in an economy than the natural forces at play. These are not economic whims, they are economic laws. So too if a bureaucrat were to seek to eliminate gravity, he might find it a tall order. Now since a government rightly has no money, produces nothing, and cannot accomplish even the simplest of tasks without taxing (i.e. robbing) all or debasing the currency (i.e. fraud), it is to be rightly assumed that they will violate rights to dump money at a perceived problem with abysmal successes. Much the way they could dump money on suspending gravitation, while gravity remains a constant, they could enact and throw money towards any of many [real or perceived] economic problems garnering only a superficial mirage of success while all the while the house of cards is predestined to fall. As well, the misery caused isn't necessarily in your face.

It violates rights.

Namely, for their system to 'work,' they must have a central currency with laws prohibiting the use of alternative tender. They must have a means of keeping track of the citizenry to ensure compliance with the multitude of taxes and regulatory codes. They must rob all and prevent/alter certain contracts.

This even ignores how foolish a policy socialism, or socialism-lite, is. It is inefficient and burdensome. It concentrates wealth into the hands of a few. It encourages bribery and political corruption. It corrupts the public and expounds moral hazards.

I'd ask for examples of what they mean by 'works in other countries.' Nothing is free. They can talk about healthcare availability but will fail to mention progressive taxing. They'll talk about free education but will fail to mention state indoctrination centers teaching children to the middle, destroying true human ingenuity in the process. I mean the list goes on and on.

You do not have positive rights. You have negative rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

By "socialist capitalism" he means some kind of "mixed economy," what Mises called "interventionism" (i.e. the status quo, where there's still private property and a market [unlike socialism proper], but its heavily taxed, regulated, and otherwise controlled by the state). To criticize this, just deploy the usual economic arguments against government intervention in the economy. If you need to brush up on those a bit, check out "Economics in One Lesson" linked in my sig line. The author goes through several common types of intervention and explains why they're harmful.

[Krugminator2]

It depends what they mean. Most of the European style socialism is a complete failure. Economic freedom correlates to prosperity. HK, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland make that pretty clear.

The socialism they are talking about might be running government programs the way Hayek would run them. Singapore has universal health care and they also have the most efficient health care in the world. They use market forces at every turn. Having universal education is socialist, but if you do through a voucher program you are making that socialist system more efficient. That might be the socialist capitalism they are talking about.

I fully support limits on the amount of leverage that can be used in a bank or hedge fund. I would support that regulation even in an otherwise perfectly free market. History has shown that humans are incapable of using large amounts of leverage responsibly and the effects can end up spilling over to harm others.

[acptulsa]

In the immortal words of Maury Klein:

'What does the experience of the railroads tell us about the American way of competition and regulation? Obviously it suggests that the usual time lag between policy and reality has grown steadily worse over the years. Regulatory policy, like old generals, seems doomed always to fight the last war, partly because in our system it takes so long to recognize new problems and then to build a concensus for change. At bottom regulation involves a quest for some viable equation reconciling economic efficiency, social justice, and political acceptability. The more complex regulatory mechanisms become, the more difficult it is to adjust them or get rid of them when necessary, let alone tie them to these objectives.

'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'

He said that some forty years ago. And since then, it has just gotten more and more true. And that doesn't even take into the account the even bigger problem that those who pay the most bribes write the rules.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think the biggest problem with supporters of socialism (be it "moderate" socialists or "extremist" socialists) is that they don't understand simple economic laws & the incentives of self-interest. They think that, if only, the "right people" are put in-charge then things will work out; they don't realize that when you give free stuff (price them too low, at zero), it will lead to over-consumption & wastage.

One of the things I ask them is what if every student in the schools was ensured that they would pass by having the grades of the better students "redistributed" amongst them? Of course, any such policy would destroy incentive for the poor students because they can get away without having to study while it destroys incentive for the better students because they are not allowed to retain the fruits of their labor, & because of this, most students, better as well worse ones, aren't going to be working as hard as they would have under a "normal" system where everyone is allowed to keep the fruits of their labor & there's no distribution.
Some socialists get this analogy better than others. Although it's not going to immediately convince them to give up on socialism, it does make them think logically as opposed to the typical appeals to emotions about "helping the poor" that they are used to.

It is derived from a ideological conception of might equaling right. That is, they believe in collectivism or that a majority has legitimate authority to impose laws upon all. It is the basis of practically, if not virtually, all of the evil ideologies plaguing mankind.

