constructive interesting proposal. thanks
7
One aspect not considered here is low cost publicly owned broadband service. As water and power are basic needs that all must have so too in today's world is access to the web. A good place for 'American Socialism' to take root.
24
If it makes sense it won't happen in America, the corruption that has illegally taken hold of this country with their bought and paid for politicians has no place for Common Sense. They live on and perpetuate ignorance and hate and that is all they know, that and blind greed.
20
Fascism, no doubt, also has its selling points, which clever propagandists like the authors could marshall if they wished. And let's not forget flat-out Communism, which remains appealing in parts of the world.
It seems inconceivable to me that any but those with ulterior motives would favor moving away from a system that not only has innate appeal but has given this country world prominence despite its remote location and comparatively small population: freedom.
But by all means, keep selling your snake oil.
It seems inconceivable to me that any but those with ulterior motives would favor moving away from a system that not only has innate appeal but has given this country world prominence despite its remote location and comparatively small population: freedom.
But by all means, keep selling your snake oil.
5
How's the postal service working out? The "dividends" in Alaska amount to a couple hundred bucks, hardly enough to live like a Kardashian. Socialism on any kind of large scale does not work, has Amtrak ever made any money? Does this fact keep the NYT from pushing a far left agenda, no it does not. This is simply the far left feel good de jure.
6
There is plenty of room for public-private enterprise in our economic system. There may be an opportunity cost when we use capital to support certain government activities like funding for schools and roads. There is no free lunch.
5
Unfortunately, the states may be more efficient as custodians of public funds than the federal government.
2
I find it particularly puzzling that most of these Socialist regimes and giveaways are in Red (GOP) States. And I grew up thinking the Red Scare was from the USSR! But it's really from the GOP!
5
China seems to be a prime example of public ownership that seems to work now. Time will tell, as the saying goes.
1
Alperovitz and Hanna leave out one of the most prominent examples. According to the Constitution, the federal government is REQUIRED to run a package and letter delivery business -- it is to "establish Post Offices and post Roads".
5
Interesting that the first three examples cited all related to public "ownership" of fossil fuel assets. How will liberals reconcile their desire for more government involvement with cheerleading for success of oil, gas and coal?
Separately, before proclaiming that public ownership of enterprise is just as efficient as private ownership, you ought to check out the history of large publicly owned enterprises elsewhere, like Pemex in Mexico, PDVSA in Venezuela and Petrobras in Brazil. Not exactly world leading enterprises.
Separately, before proclaiming that public ownership of enterprise is just as efficient as private ownership, you ought to check out the history of large publicly owned enterprises elsewhere, like Pemex in Mexico, PDVSA in Venezuela and Petrobras in Brazil. Not exactly world leading enterprises.
2
In America, we have socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest. The wealthy know well how to privatize the profits and socialize the costs.
This editorial is making the point that almost all of us would be better off if we did not allow that to happen.
It is unfortunate that most Americans are so involved in day to day struggles (or watching Faux News) that they never understand why they can never get ahead.
The wealthy have made a very nice socialist club for themselves and we're not in it.
This editorial is making the point that almost all of us would be better off if we did not allow that to happen.
It is unfortunate that most Americans are so involved in day to day struggles (or watching Faux News) that they never understand why they can never get ahead.
The wealthy have made a very nice socialist club for themselves and we're not in it.
24
Public ownership of the payment system. The Federal Reserve is already the heart of this system; yet the corrupt and reckless banks almost brought this country's economy down in 2008. Banking services could be distributed elsewhere, such as market place lending, or mutual funds, or money market funds. Banks are obsolete, overly expensive, and crisis prone. Taxpayers don't need to fund yet another future round of bailouts.
2
My simple question to many who oppose any word called public ownership - do they think that Bain capital or private equity houses will build roads to rural areas or build any infrastructure there? Will someone build hospitals in rural areas where they dont see any ROI? Who will spend money on pure research where there cannot be any ROI calculation possible? Do they know that all major private universities run research on some govt funds?
14
Let's hope so. I hunt public lands frequently and while there is a special license required, costs are not too high. I wonder how many of my fellow SC hunters appreciate this as socialism? I am guessing not many.
8
Promoting public ownership of capital is fraught with potential for confusion and fear, for clearly not all capital should be publicly owned. It might be a better argument to think in terms of what a truly free market is and what the conditions for its functioning are. Only where those conditions cannot structurally exist is it appropriate for government to be an active participant in providing goods or services.
Just as the Soviet Union was dissolved in the 1990s as a result of its structural collapse, so would I suggest the United States to eventually reinvent itself, in ways that increases public empowerment (that is, if you wish. for the benefit of every individual constituent of this Nation). Just consider renaming the U.S. in either one of these two versions: a) for Democrats the United Socialists States of America (U.S.S.A.); b) for Republicans the United Socialist Republics of America (U.S.R.A.).
3
Dispassionate non ideological appraisal of the most effective and beneficial use of our National resources has never been achieved but has instead been poorly and ineffectively negotiated through the use of financial power and political access. It is abundantly clear that a well coordinated use of solar, wind, thermal, nuclear, aqueous and carbon based extracted resources would be optimal but there is no political motivation and coordination across these competing domains to achieve National strategies that would redound to our shared benefit. Who will take the lead in this most important process to achieve a National consensus? Who can and should?
8
"In 2013 President Obama proposed privatizing the T.V.A., but local Republican politicians, concerned with the prospect of higher prices for consumers and less money for their states, successfully opposed the idea."
What? I thought private enterprise always, always, always does things more effectively and efficiently than the government. At least that's what I hear from Republicans. So here's a case where Republicans are saying that the government is more efficient than private enterprise - shouldn't their heads be exploding? Or will they just continue with the same old lie, knowing for a fact that it's not true? Let's see - I think I can guess.
What? I thought private enterprise always, always, always does things more effectively and efficiently than the government. At least that's what I hear from Republicans. So here's a case where Republicans are saying that the government is more efficient than private enterprise - shouldn't their heads be exploding? Or will they just continue with the same old lie, knowing for a fact that it's not true? Let's see - I think I can guess.
17
It is great that public enterprise can be run at a profit that, in turn, is used to benefit the community. But public enterprise also has an important mandate that private enterprise does not: To protect the public commons. Private companies often chafe at regulations designed to do this in the private sector, but this is implicit in the public sphere. When the public owns an asset, it is utilized and maintained for the public good--another important source of profit that may be hard to quantify, but nevertheless needs to be recognized.
15
It is telling that Alperovitz and Hanna refer to the theories of Joseph Schumpeter who died in 1950, when the great socialist experiment of the 20th century was not even halfway done. In fact, the two most perfect, controlled social experiments ever run had barely begun.
The first controlled social experiment was Germany. In 1945, we drew a line down the middle of Germany and separated it into two parts. Both parts contained exactly the same people: Germans. But, the western part was run on capitalist principles while the eastern part was run on socialist principles.
The same thing was done on the Korean peninsula. The northern part was run on socialist principles while the southern part was run on capitalist principles.
Both experiments ran their courses, we have the results, we know the answer. The answer can be summed up in one spectacular photograph. One has only to google the image "Korean Peninsula At Night" to know everything there is to know about socialism,
http://journal.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Satellite-view-...
The first controlled social experiment was Germany. In 1945, we drew a line down the middle of Germany and separated it into two parts. Both parts contained exactly the same people: Germans. But, the western part was run on capitalist principles while the eastern part was run on socialist principles.
The same thing was done on the Korean peninsula. The northern part was run on socialist principles while the southern part was run on capitalist principles.
Both experiments ran their courses, we have the results, we know the answer. The answer can be summed up in one spectacular photograph. One has only to google the image "Korean Peninsula At Night" to know everything there is to know about socialism,
http://journal.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Satellite-view-...
5
Nebraska gets 72.1% of its power from coal, 18.5% from nukes. A measley 4.86 came from wind, the balance from other sources.
I short, NE customers benefit from two of the cheapest sources of power and have very little in the way of expensive "green" energy. That, not the fact that it's a socialist utility, likely, explains their low costs.
But let's be clear: power delivery, if not production, is a problem for the free market, unless one wishes numerous, duplicative power lines. There's nothing inherently wrong with a public utility delivering the product. And more than there's a problem with maintaining roads.
Anyone who sees governmental control over matters to be a panacea need only review the PANYNJ for what such entities often tend to become.
Young folk are often skeptical about freedom. After all, they've just from college, where their profs tend to despise freedom, and it takes a while for the real world to demonstrate how little those ivory tower socialists understand about reality.
I short, NE customers benefit from two of the cheapest sources of power and have very little in the way of expensive "green" energy. That, not the fact that it's a socialist utility, likely, explains their low costs.
But let's be clear: power delivery, if not production, is a problem for the free market, unless one wishes numerous, duplicative power lines. There's nothing inherently wrong with a public utility delivering the product. And more than there's a problem with maintaining roads.
Anyone who sees governmental control over matters to be a panacea need only review the PANYNJ for what such entities often tend to become.
Young folk are often skeptical about freedom. After all, they've just from college, where their profs tend to despise freedom, and it takes a while for the real world to demonstrate how little those ivory tower socialists understand about reality.
1
The existing economic order will need to adapt mainly because the current system has not performed well. This last recession and its slow recovery and Piketty's book has attracted our thinking class & a lot of ideas will be coming forth for adaptation of capitalism. The suggestions of this well written essay that one of the mutations will be more publicly owned enterprises seems to be inevitable.
Clearly, for the survival of our species the World society must eventually move to emissions-free transportation and electricity generation. Thus far, outer space is still not owned by investors so it is highly likely that an international organization will be formed to place solar generators in orbit to collect the energy from the Sun and beam it to the Earth. For market purposes the benefits of this low cost electricity will be broadly shared. There may be a corporation formed to use this cheap power to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for those who still want to be independent because soon oil & gas will deplete. But probably urbanized society will use 300 mph superconducting magnetic levitation (MAGLEV) for passenger travel & carrying delivery trucks at very low fares. National Maglev Networks linked by transcontinental MAGLEV mainlines that will connect 5 continents with tunnels at Gibraltar and the Bering Strait would help a lot of people live a better live. I can't imagine publicly owned food but it is easy to think of water, healthcare & waste treatment.
Clearly, for the survival of our species the World society must eventually move to emissions-free transportation and electricity generation. Thus far, outer space is still not owned by investors so it is highly likely that an international organization will be formed to place solar generators in orbit to collect the energy from the Sun and beam it to the Earth. For market purposes the benefits of this low cost electricity will be broadly shared. There may be a corporation formed to use this cheap power to make synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for those who still want to be independent because soon oil & gas will deplete. But probably urbanized society will use 300 mph superconducting magnetic levitation (MAGLEV) for passenger travel & carrying delivery trucks at very low fares. National Maglev Networks linked by transcontinental MAGLEV mainlines that will connect 5 continents with tunnels at Gibraltar and the Bering Strait would help a lot of people live a better live. I can't imagine publicly owned food but it is easy to think of water, healthcare & waste treatment.
4
The genuine question is not whether capital should be privately, or publicly "owned." The question is whether capital is productively employed; whether it's utilization leads to an increase in genuine wealth, and well being, or whether capital is spent and little, or nothing gained. Wasted.
A good deal of private employment of money does nothing to improve anyone's lot in life, but more of the same may be said of public expenditure of tax revenues and public borrowing.
More than a trillion public dollars have been spent on the so called, War on Poverty, and another trillion or so on the so called, War on Drugs. And these, call them what you want, government expenditures, public investments, have been made for generations. And not only are illicit drugs still with us, and still an enormous societal problem, but the poor also appear to be with us as much as ever before. And, perhaps, in the biblical sense, always will be.
It seems abundantly clear that, just like private enterprise, socialist enterprise is just as subject to bankruptcy.
A good deal of private employment of money does nothing to improve anyone's lot in life, but more of the same may be said of public expenditure of tax revenues and public borrowing.
More than a trillion public dollars have been spent on the so called, War on Poverty, and another trillion or so on the so called, War on Drugs. And these, call them what you want, government expenditures, public investments, have been made for generations. And not only are illicit drugs still with us, and still an enormous societal problem, but the poor also appear to be with us as much as ever before. And, perhaps, in the biblical sense, always will be.
It seems abundantly clear that, just like private enterprise, socialist enterprise is just as subject to bankruptcy.
2
Government can excel at doing what it truly wants to do well. Try not filing a 2015 tax return for proof of that. But with cases like Amtrak, infrastructure, energy, health care and defense conservative crony capitalism, greed and selective mismanagement often bar efficiencies that other countries take for granted. Which is why we have 200 MPH trains operating on 35 MPH right-of-way.
4
During the 1930s public banks were established by the social credit movement in the US, Canada, New Zealand. The Public Banking Institute shows that a real momentum exists for more public banks in the US besides the one of North Dakota. Banks like electric utilities are to be public owned. So, privately owned banking systems are to become utilities, at least a good number of them to start with.
We have to go beyond socialized banking to a transformed international monetary system which as glue would bind together transformed monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. One way of transforming the present unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system is to be anchor it in a monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system is presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
We have to go beyond socialized banking to a transformed international monetary system which as glue would bind together transformed monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems. One way of transforming the present unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system is to be anchor it in a monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system is presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
In looking through the NYT, I find it interesting that in just one day, the following stories are covered - this one extolling the benefits of socialism, another on public housing, another on compulsory state-provided pensions and yet another on a punitive financial transactions tax.
Has the country turned that far left ? Maybe. But 31 States now have Republican Governors including such formerly blue states as IL, MA and MD. Republicans now control the Senate and have the largest majority in the House in years.
Perhaps these articles speak more for a liberal rush to enact left-wing policies before the bill needs to be paid in the 2016 election. In any event, let it not be said that the Right is the only one to have moved in a more extreme direction. When the NYT can comfortably speak of socialism and an openly socialist Senator is running for the Democratic nomination, seeking the moderate center is certainly not foremost in their minds.
Has the country turned that far left ? Maybe. But 31 States now have Republican Governors including such formerly blue states as IL, MA and MD. Republicans now control the Senate and have the largest majority in the House in years.
Perhaps these articles speak more for a liberal rush to enact left-wing policies before the bill needs to be paid in the 2016 election. In any event, let it not be said that the Right is the only one to have moved in a more extreme direction. When the NYT can comfortably speak of socialism and an openly socialist Senator is running for the Democratic nomination, seeking the moderate center is certainly not foremost in their minds.
1
Meanwhile, my community inexplicably sold its public water system to a private company. The water is still safe to drink, for now. Saving money? I don't think so.
3
Sounds good. But in my country public owned services have always been obsolete, tax munchers, full of political friends and relatives, very inefficient and a nest for corruption. Lucky you!
Government cannot allocate capital efficiently. Notice that the allocations are all to left leaning enterprises, and public needs - read redistribution here. This is such folly. Getting all of the capital will make all of the producers slaves to PC causes and whether it makes sense we will all invest in inefficient markets like PV solar (for without the government subsidy it would be cost inefficient). We would all shiver in the winter wanting that natural gas/coal fired plant to fill the needs.
Sadly, it appears that in America we almost always confuse socialism with communism. We are seeing the early stages of discussion of some movement toward socialism because we have grown to be way out of balance in wealth in the US, which is, in any event unsustainable. Simple, reasonable measures, like raising taxes on the top 10%, limiting CEO pay to 100 to 1, reinstating Glass Stiegel, taxing consumption more, eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes, extending Medicare for all, scaling back warmaking, etc. should be considered modest goals toward bringing us back onto a more sound national footing long term.
5
If they have not already done so, this story creates another target for the Kochs.
Nothing surprising here. Rather it's the ideological blinders of 'either one or the other' that prevents meaningful and constructive discussion.
And in 'cost-benefit' analysis, we need to consider redefining 'benefit' because now, too often, it means that profit and benefit are considered synonymous when we all know that often is very, very far from the truth and dehumanizing.
And in 'cost-benefit' analysis, we need to consider redefining 'benefit' because now, too often, it means that profit and benefit are considered synonymous when we all know that often is very, very far from the truth and dehumanizing.
2
The question will always be: We have government which can and does serve as watchdog over private business. Who do we have to watch over the government, especially the entrenched, non-elected massive bureaucracy? The federal government currently owns massive portions of land in western states. What good has been accrued to the populations of those states?
It's funny that our entire capitalistic system is based on public goods. Rule of law, defense, money (2008 is enough to prove that) and fundamental science research. We need capitalism but not what these Republicans are selling, that's just idiocy. Oh by the way, GE, Apple etc.... don't want to pay a penny for the above....
12
@SD: "GE, Apple etc.... don't want to pay a penny for the above...."
If you are referring to taxes, corporations are ultimately owned by shareholders, who are individuals. Individuals don't "want" to pay taxes. Correct?
If you are referring to taxes, corporations are ultimately owned by shareholders, who are individuals. Individuals don't "want" to pay taxes. Correct?
What we do know is that too much wealth in the hands of private individuals can have a distorting effect on everything it touches, like the way a black hole warps the space around it. We attempt to control potential abuses of government power through checks, balances, and accountability. It's less clear how we deal with the power of concentrated wealth. Progressive taxation, inheritance taxes, limits on money in political campaigns - conservatives have attacked all of these.
What seems to be interesting about public enterprises is that conservatives will support them as long as they perceive it costs them less money. Let them see it as an opportunity to make money, and their attitude changes.
It's the old problem of unenlightened self-interest.
What seems to be interesting about public enterprises is that conservatives will support them as long as they perceive it costs them less money. Let them see it as an opportunity to make money, and their attitude changes.
It's the old problem of unenlightened self-interest.
7
I think Texas and Wyoming oil/mineral extraction revenue is more of a tax paid by all of us than running a profitable business just for the benefit of the residents. There is a BIG difference between taking a portion of revenue and creating the revenue.
2
Huh? The Earth creates the revenue. The people of Texas and Wyoming own the earth in question and they receive the surplus. How is that a "tax paid by all of us"?
Wasn't this idea tried already? Country begins with an R?
1
@ML: "Country begins with an R?"
Rhodesia? Rwanda? BTW, "USSR" begins with a "U".
Rhodesia? Rwanda? BTW, "USSR" begins with a "U".
1
The idea of public-ownership of forests and other wild lands used both for recreation and extraction of commodities, waterways used for recreation, public water needs and hydro-electric energy, vast low-desert lands used for solar and wind generated power, as well as recreation, etc., all sound like a win-win.
Perhaps the single state of Nevada, which has all of these potentials, PLUS State-Sanctioned vs. Native American Licensed, Casino revenue to eliminate much of the need for state-city-local taxes is model to consider.
Alaska also offer tax-free benefits to its residents, but not every state has the same natural resources to exploit.
The National Casino Model appeals to me, and not because I enjoy smoke-filled poker halls and noisy slot-machine hotels, but because it would be a challenge for Donald Trump to over-come.
As if he doesn't have enough challenges.
Perhaps the single state of Nevada, which has all of these potentials, PLUS State-Sanctioned vs. Native American Licensed, Casino revenue to eliminate much of the need for state-city-local taxes is model to consider.
Alaska also offer tax-free benefits to its residents, but not every state has the same natural resources to exploit.
The National Casino Model appeals to me, and not because I enjoy smoke-filled poker halls and noisy slot-machine hotels, but because it would be a challenge for Donald Trump to over-come.
As if he doesn't have enough challenges.
It's worth noting that communism morphed into Stalinism and failed not because of the principles of Marx, which were both solid and benevolent, but because of the personality of Stalin, which were derivative of the religious fundamentalism of Russian culture. Americans are stuck with the pablum on the subject fed to them by corporate fear mongers, but for those who've done the reading enough to know the details of history, an American socialism holds great promise.
11
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Anyone who tells you different is lying.
This leads directly to the following: Whenever you get something for free, somewhere someone else is getting nothing, and yet still giving up something.
When will these authors really investigate the cherry-picked data they have hand-selected, and find out precisely where the increases in costs are delivered? Probably never - because they would then have to show the true picture, instead of the small corner that they want you to believe is happening.
This leads directly to the following: Whenever you get something for free, somewhere someone else is getting nothing, and yet still giving up something.
When will these authors really investigate the cherry-picked data they have hand-selected, and find out precisely where the increases in costs are delivered? Probably never - because they would then have to show the true picture, instead of the small corner that they want you to believe is happening.
5
@KarlosTJ: "Whenever you get something for free, somewhere someone else is getting nothing, and yet still giving up something."
When you breath air, does someone else suffocate? Please refine your thesis so that it is plausible, if not true.
When you breath air, does someone else suffocate? Please refine your thesis so that it is plausible, if not true.
1
At first I was going to ask a rhetorical question as to whether Mr. Alperovitz, a leftist of long standing, voted for the "non-socialist" Barack Obama? From his Wikipedia bio I find that (quote) As of April 2015, he serves on the Green Shadow Cabinet of the United States as "New Economy Advisor to the President." Socialism comes in various gradations, ranging from the European social democracies to North Korea. While I vastly prefer the American capitalist system, especially in its earlier, freer states, it would be a welcome sight to see some honesty in the use of terms describing our politicians. Of course if such honesty had existed in 2008 Mr. Obama would not have become the nominee of his party, let alone President of the United States.
Internet service is a good example of where socialized systems benefit communities. Setting up a high speed system in a community for everyone allows business to thrive and innovation to flourish. Monopolized cable companies want to stop communities from doing this and have used state legislatures to create ALEC laws to protect their monopolies.
5
Note that Alaska's wealth fund distribution does not seem to extend to building bridges just to allow the wealthy easier access to airports. That's what the Federal govt. is for. State wealth distributions are vote buyers, nothing more. That alone explains the reluctance to privatize bodies like the TVA, whose influence extends far beyond its location. It is a major customer for Minnesota anthracite and runs mile-long trains night and day to deliver it. Imagine if some corporation decided to run it without that insane fuel source, or move its generating capacity closer to the mines. What uproar! Socialism? Nah, populism, which is politics that is both red and blue.
This essay makes me nostalgic. Not for socialist ideas so much as for a time when ideas mattered, when the political process worked, & when the public had political representation, instead of politicians & their media manipulating publics. But realistically, are the energy industries going to start lobbying governments to take over their business? Are the Republicans going to suddenly start thinking about what's good for the country instead of what feeds their political anger industry?
6
Uh oh, I fear you've just given right wingers a new list of "socialist" businesses to attack!
2
While State ownership of public lands while leasing mineral rights to private operators doesn't strike me as being particularly "socialist," the benefits of publicly owned electric utilities show that the public sector can be as efficient as the private sector.
Why stop there? How about pointing out that Medicare delivers the same or better services to the elderly cheaper than any private insurer possibly could. How about pointing out that the Postal Service can deliver letters at a fraction of the cost of any private delivery service? How about comparing the cost of an interstate highway to the Denver Airport toll road? And the private passenger railroads that all went out of business? Public housing, public education, I have yet to see an example where the private sector is actually cheaper and better.
By the way, what makes Joseph Schumpeter a "conservative" economist, other than maybe he was mostly talking about extractive industries?
Why stop there? How about pointing out that Medicare delivers the same or better services to the elderly cheaper than any private insurer possibly could. How about pointing out that the Postal Service can deliver letters at a fraction of the cost of any private delivery service? How about comparing the cost of an interstate highway to the Denver Airport toll road? And the private passenger railroads that all went out of business? Public housing, public education, I have yet to see an example where the private sector is actually cheaper and better.
By the way, what makes Joseph Schumpeter a "conservative" economist, other than maybe he was mostly talking about extractive industries?
6
A totally capitalist system will not work; a totally socialist system will not work.
We should abandon the idea of having either capitalism or socialism and create a new ism -- "pragmatism" where we let capitalism do what it does best and socialism do what it does best. We already do this in some areas, as the article describes. Going forward, there may be -- and should be -- debates about what is most pragmatic, but let's be pragmatists and not force ourselves into demonized "capitalist" or "socialist" camps.
We should abandon the idea of having either capitalism or socialism and create a new ism -- "pragmatism" where we let capitalism do what it does best and socialism do what it does best. We already do this in some areas, as the article describes. Going forward, there may be -- and should be -- debates about what is most pragmatic, but let's be pragmatists and not force ourselves into demonized "capitalist" or "socialist" camps.
8
I always like to look first at the bios of the writers, to see wherein their biases lie. When I saw Mr Alperovitz book title, I was reminded of a parlor game rearranging the words in a book title.
One of the most common books is Frank Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" It could be "Then How Should We Live" or "We Should Then Live How?" or "Should We, Then, Live? How?"
So "What Then Must We Do?" can become:
Then We Must Do WHAT!?
Do, Then, What We Must
Do We Must? Then What?
You get the idea. Now I'm going to read the article :)
One of the most common books is Frank Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" It could be "Then How Should We Live" or "We Should Then Live How?" or "Should We, Then, Live? How?"
So "What Then Must We Do?" can become:
Then We Must Do WHAT!?
Do, Then, What We Must
Do We Must? Then What?
You get the idea. Now I'm going to read the article :)
2
Dadgummit! Who's the squirrely pinko traitor behind this? Tear up those deals and sell everything off to the highest bidder! And do it now, before we all wake up in same-sex marriages.
Seriously, most American conservatives don't have a problem with sharing. They just don't want to share something they don't need or use (public transportation) or with anyone that scares them (on the other side of the gates).
Seriously, most American conservatives don't have a problem with sharing. They just don't want to share something they don't need or use (public transportation) or with anyone that scares them (on the other side of the gates).
3
In Arizona the DMV is poorly run, with outdated computers, run down offices, long wait times and surly employees. The state allows a private company to open storefronts where it can offer DMV services without the customer having to go to a state run office.
This private company charges, in some cases, up to FIVE times the fee for the same service as the state run DMV.
The tax OF capital (executive compensation, profits, shareholder equity) adds probably 20-30% to the cost of everything. Much has been made over the lower administrative costs of Medicare versus privately run HC insurance systems, for example.
Sovereign wealth funds and other forms of conservative capitalism can eliminate this drain on productive capital, taking it away from the few who hoard it, and put it to work on the front lines of lowering costs to consumers.
This private company charges, in some cases, up to FIVE times the fee for the same service as the state run DMV.
The tax OF capital (executive compensation, profits, shareholder equity) adds probably 20-30% to the cost of everything. Much has been made over the lower administrative costs of Medicare versus privately run HC insurance systems, for example.
Sovereign wealth funds and other forms of conservative capitalism can eliminate this drain on productive capital, taking it away from the few who hoard it, and put it to work on the front lines of lowering costs to consumers.
2
When I visited NYC in 2011, one of the first things I noticed was how faded the skyscrapers looked, how much permanent ongoing renovation was taking place, and how few real greenery there is. As several of the boroughs seem to be at great risk of flooding in global warming-induced storms, the federal government should place an immediate moratorium on building any kind of structure, and force any vacant structure to be torn down - to be replaced with native grasses and trees. Any and all bridges, subways systems, and other infrastructure should be allowed to decay, and maintenance stopped immediately, as it will accelerate the reversion to a more natural state that should never be allowed to become a mega city. After all, the master plan clearly states that Columbia, MO is the best place to build a mega city.
If you read this far without bursting into laughter, then I have some farmland in central Missouri to sell to you. If you read the above and still agree with me, then chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged is next.
If government is the answer, then all is lost.
If you read this far without bursting into laughter, then I have some farmland in central Missouri to sell to you. If you read the above and still agree with me, then chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged is next.
If government is the answer, then all is lost.
1
Markets have no inherent mechanisms for determining how to optimally utilize resources for the public good, that is the role of conscious and thoughtful people working hard and considerately together. Markets do not and cannot address the long term outcomes of things important to human life on Earth, they address the immediate needs and wants of participants which can easily cause the resources available not to be applied to long term ones. A simple solution to this inherent limitation of markets is for the people together deliberately planning for important future needs and changes to how people live. In a liberal democracy public undertakings are just ways for the people to accomplish things together that would just not be possible for the many separate individuals to do separately. Since the authority to direct public undertakings is under control of representatives answerable to the people according to laws, it's a far different relationship than what occurs in states where a government is not accountable to the people as in Marxist states that have existed over the past century.
1
For tax purposes there is little difference in public ownership and nonprofit ownership. All of the public projects could easily be transfered to nonprofit control. Perhaps the cost benefit analysis of the best management depends upon comparing the oversight of partisan officials and civil servants (like the Veterans Administration Hospitals) with the nonprofit sector (like Catholic Health Services).