This^ +1

If you need to brush up on those a bit, check out "Economics in One Lesson" linked in my sig line. The author goes through several common types of intervention and explains why they're harmful.

This is good advice. I think Economics in One Lesson is such a great book that if everyone read & understood it, then the world would be a significantly better place than it is right now, in terms of freedom as well as prosperity.

[dannno]

Well you can argue that it doesn't really 'work' that well even in the European countries they are specifically referring to, but they will probably just hear a bunch of "blah blah blah..."

Another tactic you could use is the fact that these are smaller countries that are more similar to the size of the states we have here in the US. It would be better if any socialism was handled at the state level if it exists at all.

Stefan Molyneux did a pretty good video recently as well.

[CaptUSA]

I have a few thoughts on how to respond but I am interested in some constructive feedback keeping in mind that I like this person, they are well intentioned, and I think I would like to try my hardest to be effective in attempting to get this individual to reconsider their position on the issue.

Here's a different tactic that may work. This person seems to think that a managed economy can work if it was only managed correctly. I presume that this person is able to see the folly of American foreign policy. (Normally, these two go hand-in-hand)

So, instead of making all the arguments against the poor economic idea, you can tell them that since we change leaders and parties every few years, that there is no way that an economy will ever be properly managed in the US. Even if it were possible to plan an economy effectively (which of course, it isn't), by the time things were on the right track, the new leaders would be under political pressure to keep tweaking it. Some tweak it this way, and some tweak it the other way. But each time they change something, it upsets the stability of any planned system.

In other words, tell this person that even if it were possible to manage an economy, our system of government makes it impossible. Thank God.

[The Free Hornet]

"socialist capitalism" is far too oxymoronic to use.

Some ideas that might gel with a market-based economy could include mincome (provided it eliminates 90% of the bureaucracy that does social services, welfare state, minimum wage, et cetera), tax sheltered (sheltered from the unbearable mincome tax) unemployment and retirement accounts. Reasonable consumer protection laws but not to the extent that transactions become onerous or unreasonable like the EU, but rather combating nonsense buried in page 93 of a 200 page agreement that can change at any time. It could even be from a more hands off perspective like, 'you can make that agreement but we won't waste the court's time on enforcement'.

[The Free Hornet]

Thanks for the note about Economics in One Lesson above. That is THE first book on liberty and economics I read at the tender age of 16/17. Page 121 of the PDF scanned:

It would probably have been better all around if the government in the first place had frankly subsidized their wages on the private work they were already doing.

http://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson-2/
www.fee.org/files/doclib/20121116_EconomicsInOneLesson.pdf

[On minimum wage vs welfare or unemployment schemes that compete with actually working. It is not an endorsement of doing such but possibly a better, less harmful way to do the wrong thing.]

[2young2vote]

Many socialist/capitalist nations are actually less regulated than the USA, and often have fewer taxes on corporations (the exact opposite of what liberals in the US want). Not to mention that the beloved Norway is extremely dependent on oil (evil, evil oil) and the fact that it is a small nation with ownership of a company in a very profitable industry. They have a government investment portfolio worth over $150,000 per person. Does any sane person actually think the US government, or any entity the US government gives its authority to, is capable of organizing and implementing an investment plan that would be worth over $47 trillion?

No, the best option is to deregulate, and decrease the size of the government. If the government ever gets its finances in order, then maybe it can actually have an intelligent debate regarding social programs. But as it stands right now, it can't even run a post office without losing money.

[acptulsa]

Well you can argue that it doesn't really 'work' that well even in the European countries they are specifically referring to, but they will probably just hear a bunch of "blah blah blah..."

Another tactic you could use is the fact that these are smaller countries that are more similar to the size of the states we have here in the US. It would be better if any socialism was handled at the state level if it exists at all.

Exactly. And better still on the county or city level. If the federal government is in charge of your local fire department, and there's a problem with it, you have to convince some twenty million voters that your fire department is more important an gay marriage, abortion and their own fire departments combined. Yes, now--the fedgov is taxing the snot out of you and granting grants to all the local agencies. That's why a certain Democrat once said...

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants, at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. And I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States,... it would become the most corrupt government on the face of the Earth.

This thread is getting pretty good. How come it's only the project threads that get stickied, and never threads like this one?