My own state, Pennsylvania, should have considered something like this. The fracking industry, has been barely taxed, is shipping the resources of this state in the form of Marcellus Shale oil and gas elsewhere. Everyday mile long trains of black tank cars rumble slowly through Philadelphia over crumbling rail bridges and rail lines, on the way to refineries, tanks and pipelines. Moody’s has identified at least four school districts in the state as some of the most fiscally distressed districts in America. These include Philadelphia and districts in the Pittsburgh area. Once the decision to “Frack” was made the Republican dominated legislature and Democrats may have been able to get together, given a bit of leadership, and come up with a plan along the likes of Alaska, Texas, or Wyoming, to use the resources of the state to benefit all Pennsylvanians. Instead the industry and its lobbyists won.
4
"With skepticism about capitalism growing among minorities and young voters, will we see more such endeavors in the future?"
Skepticism about government is growing among these groups as well. Quite justifiably.
Skepticism about government is growing among these groups as well. Quite justifiably.
1
Obvious place to start: the cable companies.
4
As someone who grew up in India, I saw close at hand what a disaster public ownership of businesses can be. India started its development when Fabian Socialism was all the rage. The Government of India got into all kinds of businesses such as steel making and oil exploration. Most of these businesses are disasters. Problem with public ownership of businesses is that the government has lot of responsibilities besides making profit and more often than not profit becomes the last priority. Profits are important because at the end of the day that is how a business grows, absorbs new technology and adapts to change. Government does best when it is in the umpires seat as regulator.
1
Government ownership and taxes? How about all corporations, instead of paying an income tax, they provide 15% of ownership to government? Government keeps 15% of income/cash flow in lieu of taxes and 15% of Board of Directors provides a seat for the workers.
Additionally, corporations would pay a usage tax--pay for what you get. Global corporations, and all businesses for that matter, enjoy US protection overseas, safety in the US, infrastructure use, and so on. Plus, having access to US markets has value per se--so there would be a sales tax. Protecting wealth both earned and earning (investments) should be taxed accordingly because there is more to secure and more opportunity to prosper. A pay for what you get aspect needs to be introduced with a progressive foundation.
Additionally, corporations would pay a usage tax--pay for what you get. Global corporations, and all businesses for that matter, enjoy US protection overseas, safety in the US, infrastructure use, and so on. Plus, having access to US markets has value per se--so there would be a sales tax. Protecting wealth both earned and earning (investments) should be taxed accordingly because there is more to secure and more opportunity to prosper. A pay for what you get aspect needs to be introduced with a progressive foundation.
3
A perfect example of public ownership is town owned fiber optic broadband and telephone networks run by a municipal lighting plant. Town taxpayer band together to build and operate a network that the incumbent Telecom corporations refuse to build and provide better service at a lower cost in a location that big telcom refused to serve.
Leverett, Massachusetts being a great example. The build is paid for with bond money backed the real estate tax. The monthly operation and maintenance cost is paid by the subscribers.
The taxpayer subscribers actually end up saving money over what they were paying for inferior services service even with the cost of the tax increase for the build. Small and publicly owned with local control is beautiful!
Leverett, Massachusetts being a great example. The build is paid for with bond money backed the real estate tax. The monthly operation and maintenance cost is paid by the subscribers.
The taxpayer subscribers actually end up saving money over what they were paying for inferior services service even with the cost of the tax increase for the build. Small and publicly owned with local control is beautiful!
3
Just because the authors of this article call these relatively few situations examples "socialism" does not mean that they actually are "socialist." It may be better to describe them as examples of public welfare program created for very specific situations. Of course, if the accepted definition of "socialism" were to change to something much closer to what the authors have in mind, then their premise would be quite valid. However, I'm not holding my breath for that change.
It's entirely about who worthy of pay for their contribution and who isn't.
Socialism on another front. I always get a secret thrill when I visit Washington D.C.'s excellent museums in the mall. They are federally owned. Public sector. And top-notch. They're even free endpoint everyone. Paradoxically, they are socialist institutions symbolizing cultural life (in art, science, historical memory) in the capital of capitaiism...Go figure. I once heard a guard approach a tourist (in the days when photographs were not allowed) explaining the prohibition to take pictures because the flash damaged the paintings and "these things belong to the American people." A socialist ethos at the very symbolic center of US capitalism. The ironies of history.
3
How's the postal service working out? The "dividends" in Alaska amount to a couple hundred bucks, hardly enough to live like a Kardashian. Socialism on any kind of large scale does not work, has Amtrak ever made any money? Does this fact keep the NYT from pushing a far left agenda, no it does not. This is simply the far left feel good de jure.
1
While some of the utility style, hopefully ageless times, such as keeping infrastructure in good condition would make sense, most countries that have large public entities that extra profits or in many cases rents, are very corrupt for good reason. It is often cheaper to corrupt! Look at Petrobras. If there were very persistent and consistent industries the government could partake in I would be for them, but they are hard to find. The worst thing you can give a government is too much money.
I object! This kind of Socialism threatens the basic fabric of American society as we know it today.
That fabric is of course the for greater profits motive. Which under the current system allows a few to become faboulsly rich at the expense of the rest of us. This in turn makes it possible for these fabously rich to give generous campaign contributions to our politicians. So our elected representitives can do what the 1% thinks needs to be done to continue and expand the process. And get rich and powerful themselves. Yeah! It's our system. So if it ain't broke.... Or is it?
That fabric is of course the for greater profits motive. Which under the current system allows a few to become faboulsly rich at the expense of the rest of us. This in turn makes it possible for these fabously rich to give generous campaign contributions to our politicians. So our elected representitives can do what the 1% thinks needs to be done to continue and expand the process. And get rich and powerful themselves. Yeah! It's our system. So if it ain't broke.... Or is it?
1
I support the ideal that certain resources (namely public utilities) should be socialized. But at what level? The imbalance in the current systems results in some areas being able to offer such lower costs that permit them to steal resources from others. TVA is a prime example. Is there any reason Northeasterners could be subsidizing utilities in Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Georgia, while they pay the highest costs for power in the county, as these states also use their cost advantage to steal employers and jobs, further driving the imbalance as those who stay behind are left to pick up the cost. Perhaps the entire nation's utility grid should be taken over and operated by a government entity with all costs shared evenly across the board.
Funny isn't it though how hypocritical conservative behavior can be in determining to which markets it should be applied? It would seem that what conservatives covet most are those markets that are low risk, high reward. Otherwise, they'll gladly take the profits as long as the rest of us bear the risk.
Funny isn't it though how hypocritical conservative behavior can be in determining to which markets it should be applied? It would seem that what conservatives covet most are those markets that are low risk, high reward. Otherwise, they'll gladly take the profits as long as the rest of us bear the risk.
4
Brilliant. We socialists are too easily satisfied by the inherent superiority of our general approach, so we haven't done a great job of selling it.
2
SOCIALISTS ON THE RIGHT? It's fascinating to read how certain socialized programs at the state level have been in existence for significant periods of time with good results. I really wonder what Sarah Palin would say about the socialized program in Alaska. I know, I know, she'll have to get back to me on that one. Texas? Has a socialized program? Do my eyes deceive me? I guess since the programs are administered by local public officials, they're seen as being more under the control of citizens than things happening all the way down in Never Never Land of DC. I recall people hurling invective at Obamacare as being socialized medicine and Obama himself being a socialist. Now if he were just a Republican--well some things just ain't gonna happen. What I'm really curious about is the working conditions and job benefits of people who work in these socialized state programs. Do they get minimum wage with no benefits and rely on Medicaid and Food Stamps? Or do they pay employees a decent living wage with fair benefits? I'd love to see the presidential contenders debate this topic! It's such a potential bombshell--figuratively speaking, of course!
2
Our economic system is best measured by wage-based purchasing power. Inherent monopolies are therefore best owned and operated by governments as there is an inherent conflict between for-profit monopolies and price containment or implementation of more effective technologies.
the most appropriate area for nationalization are those whose existence depends upon government easements. This would include distribution systems for water, power, communications and transportation and collection systems for sewage.
Take power distribution systems as an example. All of the construction and maintenance of the grid would be placed under government ownership and control while generation, whether rooftop or central would be independent. The user would pick at any instant the available power source whose generation and transmission costs are at a minimum. Power generators could increase rates for newly arrived customers as they near capacity.
Such a system would strengthen true capitalism while providing lowest prices to consumers.
the most appropriate area for nationalization are those whose existence depends upon government easements. This would include distribution systems for water, power, communications and transportation and collection systems for sewage.
Take power distribution systems as an example. All of the construction and maintenance of the grid would be placed under government ownership and control while generation, whether rooftop or central would be independent. The user would pick at any instant the available power source whose generation and transmission costs are at a minimum. Power generators could increase rates for newly arrived customers as they near capacity.
Such a system would strengthen true capitalism while providing lowest prices to consumers.
1
In spite of the boom of the stock markets, American capitalism has been hurt a lot recently. Highly political oil barons including Koch Brothers have been losing a lot of their wealth because of sharply declining oil prices initiated by Saudi and other OPEC members. British Petroleum has paid oil-spill compensations more than they expected. In Wall Street, banks have been paying huge sum of penalties against violations that they thought it is okay. They are also facing government's tighter control in their hedge fund operations. In Detroit, GM and other auto manufacturers are facing unprecedented recalls that they have never expected. Another highly political Sheldon Adelson has been losing his wealth in Macau because of anti-graft and anti-gambling campaigns by Chinese government. He is also hurt by declining economic growth in China. In the broad bad area, FCC has made a huge change. They have sided with consumers instead of large corporations.
Republicans and corporations can blame Obama, but I see the tide has changed globally.
Republicans and corporations can blame Obama, but I see the tide has changed globally.
2
Much of the "red state socialism" that we see is a vestige of an earlier age when "prairie progressivism" was dominant (e.g., North Dakota's Non-Partisan League). The endurance of these programs shows the value of institution building--and designing institutions in ways that create their own constituencies. When people can see how they directly benefit from something, they will be more likely to support it. The mix of good policies and good politics is vital.
One risk with this arrangement with extractive industries is that it can create wide public buy-in for continued extraction. Granted, the private ownership and narrow wealth gain also fuels that because of the political power of the owners. Publicly sharing the wealth is better than privately sharing it, but it's better to transition away from such things entirely.
Public ownership of utilities, as Naomi Klein discusses in "This Changes Everything," can be helpful for transitioning utilities away from dirty fuels and toward cleaner, renewable ones because of the greater democratic oversight/governance that comes with it.
Another good book that touches on these issues is Peter Barnes's Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle-Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough. I recently edited a piece by Barnes that will be coming out soon on the Great Transition Initiative website (http://www.greattransition.org/).
Given our constrained political debate, discussions like these are so important for pushing the Overton window.
One risk with this arrangement with extractive industries is that it can create wide public buy-in for continued extraction. Granted, the private ownership and narrow wealth gain also fuels that because of the political power of the owners. Publicly sharing the wealth is better than privately sharing it, but it's better to transition away from such things entirely.
Public ownership of utilities, as Naomi Klein discusses in "This Changes Everything," can be helpful for transitioning utilities away from dirty fuels and toward cleaner, renewable ones because of the greater democratic oversight/governance that comes with it.
Another good book that touches on these issues is Peter Barnes's Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle-Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough. I recently edited a piece by Barnes that will be coming out soon on the Great Transition Initiative website (http://www.greattransition.org/).
Given our constrained political debate, discussions like these are so important for pushing the Overton window.
3
American style capitalism has morphed into a monopoly capitalism; the NYSE is no longer used to raise capital for emerging industries as much as a casino to move money around while collection fees for doing so.
Competition is feared, look at the ways the extraction industries try to hamper the efforts of renewable energy instead of jumping into a modern approach to our energy needs.
In this world subsidies for already profitable industries is called the free market, while subsidies for citizens to help pay for health care is called socialism.
I wonder? Do these people not remember reading about the Bastille?
Competition is feared, look at the ways the extraction industries try to hamper the efforts of renewable energy instead of jumping into a modern approach to our energy needs.
In this world subsidies for already profitable industries is called the free market, while subsidies for citizens to help pay for health care is called socialism.
I wonder? Do these people not remember reading about the Bastille?
5
Glad you mentioned Nebraska, fellas. Cheap electricity in the Cornhusker Nation is fast becoming a thing of the past. A nuclear reactor that didn't react too well, mandated wind energy costs that turned out to be a lot of hot air, long term contracts that locked in expensive natural gas, and just plain old incompetence (and perhaps a little malfeasance) have led to steadily escalating costs across the state. And, don't forget onerous federal regulations.
Go Big Red
Go Big Red
All the United States needs is for the wealthiest to pay an equitable amount of the tax burden of running the United States of America. OUR taxpayer dollars pay for the business costs of tapping OUR natural resources, through government contracts, yet the profits go into the private pockets of the wealthiest through tax write-offs and low tax rates. The oil in Alaska does not belong to Alaska or to the oil companies. It belongs to ALL Americans. At least one-half of the gross profits MUST come back to OUR government to help support OUR social safety net. It's very simple.
8
As a graduate student, I lived in Middletown, PA - home of Three Mile Island nuclear plant of infamous memory. The borough owns a hydroelectric dam on the Susquehanna River. The cost of heating, cooling, cooking and lighting my apartment was less than half of what it would have cost me living only a few miles away in Harrisburg.
I have long asked why essential utilities such as water and fuel needed for heating and cooking are not owned by the community rather than by private enterprise.
I have long asked why essential utilities such as water and fuel needed for heating and cooking are not owned by the community rather than by private enterprise.
9
Despite conservative hype, the free market does NOT invariably lead to an efficient allocation of resources nor does it assure a maximized rate of economic growth. The "Asian Miracle" economies---Japan, South Korea, China, Malaysia, Taiwan, Singapore---have shown the world how to speed a nation's economic growth. But somehow their lesson has yet to be learned by conservative, anti-Keynesian economists.
9
Actually what the Asian economies learned was by copying how the West initially grew into advanced industrial powers: heavy government involvement.
But once the West did that they started listening again to the neo-feudalists who again want to install an economic nobility with them as the neo-nobility.
But once the West did that they started listening again to the neo-feudalists who again want to install an economic nobility with them as the neo-nobility.
1
All governments should fully fund themselves by selling their expertise and engaging in profit-making enterprises. 70 years of income tax is enough. Time to wind it down.
1
....or we could have freedom.
3
freedom for the few to exploit the many as happens now?
2
This would be a good idea if it were not for the eye-popping greed demonstrated daily by Congress, who would stop at nothing to individually acquire a share of the profits. Our Congress is emblematic of white collar criminal behavior that has become the raison d'etre of the "upper crust" throughout the world. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was living in the "gay 90's."
5
Analyses like these prove a simple point: so-called conservatives love socialism just fine. The difference is that they prefer socialism when it works for just themselves and their friends in the form of crony capitalism and the typical corruption of commonizing costs and privatizing profits (private prisons, Mil/Ind Complex, sports stadiums, ad nauseum). Of course, these so-called conservatives prefer to not accept the term "socialism" when they do it. They are experts at the renaming and obfuscations.
9
Social-ISM vs Capital-ISM? Choose your ISM as you wish, the problem is GREED. The problem is WHEN is enough? Some who have "enough" possess an never-ending character fault, a nonstop desire to acquire more, like some sort of hoarder: More wealth, bigger house, more cars, etc....... It's the rare breed who know when they "have" enough.
5
The Province of Ontario owns most of the electrical generation and transmission assets in Ontario. Cheap power used to be one of Ontario's strongest assets, but not any more. Everything went well for years, then there were missteps with nuclear power, and in the last 10 years the provincial liberal party used its control over the utility to convert it to a political instrument by making green energy a priority at an incredibly high cost and little gain in the fight against climate change. The premier of the province loves to stress the importance of action to fight climate change, but the actions the Liberals have taken so far have been so expensive and so inept with so little benefit the whole thing is a sad joke. The accounting at the utilities is opaque, and the exact costs of the debacle are a matter of constant debate. The cost of solar energy has fallen dramatically since Ontario made the deals that have saddled Ontario's consumers and businesses with uncompetitive high power costs for decades to come. The situation is akin to the guy who paid $35,000 for a home entertainment system a few years ago that can now be purchased for $1,500.
2
Gar Alperovitz and Thomas M. Hanna
Primitive civilizations such as the early pioneers and settlers of the USA had to provide their own military defense against Indians, police, firefighters, schoolteachers, medicine, water, sewer, roads, bridges, infrastructure, welfare, social services, and other bureaucratic-provided services as best as they could with their limited resources and their hard work.
The pioneer producers would also pool their resources, tax themselves, and then hire contractors to construct roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, and other infrastructure systems that allowed the producers to become more productive.
These tax-supported government bureaucrats and government contractors do allow the producers to become more productive by relieving the producers having to worry about providing those services for the producers (and for the producer’s families), but the producers limited their expenses for bureaucratic-provided services to the limitations governed by the amount of tax revenues that they wanted to and/or could afford to pay for.
The taxpayers cannot afford to buy food for their children and also pay for the costs of unlimited government employee salaries, unlimited government services and unlimited retirement benefits!
Primitive civilizations such as the early pioneers and settlers of the USA had to provide their own military defense against Indians, police, firefighters, schoolteachers, medicine, water, sewer, roads, bridges, infrastructure, welfare, social services, and other bureaucratic-provided services as best as they could with their limited resources and their hard work.
The pioneer producers would also pool their resources, tax themselves, and then hire contractors to construct roads, bridges, water systems, sewer systems, and other infrastructure systems that allowed the producers to become more productive.
These tax-supported government bureaucrats and government contractors do allow the producers to become more productive by relieving the producers having to worry about providing those services for the producers (and for the producer’s families), but the producers limited their expenses for bureaucratic-provided services to the limitations governed by the amount of tax revenues that they wanted to and/or could afford to pay for.
The taxpayers cannot afford to buy food for their children and also pay for the costs of unlimited government employee salaries, unlimited government services and unlimited retirement benefits!
Individual Free Market Capitalism probably started before recorded history when a successful cave hunter returned to his cave and traded parts of his dead animal to other members of his cave clan for some fruit the other member has in his/her possession, or maybe something else of value such as a weapon or sexual services.
Foreign Trade between clans probably started when a successful hunter passing the cave of another clan might have traded some of his dead animal parts for that other clan’s things of value such as a weapons, tools or sexual services.
Traders took chances by approaching foreigners because those foreigners might have just killed the hunter and taken his possessions if the hunter was not also a good warrior to defend himself.
The hunter’s tribe would also probably descend onto foreign hunters that wandered into their areas of control and then kill them for their possessions.
Pirates at sea also killed their hapless victims on the high seas when the victims were caught by the pirates on the high seas.
During the Westward trek of the pioneers to settle the West in the late 19th century, the Mormons stopped and killed the westward pioneers and settlers that encountered the Mormons, who then took all of the traveler’s possessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Traders and other foreign travelers must defend themselves from attack at all times with the best weapons that they can afford when they travel on land or at sea.
Foreign Trade between clans probably started when a successful hunter passing the cave of another clan might have traded some of his dead animal parts for that other clan’s things of value such as a weapons, tools or sexual services.
Traders took chances by approaching foreigners because those foreigners might have just killed the hunter and taken his possessions if the hunter was not also a good warrior to defend himself.
The hunter’s tribe would also probably descend onto foreign hunters that wandered into their areas of control and then kill them for their possessions.
Pirates at sea also killed their hapless victims on the high seas when the victims were caught by the pirates on the high seas.
During the Westward trek of the pioneers to settle the West in the late 19th century, the Mormons stopped and killed the westward pioneers and settlers that encountered the Mormons, who then took all of the traveler’s possessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
Traders and other foreign travelers must defend themselves from attack at all times with the best weapons that they can afford when they travel on land or at sea.
Gar Alperovitz and Thomas M. Hanna,
Every civilization has always tried to create sufficient privately owned taxable wealth in order for governments to be able to confiscate some of this taxable wealth as required to create sufficient government financial resources to pay for the following services for the general public, in order to relieve the general public from being individually responsible for providing the following services in this order of importance:
1. Provide for the common military defense;
2. Pay for the construction of the common infrastructure elements that we all enjoy;
3. Pay for police, fire fighters, educators, and a judicial system;
4. Take care of those citizens that cannot take care of themselves;
5. Provide various nonessential government expenses such as libraries, museums, zoos, parks, hospitals, environmental cleanups, NASA, Green Energy, unemployment payments, and other nice but unnecessary feel-good services that serve the total population.
Maybe these items should be a part of the definition of civilization, even if these are just only some of the main (unwritten social contract) reasons for creating a civilization.
There are however, real limits to the amount of government expenditures that the taxpayers can afford to pay for their government services before their government goes bankrupt when the businesses leave that nation, city, state, etc., and stop paying taxes, and then the government economic capability disappears!
Every civilization has always tried to create sufficient privately owned taxable wealth in order for governments to be able to confiscate some of this taxable wealth as required to create sufficient government financial resources to pay for the following services for the general public, in order to relieve the general public from being individually responsible for providing the following services in this order of importance:
1. Provide for the common military defense;
2. Pay for the construction of the common infrastructure elements that we all enjoy;
3. Pay for police, fire fighters, educators, and a judicial system;
4. Take care of those citizens that cannot take care of themselves;
5. Provide various nonessential government expenses such as libraries, museums, zoos, parks, hospitals, environmental cleanups, NASA, Green Energy, unemployment payments, and other nice but unnecessary feel-good services that serve the total population.
Maybe these items should be a part of the definition of civilization, even if these are just only some of the main (unwritten social contract) reasons for creating a civilization.
There are however, real limits to the amount of government expenditures that the taxpayers can afford to pay for their government services before their government goes bankrupt when the businesses leave that nation, city, state, etc., and stop paying taxes, and then the government economic capability disappears!
North Carolina has a "wealth tax" on individuals as well. However, in today's global economy, macroeconomic problems won't be solved at the state or national level via socialism. Multinational corporations now employ a lot of workers in foreign countries to do jobs that used to be done here in America, because it's cheaper. Companies can search for the cheapest labor globally, which impacts the American labor force in a bad way, because Americans have to survive in the American economy, not the Indian or Chinese economy.
Eventually, a global solution is needed, because a lot of multinational, global U.S. companies (and individuals) are, in effect, more powerful than the U.S. government or any state government - they're "too big to fail." As a result, lot of individual American workers are lost and almost powerless in these times.
Eventually, a global solution is needed, because a lot of multinational, global U.S. companies (and individuals) are, in effect, more powerful than the U.S. government or any state government - they're "too big to fail." As a result, lot of individual American workers are lost and almost powerless in these times.
3
Socialized ownership of physical resources and higher taxes on the very wealthy are both good ideas. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that one would have to be traded in exchange for the other; especially in this age of stunning wealth inequality.
Raising the inheritance tax on estates over 30 million, and cracking down on the abuses of trusts and off shore financial havens are also long overdue.
Raising the inheritance tax on estates over 30 million, and cracking down on the abuses of trusts and off shore financial havens are also long overdue.
3
Big Props to GAR ALPEROVITZ and THOMAS M. HANNA; nice work!
Swinging pendulums?
The survival tsunami, or, metaphor mixing, the Sky Hammer called climate change may yield: (by 2032) "... the vast majority of humankind is dead." Climate scientist Paul Beckwith.
Climate change is a function of exponentially accelerating complexity (EAC).
Like this: “There were 5 exabytes of information created by the entire world between the dawn of civilization and 2003; now that same amount is created every two days.” Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO
One vital about EAC is: it destroys the efficacy of code, i.e., our cultural genome, i.e., the coding structures culture deploys for its interface with reality.
And the thing about code is that it's fundamental, physics generated and physics efficacious infrastructure for complex relationships in the latter forming (evolutionarily) bio, cultural & tech networks: genetic, language (spoken, written) math, moral, religious, legal, monetary, etiquette, software.
So, given EAC, we need some creative destruction of our cultural genome, because the networks, geo, eco, bio, cultural are so dysfunctional they scream: COLLAPSE.
Survival is a largely a function of processing complex network relationship- value information with sufficient speed, accuracy & power: genomes, immune systems, etc.
Our dominant cultural info-processing tech — humans using monetary code — can't generate selectable relationship hierarchies in & across the networks, & across time.
Swinging pendulums?
The survival tsunami, or, metaphor mixing, the Sky Hammer called climate change may yield: (by 2032) "... the vast majority of humankind is dead." Climate scientist Paul Beckwith.
Climate change is a function of exponentially accelerating complexity (EAC).
Like this: “There were 5 exabytes of information created by the entire world between the dawn of civilization and 2003; now that same amount is created every two days.” Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO
One vital about EAC is: it destroys the efficacy of code, i.e., our cultural genome, i.e., the coding structures culture deploys for its interface with reality.
And the thing about code is that it's fundamental, physics generated and physics efficacious infrastructure for complex relationships in the latter forming (evolutionarily) bio, cultural & tech networks: genetic, language (spoken, written) math, moral, religious, legal, monetary, etiquette, software.
So, given EAC, we need some creative destruction of our cultural genome, because the networks, geo, eco, bio, cultural are so dysfunctional they scream: COLLAPSE.
Survival is a largely a function of processing complex network relationship- value information with sufficient speed, accuracy & power: genomes, immune systems, etc.
Our dominant cultural info-processing tech — humans using monetary code — can't generate selectable relationship hierarchies in & across the networks, & across time.
2
Politicians will use the term “socialist” to foment anger in their constituency when they feel the political need in some random attack of an opponent. The same politicians will still ensure government money infusions for any project in their state. States battle each other with tax credits vying for companies to either operate, build or remain in their locality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corpor...
Anyone claiming exemptions from socialism over the virtues of free market capitalism is just prevaricating for political fodder. Privatization of profits in the name of “freedom” while socializing risk—a future financial crisis will likely demonstrate such with an interesting round of bailouts
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/us/how-local-taxpayers-bankroll-corpor...
Anyone claiming exemptions from socialism over the virtues of free market capitalism is just prevaricating for political fodder. Privatization of profits in the name of “freedom” while socializing risk—a future financial crisis will likely demonstrate such with an interesting round of bailouts
2
The transition within the USA to a FIRE economy lessens individual choice, opportunity & attainment & has weakened our collective national social cohesion. Large swaths of the country are tied up & controlled by speculators waiting for the confluence of political & economic opportunity to enrich themselves, assault the environment & deny responsible low impact tenancy to the wage slave desiring independence on a small scale. Federal & state land is seen by the private sector as a piggy bank setting temporarily unreachable on a high shelf waiting to be shattered & the contents spent on themselves at the expense of the commonwealth. There should be proscribed limits on private land holdings by individuals & corporations.
Every man & woman should become his or her own commissar in confronting this strait jacket of economic denial to a mature & aspiring public. Fight the plutocracy.
Every man & woman should become his or her own commissar in confronting this strait jacket of economic denial to a mature & aspiring public. Fight the plutocracy.
4
Those crusty ole conservative GOP elected commies of the Tennessee Valley, gotta love 'em. What, government CAN do something right? Pass the ammunition!
Commies or not, Political Science, private greed will never serve the public good, except occasionally by accident. Government is not the problem; it is the brake against the problem. Who knew that the Republican Party would ever endorse this notion.
Does The Donald J. Trump know something that everyone else is missing? Na-a-a-a-a-aw!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Commies or not, Political Science, private greed will never serve the public good, except occasionally by accident. Government is not the problem; it is the brake against the problem. Who knew that the Republican Party would ever endorse this notion.
Does The Donald J. Trump know something that everyone else is missing? Na-a-a-a-a-aw!
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Perhaps this article will take away some of the fear of having a Democratic-Socialist President, Bernie Sanders!
2
Nothing so new in here. This is what social democracy holds--a large well funded public sector. It cannot just be sustained through taxes. The post office system is another example, that at least sustains itself, if not other projects in the public sector. Many countries, France in the first world, for example, used to have a considerable state owned sector to complement taxes, but with the neoliberal tsunami, the fad for privatization of everything came. There is no reason why these corporations need not be transparent. They can be more transparent than opaque private corporations since they belong to the public sector. I hope this new tsunami comes soon. When republicans start talking about this kind of policy, maybe I will vote for them...
1
This is a clever and devious argument, framed by taking a few cases from disparate parts of our history in which specific activities were led by the public sector and then generalizing it too broadly. TVA may have made sense at that specific point of time but no longer make sense to remain public. Most publicly owned electric, gas and water utilities remain public primarily because of politics and inertia, not because they make economic sense. Add all these publicly owned enterprises and they would form only a tiny fraction of the total economy. They remain a small part of our economy; they are exceptions; not role models.
Tell that to the residents of L.A. During the Enron days in California, where I'm from, became a nightmare. Every month our electric bill went up and we had constant brown-outs. This all happened after "de-regulations" It had nothing to do with cost. The L.A. residents at least were not suffering from brown-outs and higher and higher electric bills like the rest of us because their source of electricity was from a public source.
Those examples of public ownership are laudable, but the overwhelming trend is the privatization of publicly-owned enterprises, the USPS and our public education system being two examples that get most capitalist's mouths watering.
The fact that Obama, an alleged Democrat, attempted to privatize the TVA tells you all you need to know about the current beltway mindset and what has become of the once-respected Democratic party: the public should fund it and the private sector should profit from it. That's pretty much the opposite of socialism.
The fact that Obama, an alleged Democrat, attempted to privatize the TVA tells you all you need to know about the current beltway mindset and what has become of the once-respected Democratic party: the public should fund it and the private sector should profit from it. That's pretty much the opposite of socialism.
4
I'd say that "socialism, America style" is more similar to "What's good for GM, good for America" approach, where a few "national champions" essentially establish oligopoly in return for stronger worker protection and social commitment, and, in return, high taxes and regulation ensure that the competition doesn't emerge. This does establish a stronger safety net for the middle class, but it also pushes "the poor" more to the periphery, and limits upper middle class in process.
I also have to point out that socialism broadly posts the goal of giving everyone equal means to pursue goals, i.e. universal health insurance, universally subsidized college education and so on. A lot of what US Democrats push, like targeted programs to aid minorities or the poor, is anti-socialism; the goal of focusing on performance, not background, works both ways.
I also have to point out that socialism broadly posts the goal of giving everyone equal means to pursue goals, i.e. universal health insurance, universally subsidized college education and so on. A lot of what US Democrats push, like targeted programs to aid minorities or the poor, is anti-socialism; the goal of focusing on performance, not background, works both ways.
3
Thank someone for these holdovers from another era in our history. Note that most of the examples cited of public ownership of utilities, lands, etc,. are at the local and state and sometimes regional level, and are usually clearly focused in purpose. They have tremendous public support, because they deliver services and financial assistance of great value. They have survived many efforts to be "privatized" -- that is, sold off at likely a fraction of their real value to be exploited by you know who. I agree that as we must confront massive environmental and economic challenges rather soon, we will see even greater public efforts to respond to them. Think of the problems sea level rise will cause coastal areas in the US. How better to respond to sea level rise than through local, state and regional public entities, with federal support and even direction, of course? That is, if the Republicans ever regain some modicum of common sense and stop their irrational nonsense. But if they don't, they will be swept away by the same natural forces washing away many of the nation's coastal areas. Hard to find anything positive in sea level rise, but this may qualify.
7
State capitalism, which despite the author's assertions otherwise is what this article is about, cannot and will not work any better than the failing crony neo-feudalistic capitalism of today, the laissez-faire capitalism of the Gilded Age, or any other genre of capitalism. The world's problems are too large for the profit motive to solve. Growth, growth, growth is all capitalism understands and capitalism requires it as its oxygen. It is destroying and will destroy the planet for future generations.
Capitalism will die. One way or the other. As it looks, it's going to be a very, very nasty, destructive journey and the consequences of the current path suggest the finite constraints that the Earth imposes on growth are imposing themselves and will impose themselves to such a greater degree that even the stupidest free market fundamentalist will understand what it has wrought. Don't look for economists to understand this; they are useless after their years of immersion in bankrupt intellectual economics. Don't look for politicians to understand; they are useless, self-important, self-aggrandizing, partisan cowards.
Pope Francis seems to be the only responsible "leader" that has a clue. Imagine that; a religious leader that doesn't ignore science and all that which is staring humanity in the face while the academic economists -- conservative and liberal alike, -- are immersed in idiotic fights of the last 30+ years of worthless neo-classical economics.
Capitalism will die. One way or the other. As it looks, it's going to be a very, very nasty, destructive journey and the consequences of the current path suggest the finite constraints that the Earth imposes on growth are imposing themselves and will impose themselves to such a greater degree that even the stupidest free market fundamentalist will understand what it has wrought. Don't look for economists to understand this; they are useless after their years of immersion in bankrupt intellectual economics. Don't look for politicians to understand; they are useless, self-important, self-aggrandizing, partisan cowards.
Pope Francis seems to be the only responsible "leader" that has a clue. Imagine that; a religious leader that doesn't ignore science and all that which is staring humanity in the face while the academic economists -- conservative and liberal alike, -- are immersed in idiotic fights of the last 30+ years of worthless neo-classical economics.
57
I don't think capitalism will die, despite its odious aspects, but it will be much more circumscribed, whether by democracy or dictatorship. It remains a very good way of generating wealth, although it is extremely poor at just redistribution. It will have its place. But not for everything.
The RC Church is an excellent analog. For many centuries people believed that its administrative structure ( largely a copy of the first and second-century Roman Empire) was the final perfect solution to every problem. Eventually rationality and justice supplanted this notion. The devotion of some of our contemporaries to St. Market as the fixer of all problems, reflects a similarly limited view and will also be abandoned in time. This is not to say that either the marketplace or the hierarchy do not have their place, but not everywhere.
The RC Church is an excellent analog. For many centuries people believed that its administrative structure ( largely a copy of the first and second-century Roman Empire) was the final perfect solution to every problem. Eventually rationality and justice supplanted this notion. The devotion of some of our contemporaries to St. Market as the fixer of all problems, reflects a similarly limited view and will also be abandoned in time. This is not to say that either the marketplace or the hierarchy do not have their place, but not everywhere.
2
What's typically missing in these kinds of reader comments is any concrete proposal for an alternative to contemporary "capitalism." It isn't as if the world hasn't tried communism and its variants. Looking for a quick "grand solution" imposed by an intellectual elite requires too much killing, as Pope Francis undoubtedly understands. Perhaps it's better to make incremental changes, drawing upon the success of countries that find a balance between capitalism and democratic socialism.
Limits to Growth was published in 1972.
Where the authors inaccurately generalize a collectivist tendency in America among Republicans (for a patently interested stealth argument for a brand of socialism that verges on communism), it might surprise readers that mainstream Republicans like me have ALWAYS favored public ownership of very specific utilities. The notion that the profit motive must govern EVERY human endeavor in America has never been particularly compelling.
The one I've flogged many times in this community is the distribution but not the generation of electricity. We have three creaky electrical grids (basically, East, West and Texas) that require immense investment to make them more reliable and interoperable, and to harden them against cyber-attack by potential adversaries. We also see vast parts of our country rendered without power whenever we have an especially violent weather event -- largely due to electrical apparatus too close to water and power lines that are vulnerable to falling tree branches. The investment required to rebuild that apparatus in more secure locations and put America's power lines underground is immense.
Given the sheer scale of the investment challenges, the universality and importance of the service provided to all Americans, and the difficulty of making such investments when profit must be carved out of operations, this is an ideal example of where government should step in and take over. There are others, as well, but I'll leave it to the readers to suggest them.
The one I've flogged many times in this community is the distribution but not the generation of electricity. We have three creaky electrical grids (basically, East, West and Texas) that require immense investment to make them more reliable and interoperable, and to harden them against cyber-attack by potential adversaries. We also see vast parts of our country rendered without power whenever we have an especially violent weather event -- largely due to electrical apparatus too close to water and power lines that are vulnerable to falling tree branches. The investment required to rebuild that apparatus in more secure locations and put America's power lines underground is immense.
Given the sheer scale of the investment challenges, the universality and importance of the service provided to all Americans, and the difficulty of making such investments when profit must be carved out of operations, this is an ideal example of where government should step in and take over. There are others, as well, but I'll leave it to the readers to suggest them.
20
I agree with you on this one, Richard, and your last paragraph sums it up very well. There are some things that are too important to be left to entities interested in profit only. As you suggest, making a profit on an investment of this scale would be so difficult that a business concern would not see the value in taking it on. But the significance of this essential part of our infrastructure is too great to be left untended. It is precisely in instances like this that we together, in the form of a democratic people, must provide for the common good and use government investment to do it. As for your call for other suggestions, I'd have to say that our transportation infrastructure, considered as a national commodity, might be one that ranks up there with our electrical grid.
2
Richard,
Conservative-fueled bigotry and obsessions for car-centric economic growth via resource-intensive and homogenous suburban sprawl (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, et al) for the last 50 years is really the main reason why our G&T part of the grid suffers from huge amounts of line loss, regular brownouts and the significant lack of reliability. Higher $/kWh rates are used to compensate for hugely expensive construction and maintenance costs.
But regardless, Republican-era collectivist support for central generation assets and miles upon miles of G&T infrastructure is becoming obsolete anyway. End-use utility customers are increasingly able to finance distributed energy resources (rooftop PV solar and battery storage), a combination that will eventually render your "creaky electrical grids" useless.
Conservative-fueled bigotry and obsessions for car-centric economic growth via resource-intensive and homogenous suburban sprawl (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, et al) for the last 50 years is really the main reason why our G&T part of the grid suffers from huge amounts of line loss, regular brownouts and the significant lack of reliability. Higher $/kWh rates are used to compensate for hugely expensive construction and maintenance costs.
But regardless, Republican-era collectivist support for central generation assets and miles upon miles of G&T infrastructure is becoming obsolete anyway. End-use utility customers are increasingly able to finance distributed energy resources (rooftop PV solar and battery storage), a combination that will eventually render your "creaky electrical grids" useless.
2
That is why regulations aren't bad, and regulation of Internet services is not a bad idea either. Both are for the common good of the country and are part of the basic infrastructure that government should either provide and make it available at low cost through subsidies where the private sector cannot make a profit, or make it a regulated market to avoid price gauging of basic infrastructure.
A big problem is frequent misuse of the term "socialism" to mean any instance in which goods like healthcare, education or power generation are publicly owned or controlled.
Socialism is an economic model in which government directly controls the economy, as in communist countries like Cuba and North Korea (communism, by the way, is a utopian political ideology).
What we see in Europe, Canada and, to a lesser extent the U.S. are mixed economies, which actually encompass pretty much all capitalist societies. That even includes Hong Kong, where the government owns all the land and can afford to charge a flat tax by having developers make lease payments. But nobody would call HK, one of the most highly capitalist societies on earth, a socialist economy.
Maybe Americans would be less afraid of things like universal healthcare, investment in infrastructure or tuition-free college and would stop listening to libertarian and Tea Party fearmongering if people started using the word "socialism" correctly.
Socialism is an economic model in which government directly controls the economy, as in communist countries like Cuba and North Korea (communism, by the way, is a utopian political ideology).
What we see in Europe, Canada and, to a lesser extent the U.S. are mixed economies, which actually encompass pretty much all capitalist societies. That even includes Hong Kong, where the government owns all the land and can afford to charge a flat tax by having developers make lease payments. But nobody would call HK, one of the most highly capitalist societies on earth, a socialist economy.
Maybe Americans would be less afraid of things like universal healthcare, investment in infrastructure or tuition-free college and would stop listening to libertarian and Tea Party fearmongering if people started using the word "socialism" correctly.
91
I lean toward support of tea party issues..(fee trade...lower taxes...less bureaucracy..etc.) but haven't heard them oppose free education (isn't college today but an extension of high school of prior generations?),,,the highway trust fund...the military...or some form of universal health care, although free emergency room treatment was/is the worst way to deliver that benefit.
Yes, this is an excellent point. Conservatives are classically fearful of the term socialism and Bernie Sanders is well aware of this.
Most importantly, as is mentioned in this article, many types of public ownership described here are critical for solving ONE OF THE GREATEST DILEMMAS UPON US, that is global climate change (GCC).
We need to "take back" ownership of energy ventures, energy production companies and energy supplies in order to solve this horrendous GCC problem. Then we can "KEEP IT IN THE GROUND;" THAT IS, FOSSIL FUELS.
Taking control of energy, we could build the grid we need, switch as rapidly as possible to renewable energy and bring huge amounts of freedom and democracy back to the country. As well as solving some of our other problems such as the huge disparity in wealth among people. Many problems could be solved with some degree of socialism; no one is talking about communism or other radical government philosophies.
Scientists and engineers tell us that the energy sources and technologies are here now; it can be done; there is no miracle needed to make it work. Do not listen to the deniers or the capitalists or the oligarchs. Yes, it will take some serious work and there will be winners and losers in the business sense but we have responded to crises before and need to do it again.
Just do a little reading to bring yourself up to date on the crisis described above. http://www.oxfordhumanists.org/?page_id=1195#GCC
Most importantly, as is mentioned in this article, many types of public ownership described here are critical for solving ONE OF THE GREATEST DILEMMAS UPON US, that is global climate change (GCC).
We need to "take back" ownership of energy ventures, energy production companies and energy supplies in order to solve this horrendous GCC problem. Then we can "KEEP IT IN THE GROUND;" THAT IS, FOSSIL FUELS.
Taking control of energy, we could build the grid we need, switch as rapidly as possible to renewable energy and bring huge amounts of freedom and democracy back to the country. As well as solving some of our other problems such as the huge disparity in wealth among people. Many problems could be solved with some degree of socialism; no one is talking about communism or other radical government philosophies.
Scientists and engineers tell us that the energy sources and technologies are here now; it can be done; there is no miracle needed to make it work. Do not listen to the deniers or the capitalists or the oligarchs. Yes, it will take some serious work and there will be winners and losers in the business sense but we have responded to crises before and need to do it again.
Just do a little reading to bring yourself up to date on the crisis described above. http://www.oxfordhumanists.org/?page_id=1195#GCC
This can be misconstrued. I think what the author is getting at is distinguishing what is in the public/ownership domain versus outside/private domain. So a "mixed" economy is one that has public/private ownership paradigm. The question is what should be in the public domain? I would argue, and perhaps Mr. Alperovitz would too, that far more than does today in our economy. He is reluctant to shade all forms of capitalism where it can serve the public good, but is interested in pushing past corporate capitalism and state communism. I agree for the most part.
To note that certain utilities are publicly-held is hardly an endorsement for socialism. Socialism, albeit in many forms, proposes public ownership of just about everything beyond the corner store. Few over the past century have thought we'd better not have a public electric utility because it might lead to socialism. Those are so capital-intensive it's hard for the private sector to supply the necessary capital so we make an exception, move out, and don't sweat the ideology.
As for sovereign wealth funds, that too is not very socialist. If a country or state owns a significant resource, like oil, it makes sense to place the management and profit in a transparently run fund, like Norway does for example. Such a fund can diversify too. But for a fund to own shares in emerging markets to diversify the revenue stream supporting pensioners in its own jurisdiction isn't socialism; it's the state acting as a private party.
The writers don't seem to understand that there's a world of difference between a state that decides to provide a service in competition with others, e.g. hospital care, a bookshop, whatever, and a state that compels all the capital involved in an industry to be under the control of the state and that all consumers must acquire the goods and services of the state. In one, the state, like any private actor, must persuade the public to use its services. In the other, the state coerces the public to use its services.
As for sovereign wealth funds, that too is not very socialist. If a country or state owns a significant resource, like oil, it makes sense to place the management and profit in a transparently run fund, like Norway does for example. Such a fund can diversify too. But for a fund to own shares in emerging markets to diversify the revenue stream supporting pensioners in its own jurisdiction isn't socialism; it's the state acting as a private party.
The writers don't seem to understand that there's a world of difference between a state that decides to provide a service in competition with others, e.g. hospital care, a bookshop, whatever, and a state that compels all the capital involved in an industry to be under the control of the state and that all consumers must acquire the goods and services of the state. In one, the state, like any private actor, must persuade the public to use its services. In the other, the state coerces the public to use its services.
8
You mean like China? State capitalism is capitalism with another flavour. Communist (Marxist) philosophies have yet to be tried on a large scale.
"Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms in many cases."
What you really mean is there are a few cases in which a public enterprise shows rough equivalency to private firms. Your idea of "many cases" is still a small minority of the cases.
Even looking at the Dow 30, there has been a significant change in its composition in the last 20 years as obsolete businesses are swallowed up by competitors, or are quietly dismantled. The streets are littered with names of former titans of industry that are now quaint reminders of the past: Kodak, Radio Shack, Pan Am, Blockbuster, Woolworth's.
It is probably difficult for most people to name even one large government program that has disappeared in the last 100 years. The number that have disappeared in the last 20 can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Moreover, when there is no one to police the holding of assets, for the state supervises itself, corruption will take root and destroy the system. For example, could we ever see the state imposing a recall on a government made product?
What you really mean is there are a few cases in which a public enterprise shows rough equivalency to private firms. Your idea of "many cases" is still a small minority of the cases.
Even looking at the Dow 30, there has been a significant change in its composition in the last 20 years as obsolete businesses are swallowed up by competitors, or are quietly dismantled. The streets are littered with names of former titans of industry that are now quaint reminders of the past: Kodak, Radio Shack, Pan Am, Blockbuster, Woolworth's.
It is probably difficult for most people to name even one large government program that has disappeared in the last 100 years. The number that have disappeared in the last 20 can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Moreover, when there is no one to police the holding of assets, for the state supervises itself, corruption will take root and destroy the system. For example, could we ever see the state imposing a recall on a government made product?
4
Contrary to the conservative refrain, the private sector does not have a monopoly on operational efficiency. Neither public nor private sector can be immune from misguided and ineffective management or corruption. Public and private institutions differ in their masters, their ability to externalize costs, and the demand that their operations produce excellent or long-lasting results. For example, I think I have spent more time in line to deal with one flight cancellation than I have waited for many drivers license and registration renewals, combined.
That said, shifting capital ownership toward actual people (not institutional investors and banks), re-aligns goals and accountability. I experienced this directly when the city-owned utility kept providing electricity while neighboring communities experienced Enron-engineered blackouts.
Public control of capital reflects a goal as old as the colonies which founded our nation; and referred to in the formal names of several states -- Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky -- to serve the commonwealth. As at our nation's birth, freedom and liberty are not compatible with highly concentrated power and wealth. We would do well to remember the hierarchy of goals and align the means toward those ends.
That said, shifting capital ownership toward actual people (not institutional investors and banks), re-aligns goals and accountability. I experienced this directly when the city-owned utility kept providing electricity while neighboring communities experienced Enron-engineered blackouts.
Public control of capital reflects a goal as old as the colonies which founded our nation; and referred to in the formal names of several states -- Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky -- to serve the commonwealth. As at our nation's birth, freedom and liberty are not compatible with highly concentrated power and wealth. We would do well to remember the hierarchy of goals and align the means toward those ends.
10
When Schumpeter said this kind of thing, it was almost always with a wink. What he meant is that publicly owned enterprise might be a political selling point for the left because it hides (but does not eliminate) taxation. If an enterprise is operate by the state rather than the private sector, its profits are diverted into state coffers just as much as if the profits of the private enterprise were taxed away. The real issue, a debated in other comments, is whether the state can run the enterprise more efficiently, including changing it or selling it when economically necessary. A more subtle issue is that tying the income stream of some constituency to a specific public enterprise is an undiversified, and therefore riskier, investment. Endowing the same constituency and letting them invest widely (as does, say, a place like Yale with its private endowment) is more efficient. But, of course, the risk of the undiversified public investment is actually not borne by the favored constituency but rather shifted to taxpayers in general.
6
@Richard Langlois: "When Schumpeter said this kind of thing, it was almost always with a wink."
The authors foolishly *paraphrase* Schumpeter, who is a very subtle[1] writer. What Schumpeter actually said can be found in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", "Part III: Can Socialism Work?", "XVII. Comparison of Blueprints" at the end.
And you are right about Schumpeter's "winking":
"Socialist bread may well taste sweeter to them [socialists] than capitalist bread simply because it is socialist bread, and it would do so even if they found mice in it."[2]
[1] Introduction by Thomas K. McCraw (Harper Perennial Modern Thought Edition).
[2] Schumpeter, CSD, XVII. II.
The authors foolishly *paraphrase* Schumpeter, who is a very subtle[1] writer. What Schumpeter actually said can be found in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", "Part III: Can Socialism Work?", "XVII. Comparison of Blueprints" at the end.
And you are right about Schumpeter's "winking":
"Socialist bread may well taste sweeter to them [socialists] than capitalist bread simply because it is socialist bread, and it would do so even if they found mice in it."[2]
[1] Introduction by Thomas K. McCraw (Harper Perennial Modern Thought Edition).
[2] Schumpeter, CSD, XVII. II.
Excellent article - thanks. Iconic is ColoSpgs, CO where the City government owns the water and power utility, tourist attractions, golf courses, and a major hospital. When it had the opportunity to sell the hospital in 2010, it leased it instead. City residents have voted 3x to tax themselves to buy and preserve open space. From my experience, organizational efficiency, or inefficiency, can happen in a government or private organization about equally - depending mostly on leadership structure and quality. Conflicts of interest must be carefully avoided, including a conflict that has bedeviled China: local governments are responsible for enforcing environmental laws, but when the laws reduce the profits of local government-owned enterprises, they are loathe to enforce the rules and cut their own revenue streams. Too bad the US isn't quite bold enough to embrace single-payer healthcare systems that typically provide dramatic reductions in the amount of each health care dollar devoted to administration - from about 25% to 5% (as pointed out in the Clintons' attempted healthcare reform efforts of early 1990s.)
9
One of the main benefits of a perfectly capitalist system, which few would argue currently exists in the US, is fostering of thoughtful risk taking. Whether in the public or private sectors, risk taking leads to progress that might otherwise not occur, or occur much more slowly. In theory either approach will work to benefit society as a whole. However, my main concern with public ownership of capital is the allocation of same in an efficient manner, meaning that risks taken are in the long run justified by overall returns. Given our media circus and electoral fiasco, few public officers would dare the blowback inevitable from a misplaced investment, i.e., Solyndra. That said, our policies over the last several decades have allowed extremely inefficient capital allocation in the private sector, and grossly inefficient rent extraction has been the result. In my view, our system is, in principle, structured properly to allow for private sector risk taking, but with appropriate and necessary public oversight (read:"regulations"). What we require is courageous leadership to call out those who would distort and pervert the system for personal gain, and to push for restoration of effective regulations. In that regard, both Sanders and Warren are on the right track. Let's be smart enough to listen.
41
Actually MIchael Solyndra was a rare exception. The program as a whole turn eda profit.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-l...
Would you condemn private capitalism because of Enron, Lehman Bros, WorldCom, etc., etc., etc.?
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-l...
Would you condemn private capitalism because of Enron, Lehman Bros, WorldCom, etc., etc., etc.?
Don't hold your breath if you're waiting for courageous leadership to take on the corporations and to promulgate a vast regulatory structure over those companies and over private entrepreneurs. The political climate may be changing some from the small government/fewer regulations approach that has been so loudly touted, but not that much, and regulations require enforcement, which are costly.
Regardless, people will always find ways to game any regulatory structure and turn it to their personal gain.
I like Sanders, and especially Warren. I wonder what their opinions would be on the approach suggested in this article.
Regardless, people will always find ways to game any regulatory structure and turn it to their personal gain.
I like Sanders, and especially Warren. I wonder what their opinions would be on the approach suggested in this article.
The proposal in this article isn't socialism at all. It's state capitalism. The corporations mentioned in this article are not very large, and hardly constitute THE means of production. They aren't particularly sensitive to democratic decision-making, but are instead run by corporate administrators (hence the alleged competitiveness). In many cases, they are set up specifically to insulate the public corporation from making decisions based on what the public wants. Finally, these entities often issue bonds that are ultimately owned by private investors who get the returns of a corporation and the security of a state.
It would be small comfort to American's millions of workers or unemployed to find out that their boss is some private sector administrator hired with bipartisan support and not Lloyd Blankfein.
It would be small comfort to American's millions of workers or unemployed to find out that their boss is some private sector administrator hired with bipartisan support and not Lloyd Blankfein.
11
The "means of production" is an outdated, mid-19th century construct. It's the 21st century, we're well into the post-post-industrial "information" age where any "means" to produce has shifted entirely away from consolidation an towards the individual.
Every older conservative is a socialist when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Any hint of cuts creates a revolt. No Republican can get elected advocating a reduction of benefits for those over 65. Of course they rationalize their love for both programs by claiming they worked for those benefits. Many, mistakenly believe they are just getting back money that was taken.
Conservative politicians hate social security/medicare because they show what government can do to help the people. They also highlight how awful the private sector is in providing the same benefits. Can you imagine how much a private health insurer would charge someone over 65 who does not have an employer footing the bill?
The truth is current workers are paying for the retired workers' social security/medicare. Some workers get more than they paid in, others less. That is how socialism works. Your dollar goes somewhere else with a guarantee someone else's dollar will come your way in a time of need.
Everyone loves socialism--most of all the bankers/financiers who were bailed out by the taxpayers.
Conservative politicians hate social security/medicare because they show what government can do to help the people. They also highlight how awful the private sector is in providing the same benefits. Can you imagine how much a private health insurer would charge someone over 65 who does not have an employer footing the bill?
The truth is current workers are paying for the retired workers' social security/medicare. Some workers get more than they paid in, others less. That is how socialism works. Your dollar goes somewhere else with a guarantee someone else's dollar will come your way in a time of need.
Everyone loves socialism--most of all the bankers/financiers who were bailed out by the taxpayers.
168
"Some workers get more than they paid in, others less. That is how socialism works." Not just socialism. Any insurance scheme works on this basis. We pay premiums because they are manageable, while a car crash or cancer can wipe us out altogether. Don't think of Farmers or Geico as socialist.
ScottW, a brilliant analysis. Everyone should read your comment.
1
Since Social Security has almost $3 trillion dollars saved up, it seems disingenuous to say that current workers are paying for the retired worker's benefits.
1
Sadly, the future holds total privatization--if America's right wing propaganda is successful.
They slander all aspects of "government" so voters will fear, loathe, and distrust it, and push privatization of everything from the post office to schools.
For example, they keep Federal, state, and local revenues as low as possible to make sure that most infrastructure repairs must be deferred. Then corporations can seem to save the day by offering to take them over... refurbish them using underpaid non-unionized workers... and force individuals to pay the corporation to use what once were commonly owned roads and bridges. And if the corporation decides to stop repairs, how will local citizens raise the money to take them to court, or build alternate public roads?
They slander all aspects of "government" so voters will fear, loathe, and distrust it, and push privatization of everything from the post office to schools.
For example, they keep Federal, state, and local revenues as low as possible to make sure that most infrastructure repairs must be deferred. Then corporations can seem to save the day by offering to take them over... refurbish them using underpaid non-unionized workers... and force individuals to pay the corporation to use what once were commonly owned roads and bridges. And if the corporation decides to stop repairs, how will local citizens raise the money to take them to court, or build alternate public roads?
104
Think the Bank of North Dakota, TGV railroad in France (not exactly privately owned and make our trains look like they have chicken cages on top of them), Medicare in the U.S. (only 3% administrative overhead as opposed to 15% to 25% overhead for private health insurance - and seniors love it), City of Los Angeles providing electric power at much lower rates than old, rip-off Enron (remember them?), etc., etc., across the United States. When public ownership works better than private, then use it and forget ideology, especially when it burns a hole in your wallet (and puts the money in others' wallets - maybe only a half-dozen people or so sometimes). This is the kind of practical "conservative" thinking I like. People don't realize the enormous amount of money and resources wasted in the private sector - and the amount of debt accumulated in the private sector as well. Drug advertising that you have to pay for with ridiculously high (i.e., fixed) prices!!? It works both ways. Good and bad enterprises in both sectors of the economy. Go with what works and don't destroy (privatize) an enterprise that is doing much better for itself and the community than it could possibly do in the private sector - like the Bank of North Dakota, for instance. Above all, don't listen to special interest propaganda (that masks as a somewhat legitimate ideology - if such a thing exists). Read up on these things and check out the facts. Focus on what actually works.
9
Brilliant, think Amtrak and the Postal service.
10
OK, what part of the private sector is more efficient than Amtrak or the Postal Service?
1
Ugh...I will if you'll think of two mismanaged and underfunded private companies. Oh, and also make those two private companies have a portion of senior management interested in shutting them down.
2
Under-fund the operations of any private enterprise and it will sputter just like the USPS and Amtrak. Conservative politicians cut funding for these programs and/or place pension funding mandates that weaken them and then castigate the programs for under-performing.
I thought everybody was aware of that scam by now?
I thought everybody was aware of that scam by now?
6
Very interesting perspective, a good use of American history. Out here in the most Western Maryland county, Garrett, the county has just signed a contract with Solar City to supply a large amount of solar power, not just to meet county operations, but also to sell the power into the general pool. It has a lot of citizens blinking their eyes, because the Garrett government is quite conservative, and its officials have supported fracking, which many green businesses out here oppose it, as I do.
But this alternative energy initiative led me to look closely at the Solar City funding model, which appears to solve the greatest obstacle today to installing solar power panels widely: the initial capital cost. (It is paid back by bill savings and power sold.) The complex model used by this company involves major Wall Street and private equity "asset backing securities," long term leases, and the marketing of the tax equity benefits in further complex instruments. It is being attacked by some parts of the Right because the model also takes advantages of generous depreciation allowances - some say too generous. Looking at the history of gas and oil in this country, I don't begrudge any of the help solar is getting, but the Solar City model raises the question of a better more simplified model using publicly raised capital and organized according to what Professor Alperovitz is talking about, or publicly owned banks, or perhaps co-operative ones that Nomi Prins advocates.
But this alternative energy initiative led me to look closely at the Solar City funding model, which appears to solve the greatest obstacle today to installing solar power panels widely: the initial capital cost. (It is paid back by bill savings and power sold.) The complex model used by this company involves major Wall Street and private equity "asset backing securities," long term leases, and the marketing of the tax equity benefits in further complex instruments. It is being attacked by some parts of the Right because the model also takes advantages of generous depreciation allowances - some say too generous. Looking at the history of gas and oil in this country, I don't begrudge any of the help solar is getting, but the Solar City model raises the question of a better more simplified model using publicly raised capital and organized according to what Professor Alperovitz is talking about, or publicly owned banks, or perhaps co-operative ones that Nomi Prins advocates.
24
Sooooo....in effect....and I'll admit very simplistically....Capitalism can be nothing more than monied Socialism? Heh!
John~
American Net'Zen
John~
American Net'Zen
2
None of this matters if our legislators don't have the guts to stop spending more than we take in. What good does it do if a government owned enterprise brings in $100 million if our legislators give the same amount back in some form of tax relief or entitlement. And in our current world it's a lot more popular to give money away to secure votes while leaving the debt for future generations to solve.
6
Charlie seems to think money is scarce. This is despite the fact money is created by pushing numbers around in computers.
Contrary to virtually all conservative talking points, we don't ONLY have a spending problem; the problem is both spending AND revenue. Our representatives have spent decades cutting taxes - disproportionately for the wealthy, I might add. This has created the revenue crisis we currently have whereby government does not have sufficient funds to perform it functions.
This has given us proof positive that the trickle down economic model is totally false. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves; the vast majority of "job creators" do NOT use their tax savings to create more jobs or even stimulate the economy by spending their savings. It seems that a sizable portion of those savings has been used to purchase laws and policies to funnel yet more money to the wealthy.
We need to restore tax rates to increase revenue to a workable level, and cut spending where it makes sense to do so.
We also need the lower 75% of employees to earn more, so they have more to spend - THAT is how to bring our economy back up toward its potential.
This has given us proof positive that the trickle down economic model is totally false. Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves; the vast majority of "job creators" do NOT use their tax savings to create more jobs or even stimulate the economy by spending their savings. It seems that a sizable portion of those savings has been used to purchase laws and policies to funnel yet more money to the wealthy.
We need to restore tax rates to increase revenue to a workable level, and cut spending where it makes sense to do so.
We also need the lower 75% of employees to earn more, so they have more to spend - THAT is how to bring our economy back up toward its potential.
Some facts:
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want to take in more than we spend?
Better buy a tent for camping out on the Mall.
The federal government has balanced the budget, eliminated deficits for more than three years in just six periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, and 1920-30. The debt was paid down 29%. 100%, 59%, 27%, 57%, and 36% respectively. A depression began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.
Are you sure you want to take in more than we spend?
Better buy a tent for camping out on the Mall.
1
Today's business environment is much better for publicly owned services, like utilities, that provide for the entire tax base. We have the Quality Program and established guidelines in management that were not implemented say 60 years ago. Efficiency, simple mission statements, job descriptions and recognized accounting principals curtail the old habit of turning these enterprises into fat political nesting. Maybe it's time to design a United States Public Defense Utility, before the unaudited Pentagon and the 1% Super Rich military industrial investors bankrupt us all with their never ending war business.
10
The rest of the world has public financing of their health care system with vastly expanded access to care and far better bang for their buck. In America, we have only seen it mostly as a private enterprise which has given us the most convoluted, bureaucratic, irrational health care financing system in the world.
A single payer health care financing system offers the best hope of controlling health care costs which is the fastest rising budget expense for most governments and employers. Our failure to address health care costs will eventually bankrupt America.
A single payer health care financing system offers the best hope of controlling health care costs which is the fastest rising budget expense for most governments and employers. Our failure to address health care costs will eventually bankrupt America.
83
I several persons who are either citizens or permanent residents of Canada and the UK and who have a history with the national health care systems of those countries. All of them have told me the same "good news, bad news" story. The good news is that the systems work very well for emergencies. The bad news is that they are frustratingly inefficient for preventive measures. Personally, I would prefer such a system, especially because it keeps costs for emergency care down.
Public ownership requires good management and innovation, goals which may be incompatible with the need of politicians to reward their constituencies. They work best when the problems posed by the enterprise are relatively simple, the industry and its operations are stable and well understood, and innovation is not vital. Power generation, which is in a state of flux due to the climate change crisis, is not one of those areas. Bad decisions are inevitable.
13
And private ownership does not require good management and innovation?
"... which may be incompatible with the need of politicians to reward their constituencies".
Depends on the relationship between the politicians and their voters; degree of accountability, does it not? Anyhow, politics, at all levels, is about trade offs and compromises (party wise, issue wise...). Also applies to the international level of politics, not just the domestic level (and in some instances they are more intertwined than in other instances). Foreign policy leaders always have to balance domestic expectations and requirements with international constraints and limitations in negotiations.
"... which may be incompatible with the need of politicians to reward their constituencies".
Depends on the relationship between the politicians and their voters; degree of accountability, does it not? Anyhow, politics, at all levels, is about trade offs and compromises (party wise, issue wise...). Also applies to the international level of politics, not just the domestic level (and in some instances they are more intertwined than in other instances). Foreign policy leaders always have to balance domestic expectations and requirements with international constraints and limitations in negotiations.
If I understand what you are saying, you think that the old LICO was better run than TVA?
1
Fred: are you suggesting that the private energy industries--which have spent the last 30 years funding phony research to confuse the public about climate change & bribing politicians to subsidize their destructive & inefficient industry--is not prone to bad decisions?
1
Say it ain't so Joe. Imagine that, ownership by the public brings greater or equal benefit to being exploited by private ownership. Of course this should have been obvious to the rubes but MSM and the financial press has neglected their duty. When news becomes a game show and the masses expect bread and circuses, you get mis/dis information that harms the ones who would benefit to the contrary of what is being done. The cliche is "voting against their own self interest", but has what the populous has/continues to do. The most precious part of this is that the biggest successes are occurring in the supposed most "conservative" states. NE, TX, AK, you wear the tights with the big red H today, Hypocrisy is thy name.
9
Glad to finally see an intelligent discussion of the positive side of socialism. The most important public ownership issue is for public ownership of central banks. We shouldn't pay private bankers interest to loan ourselves money to build roads and provide services. The government has to write the bonds that create the money. We sell them to private banks then immediately buy them back at a higher price creating much larger debt. It's our money! It should be our bank.
31
The Texas programs do not expropriate capital, all minerals and grazing lands were either donated from private individuals or transfers from US claims. It is very lucrative and means we have neither an income tax or a deficit. However, all other state minerals are owned privately, and the state mineral assets are developed privately, with royalties paid in subject to the appropriate leases. A lease only terminates at the end of productive life.
4
The challenge is to separate the interests of the politicians and that of publicly managed enterprises. In many cases these enterprises are staffed by people who are connected to the political apparatus, and used as a revolving door - as an employment insurance.
The key is management. If managed in a true professional manner, the public enterprises have been shown to optimize utilization and sustainability of resources for public good.
The recent 2008 meltdown of privately managed financial institutions and the largest bankruptcy of publicly managed city - Detroit, prove that inefficiency and ineffectiveness are common to both private and public styles of management. Professional management skills, and facts based management are needed badly.
The key is management. If managed in a true professional manner, the public enterprises have been shown to optimize utilization and sustainability of resources for public good.
The recent 2008 meltdown of privately managed financial institutions and the largest bankruptcy of publicly managed city - Detroit, prove that inefficiency and ineffectiveness are common to both private and public styles of management. Professional management skills, and facts based management are needed badly.
5
While there is no question that the public management of Detroit contributed to its decline, I think a good case can be made that the basic reason was incompetence on the part of the management of the private car companies.
The revenue from public ownership of some enterprises by the federal government could significantly reduce personal and corporate income tax rates. It could also make Social Security and Medicare fiscally sound, as well as reduce the payroll tax rate for these programs.
1
Social Security already is fiscally sound. Projections suggest that it will require some minor adjustment to changing demographics by 2027, higher tax rates or a reduction in the rate of increase of benefits, but this has happened many times before and is nothing to be concerned about.
Of course, you wouldn't know that from listening to lying Republican politicians.
Of course, you wouldn't know that from listening to lying Republican politicians.
23
Liberal candidates should raise this issue in their campaigns and point out conservatives' hypocrisy about socialism.
25
Don't forget the post WWII consensus that made NYC the greatest city on earth for all income groups. It was a combination of Public Housing projects, the impact of Robert Moses infrastructure and the municipal hospital system.
6
And how did that work out in the fiscal crisis?
New York has become a city for the very rich and the very poor, with the middle class out of the picture. Much of that has to do with inequities in funding -- the cities are left with the burden of supporting the nation's poor -- but some of it also has to do with unsustainably generous local social benefits. Note for example that the city is now building thousands of low-cost housing units while middle class people struggle to get to work because there's no Second Avenue subway.
New York has become a city for the very rich and the very poor, with the middle class out of the picture. Much of that has to do with inequities in funding -- the cities are left with the burden of supporting the nation's poor -- but some of it also has to do with unsustainably generous local social benefits. Note for example that the city is now building thousands of low-cost housing units while middle class people struggle to get to work because there's no Second Avenue subway.
Josh, I'm not picking on you. I'm actually a fan, and have been for a while. But if people can struggle because of something that never existed, then regardless of class everyone (who uses the East Side to get to work, anyway) struggles to get to work because there's no 2nd Ave subway line. New York's always had rich and poor. But the middle class has been squeezed from the city because of too much money, not too much poverty. The poor are next. Who knows where they'll land. Have you been to Poughkeepsie lately?
1
NY can solve the problem by properly taxing property. The rich get still another disproportionate break under the present assessment system. Tax them based on market value. Stop blaming poor people and get your foot off their neck. You will find solutions that benefit everyone in the long run.
2
It's a mistake to call this socialism. Citizens owning everything from roads to utilities has always been part of our society and no one has objected. It's only recently when a few slicky boys conned those still paranoid by McCarthy Era style fear mongering all het up and snowed them into letting the slicky boys who trick the John Birch Society types to let them privatize the profits and leave the leftovers to the government. This isn't and has never been socialism. Quit pandering to the crazies and the slicky boys who want to take advantage of the easily conned among us.
8
Just because it has always been around does not mean it is not socialism.
1
I fail to see how these examples are not in some sense socialist in nature. Our armed services are socialist. Fire departments. Schools. You might even say that all government employees, elected and unelected, are examples of socialism. It's not DDR socialism with all the extraneous bells and whistles and atheism and parades, but it is not that dissimilar from the social democracies of Western Europe. Just because Americans have not objected to socialized industry does not make those industries any less socialized. Americans are just very suspicious of the word.
1
The news has been full recently of concerns about the liabilities of European countries. It seems the entire world now knows the debt to GDP ratio of every European country.
But what about the assets of these same countries? If the trains, share-holdings, museums etc are owned by the state, and produce a regular income stream, then the picture does not seem so bad. Funny how the assets are never reported in the media.
But what about the assets of these same countries? If the trains, share-holdings, museums etc are owned by the state, and produce a regular income stream, then the picture does not seem so bad. Funny how the assets are never reported in the media.
10
The train systems are usually heavily subsidized. Even with eXpensive ticket prices they rarely, if ever, break even much less show a profit.
The United States has had a mixed system since the year one. First Bank of the United States and the Louisiana purchase— socialism? The government subsidy to the private railroad companies to extend their lines across United States— socialism? Private utility companies refusing to extend their lines to farmers in the 1930s and the REA stepped in to fill the breach – – socialism? Pres. Eisenhower proposed to privatize the TVA at the residence of the region raise holy hell and it didn't happen— socialism? Conservatives in the Unitedd States have been crying "socialism" whenever something is proposed that they don't like during my lifetime(92 years), the word has no meaning anymore.
47
Right! Another example is fire fighting which was socialized after private companies failed in colonial America.
1
On the federal level, public entities (NASA, for example) can engage in or finance research that exceeds the capacity of private companies because profits are uncertain or likely only over a long period of time. The incentive for the investment, however, must originate outside the institution, since the incomes or careers of the government employees do not depend directly on such entrepreneurial activities. A flexible economic system, as Mark Thomason stresses, attempts to benefit from the advantages of both public and private investment, while limiting the cost of each. The inherent difficulties of accomplishing these twin goals might diminish if we could dispense with the silly practice of using the label "socialism" to close off intelligent debate.
8
Does local public ownership make the local owners more vulnerable to the pressures of formidable lobbying groups -- say, to open things up for environmentally unsound exploitation, like fracking? This is a question for readers who are more knowledgeable than I am. Their thoughts would be appreciated.
This piece might better be titled "Hypocrisy, American-Style". Conservatives are against socialism except when it puts money in their pocket. Not surprisingly, they are also against welfare except when its for the wealthy and big corporations in which they call it tax breaks and subsidies.
58
Look at the pro sports financial structures. The NFL, and other pro leagues, are socialists at the top. They share revenue, help struggling teams survive, overcome market sizes, constrain real competition for the athletes by having a modern slave block system, etc.
These billionaire owners claim that capitalism is great, but not for them when they can have the concentrated power and monopoly profits of the socialist model they have created.
These billionaire owners claim that capitalism is great, but not for them when they can have the concentrated power and monopoly profits of the socialist model they have created.
1
What is apparent is most folks do not understand the difference between socialism and communism. I am sure if Sanders is in the mix for the presidency, the low life media will call him a communist. I believe certain things should not be the subject of profits. Water, healthcare and basics of life. The real question should be how can this be done correctly, efficiently and competently. Facts show that privatization of services usually result in higher costs simply because when you add profits you increase costs. Also, like prisons, the profit takers reduce the quality of the workforce so to pay lower wages. It may not work across the board but it should be in the conversation.
32
I really like this article. The nanny state denounced by conservatives in effect benefits mostly business. So, in the US & to a lesser extent in Western Europe, there is socialism for the rich and unfettered capitalism for the poor and the middle class.
23
Instead of trying to wield either "Capitalism" or "Socialism" as ideologies, or "idiot-ologies," we need to recognize that both are just TOOLS. And tools are only useful when used appropriately.
There are spheres in which Capitalism will produce more desirable results, spheres in which Socialism will produce more desirable results, and spheres in which some mix will produce more desirable results.
All life, including economics, is a balance of Competition and Cooperation.
What we need to do is to stop having a stupid and unproductive ideological battle, which does no one any good. Choose the right tool(s) for the job!
There are spheres in which Capitalism will produce more desirable results, spheres in which Socialism will produce more desirable results, and spheres in which some mix will produce more desirable results.
All life, including economics, is a balance of Competition and Cooperation.
What we need to do is to stop having a stupid and unproductive ideological battle, which does no one any good. Choose the right tool(s) for the job!
8
All of the land-dividend examples are really Georgist, not Socialist. That is, they return a portion of the rental value of the "Land" (read: location, mineral worth, space occupied) back to the community whose demand for them created the value in the first place.
Georgist Prof. Mason Gaffney calculates there is $5.3T in rent potentially available to be collected in the U.S. If that amount was properly collected it would be enough to replace all other taxes - a deadweight loss for productive activities - and woudl not impact production negatively in any way, since the "rent" is already collected by private interests. Try doing that with Socialist policies.
Georgist Prof. Mason Gaffney calculates there is $5.3T in rent potentially available to be collected in the U.S. If that amount was properly collected it would be enough to replace all other taxes - a deadweight loss for productive activities - and woudl not impact production negatively in any way, since the "rent" is already collected by private interests. Try doing that with Socialist policies.
2
Sadly, the dominant model in the always exceptional US of A is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. The banks get bailed out other people lose their homes.
We have privatization of the profits, socialization of the costs. Koch Propaganda & Pollution, pollutes for free, society pays in Medicare and Medicaid for the medical treatment necessitated by the pollution.
Confined animal feeding operations pollute our rivers and streams and society pays to remove their waste from our drinking water. The vast amounts of toxic water produced by fracking will never be cleaned by industry, they will just declare bankruptcy and, again, society will have to pay.
We have privatization of the profits, socialization of the costs. Koch Propaganda & Pollution, pollutes for free, society pays in Medicare and Medicaid for the medical treatment necessitated by the pollution.
Confined animal feeding operations pollute our rivers and streams and society pays to remove their waste from our drinking water. The vast amounts of toxic water produced by fracking will never be cleaned by industry, they will just declare bankruptcy and, again, society will have to pay.
35
Perhaps if the banks had been nationalised before the crash, there might not have been one.
4
And if the banks had always been nationalized, you would not have seen the rise in wealth over the past 100 years, but perhaps you would have been happier not knowing it was possible.
You write, "Moreover, contrary to conventional opinion, studies of the comparative efficiency of modern public enterprise show rough equivalency to private firms *in many cases.* [Emphasis added]
It's those other cases that concern me.
In a competitive business environment, an inefficient company ends up in Chapter 11. There is no such guarantee in the case of an inefficiently-run government operation -- rather, there are pressures to perpetuate its inefficiency -- and so we end up with massively overstaffed, poorly run, capital-starved, corrupt or pork barrel operations like the MTA or the Port Authority.
I mean, where is that Second Avenue subway anyway? The Hudson River tunnel?
That isn't to say that government can't do some things more efficiently than private enterprise. Social Security and Medicare are two good examples: their overhead is lower than that of any private company. And in the case of utilities, we aren't dealing with competitive capitalism, but with regulated monopolies that become as bloated and inefficient as their government counterparts, and are frequently part of a corrupt system as well.
But I fear that the young people who have grown up without a socialist world with which to compare capitalism are naive about the overall ability of socialism to compete. Socialism sounds great on paper, and it works well in some cases, but overall, it has been a terrible flop. We adopt it at our risk.
It's those other cases that concern me.
In a competitive business environment, an inefficient company ends up in Chapter 11. There is no such guarantee in the case of an inefficiently-run government operation -- rather, there are pressures to perpetuate its inefficiency -- and so we end up with massively overstaffed, poorly run, capital-starved, corrupt or pork barrel operations like the MTA or the Port Authority.
I mean, where is that Second Avenue subway anyway? The Hudson River tunnel?
That isn't to say that government can't do some things more efficiently than private enterprise. Social Security and Medicare are two good examples: their overhead is lower than that of any private company. And in the case of utilities, we aren't dealing with competitive capitalism, but with regulated monopolies that become as bloated and inefficient as their government counterparts, and are frequently part of a corrupt system as well.
But I fear that the young people who have grown up without a socialist world with which to compare capitalism are naive about the overall ability of socialism to compete. Socialism sounds great on paper, and it works well in some cases, but overall, it has been a terrible flop. We adopt it at our risk.
22
Mantras become overblown and the republican mantra that government cannot operate efficiently is not a fact written in stone. Competition often drives businesses to operate according to the lowest common denominator. Our corporate structures in the United States that furnished health care and retirement packages along with good wages could not compete in local and foreign markets where the competition furnished none of the above benefits. Our brilliant corporate leaders decided to through the basic health care and retirement responsibility onto the people with no structure for government oversight but our brilliant political leaders said no no you can't do that. The result is the inefficient mess we have now low wages, a barely workable heath care and retirement system. What the really smart leaders in the United States did, intentionally in some cases and unintentionally in other case, is to overlook the fact that government leaders in other countries, particularly in Europe, worked out arrangements with and for all of their citizens to have health care and retirement packages. The result is a country club country where owners and their flunkies enjoy a protected standard of living that is many times greater than the people who make all of the extravagant goodies possible for them and a government that is torn between governing for the all of our citizens and/or providing for or protecting extreme wealth. That is idiocy not efficiency!
4
In a competitive business environment, an inefficient company ends up in Chapter 11. There is no such guarantee in the case of an inefficiently-run government operation -- rather, there are pressures to perpetuate its inefficiency -- and so we end up with massively overstaffed, poorly run, capital-starved, corrupt or pork barrel operations like the MTA or the Port Authority.
Is it always a good thing if an "inefficient" company ends up in bankruptcy? Is that the only way to reorganize production or services?
When competition brings down a business, there are a lot of people who suffer the consequences. Sometimes whole communities collapse.
There is a good argument that publicly operated businesses are subject to political influences that distort decisions. I think there is an equally good argument that short-term profits also distort decisions.
If we look at the example of Donald Trump's business ventures, we can see indications of how he used bankruptcy and other legal maneuvers to enhance his fortune. It's time to give up the idea that competition will fix everything and that private business is inherently the best solution to providing goods and services.
Is it always a good thing if an "inefficient" company ends up in bankruptcy? Is that the only way to reorganize production or services?
When competition brings down a business, there are a lot of people who suffer the consequences. Sometimes whole communities collapse.
There is a good argument that publicly operated businesses are subject to political influences that distort decisions. I think there is an equally good argument that short-term profits also distort decisions.
If we look at the example of Donald Trump's business ventures, we can see indications of how he used bankruptcy and other legal maneuvers to enhance his fortune. It's time to give up the idea that competition will fix everything and that private business is inherently the best solution to providing goods and services.
4
When large corporations operate on the principle of maximizing profits and payout to investors, the consumer pays more to support a bloated and unproductive "capital class."
The current scam built into the ACA is a good example. Consumer's premiums must cover upper management's ridiculously high salaries. Single payer would be more efficient and cheaper.
Big pharma is another example. Research is expensive, but the ridiculously high costs of drugs is due to sky-high salaries and demand for profits.
We can do better. Socialism is not always a failure. The often cited example of the former Soviet Union doesn't focus on their true problems: totalitarianism, lack of transparency, corruption, low productivity-- but not state-owned enterprise. We can and should make this work in a number of industries, including utilities, healthcare, maybe even basic banking.
The current scam built into the ACA is a good example. Consumer's premiums must cover upper management's ridiculously high salaries. Single payer would be more efficient and cheaper.
Big pharma is another example. Research is expensive, but the ridiculously high costs of drugs is due to sky-high salaries and demand for profits.
We can do better. Socialism is not always a failure. The often cited example of the former Soviet Union doesn't focus on their true problems: totalitarianism, lack of transparency, corruption, low productivity-- but not state-owned enterprise. We can and should make this work in a number of industries, including utilities, healthcare, maybe even basic banking.
4
By all means keep your American-style socialism in America.
In the rest of the developed world socialism will mean:
Low-cost health care
Low-cost university education
Lower inequality
Less consumerism
In the rest of the developed world socialism will mean:
Low-cost health care
Low-cost university education
Lower inequality
Less consumerism
314
You forgot to add high unemployment, slow economic growth, lower per-capita incomes, and, in the case of France where you can't fire anyone, surly waiters.
You also forgot to mention that American universities are for the most part much better than their low-cost European counterparts, both in international rankings and from the perspective of students.
Also, that in France, you can scarcely even get a driver's license, because the government won't print enough applications and won't charge for them -- that wouldn't be socialist enough.
And you forgot to mention punitive no-growth fiscal conservatism that has created Depression-era conditions in countries like Spain and Greece.
And I say that as someone who supports, in general, the higher social benefits offered by the European welfare states.
Just pointing out that things aren't as simple or black and white as some people make them out to be. They're a series of compromises.
You also forgot to mention that American universities are for the most part much better than their low-cost European counterparts, both in international rankings and from the perspective of students.
Also, that in France, you can scarcely even get a driver's license, because the government won't print enough applications and won't charge for them -- that wouldn't be socialist enough.
And you forgot to mention punitive no-growth fiscal conservatism that has created Depression-era conditions in countries like Spain and Greece.
And I say that as someone who supports, in general, the higher social benefits offered by the European welfare states.
Just pointing out that things aren't as simple or black and white as some people make them out to be. They're a series of compromises.
33
And lower living standards. Its a trade off.
3
That's the point; the proper compromises which add value to life and not just text book capitalistic notions and radical 'free market" nonsense with no values but PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT!
3
Public ownership has both costs and benefits. Proponents see only benefits, and opponents see only costs.
What is needed is a clear eyed cost-benefit analysis of the specific case.
Public ownership is public profit, and controls the profits of monopoly natural in some situations.
Private ownership is freedom for private initiative to innovate. It leads to progress.
The reverse is also true. Public ownership can lead to stasis. Private ownership can lead to exploitation of the public.
There just isn't a simple answer, one size fits all. It can change over time even for the same situation, as when public utilities shift over from coal power plants to distributed solar and wind going into the grid. The answer can change.
This invites fighting. It invites selfishness, lying, and greed. It is unpleasant. It would be so much nicer to have a simple answer. It would be wrong, but it would be so much prettier.
What is needed is a clear eyed cost-benefit analysis of the specific case.
Public ownership is public profit, and controls the profits of monopoly natural in some situations.
Private ownership is freedom for private initiative to innovate. It leads to progress.
The reverse is also true. Public ownership can lead to stasis. Private ownership can lead to exploitation of the public.
There just isn't a simple answer, one size fits all. It can change over time even for the same situation, as when public utilities shift over from coal power plants to distributed solar and wind going into the grid. The answer can change.
This invites fighting. It invites selfishness, lying, and greed. It is unpleasant. It would be so much nicer to have a simple answer. It would be wrong, but it would be so much prettier.
62
Public ownership not always leads to stasis. Space exploration, nuclear energy, Internet communications are proof of the contrary. I think the most important aspect in the decision making process is democracy along with issues of who owns the means of production (in this case land or seas). The recent (undemocratic) European bullying of a tiny nation shows that private ownership of the instruments of finance (monopoly banks) leads to stasis and poverty.
137
Enri, of course public ownership doesn't *always* lead to stasis. But the heavily socialized economies *failed* to come even close to providing the standard of living of the capitalist economies and it is naive or dishonest to imply that they did. One need not be a fan of the banks or the German abuse of Greece or he anti-competitive behavior of greedy businessmen to recognize that,
One would have thought that after the failure of the socialist world we would have grown a bit wiser but it seems that every generation has to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not just young people ignorant of history, but the greedy businessmen who forget that the seeds of socialism germinate in the soil of sociopathy and greed.
One would have thought that after the failure of the socialist world we would have grown a bit wiser but it seems that every generation has to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not just young people ignorant of history, but the greedy businessmen who forget that the seeds of socialism germinate in the soil of sociopathy and greed.
17
Well said!
Making state residents into stakeholders in resource extraction is attractive in conservative states because it reduces support for environmentally sound resource management and pollution control.
In WA State, some revenue from timber sales on DNR lands goes to rural schools, which also leads to boom-bust funding and local enthusiasm for clear cutting.
Public utility ownership, one the other hand, can be very successful if well managed. The Seattle City Light utility operates a large hydro facility that powers the city at favorable, low carbon rates. But good management requires accountability, which us harder to achieve.
In WA State, some revenue from timber sales on DNR lands goes to rural schools, which also leads to boom-bust funding and local enthusiasm for clear cutting.
Public utility ownership, one the other hand, can be very successful if well managed. The Seattle City Light utility operates a large hydro facility that powers the city at favorable, low carbon rates. But good management requires accountability, which us harder to achieve.
98