Greed Is Good. What?

[GreyGeek]

Doesn't really matter what economic system you use, in all oligarchies the elite will do well, while the rest will do progressively worse. And democracies aren't "safe" either, left to their own devices, all organizations (including democracies) will turn into oligarchies. This is often referred to as the "iron law of oligarchy".

And, IMO, we in the USA have passed that point several decades ago. Now it is becoming openly oppressive.

[blobfish]

"iron law of oligarchy"....NICE!

[dibl]

Doesn't really matter what economic system you use, in all oligarchies the elite will do well, while the rest will do progressively worse.

There is a lot of truth in that, kubicle.

One more thought about the wealth gap, which is indeed worrisome to the extent that it generates jealous resentment among many of the "have-nots" (although a lot of have-nots actually seem pretty content with their arrangements). Where do the fabulously wealthy keep their wealth -- in bags of gold in the basement? No. To preserve the wealth, they invest it conservatively in things like real estate and insured bonds or mutual funds of insured bonds. Meaning, in the case of bonds, that they are loaning their money to governments at all levels, and to mostly non-corporate organizations who can offer very safe bonds. So, how bad is that -- that government and institutional borrowing needs are funded in substantial part by rich people, via their bond investments?

[kubicle]

Doesn't really matter what economic system you use, in all oligarchies the elite will do well, while the rest will do progressively worse. And democracies aren't "safe" either, left to their own devices, all organizations (including democracies) will turn into oligarchies. This is often referred to as the "iron law of oligarchy".

[bsniadajewski]

I don't agree fully Marx has anything to do with that. Marx didn't write too much about how the state should be organized.
In the Soviet Union it went already wrong with Lenin, who destroyed every kind of opposition, even peaceful opposition. The fact there was a civil war in which western countries supported anti-soviet forces did help Lenin to get absolute powers.
I still believe it must be possible to have a democratic and (more or less) Marxist state and economy. But indeed, there is not one single example of a Marxist country that did not become a disgusting dictatorship. I think you can't have real socialism without real democracy to control the leaders.
There's one small other point I disagree with you: not everybody in the so called socialistic counties was poor. The leaders were absolutely not poor. In Easter Germany they lived in big houses in a separate neighborhood, forbidden for normal people. I don't think Marx would be happy with that kind of idiocy. One of the former Soviet leaders, if I remember well it was Breznew, collected big cars like Mercedes. Lots of people in North Korea are starving, but the leader doesn't look like he's only eating dry bread.

In that case, it was more "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." except with a hammer and sickle rather than a swastika.

[dibl]

Heh, that reminded me of the superb story Harrison Bergeron, by the incomparable Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

Good one! I read it and like it. I'll never forget Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s "Slaughterhouse Five".

[HalationEffect]

It would only produce a miserable kind of fairness, in which everyone has a lesser quality of existence.

Heh, that reminded me of the superb story Harrison Bergeron, by the incomparable Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

It's an excellent short story about how zeal for equality can be taken too far, and it can be read in its entirety (not that it's very long) here: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html.

[dibl]

If everyone is poor, wouldn't everyone suddenly become "rich", since prices for almost everything would have to fall (deflation), thus increasing the buying power of the currency (benefitting the "poor")?

No. Sorry, this is the kind of goofy false logic that pervades the liberal philosophy -- that the abolishment of wealthy people and organizations would produce a better life for poor people. It would only produce a miserable kind of fairness, in which everyone has a lesser quality of existence.

The economy would shrink (see my point about economic growth above), innovation and entrepreneurship would go the same way it did in Eastern Germany and North Korea, and the citizens would enjoy the same "fair" lifestyle that the citizens of Cuba and North Korea enjoy today. Any increase of buying power would be worthless, as there would be nothing more than the essentials of life to buy.

The average conservative is far less concerned with reducing the wealth gap (which is not denied to be a social problem) than he is appalled at the prospect of using the power of the federal government for such an unconstitutional purpose. The average conservative thinks that governmental policies at the state and local level which address the cultural underpinnings of economic poverty (cultural, intellectual, and spiritual poverty) would be far more likely to reinvent the upward mobility in our society which has, in the past century of our history, been the hallmark of American exceptionalism.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I don't agree fully Marx has anything to do with that. Marx didn't write too much about how the state should be organized.
In the Soviet Union it went already wrong with Lenin, who destroyed every kind of opposition, even peaceful opposition. The fact there was a civil war in which western countries supported anti-soviet forces did help Lenin to get absolute powers.
I still believe it must be possible to have a democratic and (more or less) Marxist state and economy. But indeed, there is not one single example of a Marxist country that did not become a disgusting dictatorship. I think you can't have real socialism without real democracy to control the leaders.
There's one small other point I disagree with you: not everybody in the so called socialistic counties was poor. The leaders were absolutely not poor. In Easter Germany they lived in big houses in a separate neighborhood, forbidden for normal people. I don't think Marx would be happy with that kind of idiocy. One of the former Soviet leaders, if I remember well it was Breznew, collected big cars like Mercedes. Lots of people in North Korea are starving, but the leader doesn't look like he's only eating dry bread.

[GreyGeek]

.....
I wonder then, if Western European/Canadian-Style Socialism (or is that Social Democracy) is doing better, why hasn't SD caught on here in the USA. Is it some sort of NIH?

IMO, corporate "lobbying" (bribery) of Congress has prevented any significant improvements in our democracy, which is more aptly described as a cabal since all of the Federal agencies originally created to protect citizens from corporate abuse are now in a revolving door management policy with the very corporations each agency is supposed to regulate and thus protect corporations from the anger and wrath of the abused citizen.

I saw this interesting article on a G+ thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...en.html?ref=us

[bsniadajewski]

Actually, there is evidence of the opposite of that. East Germany made everyone poor and no one benefited from the poverty. Same for Yugoslavia and other USSR satellite states, and for the USSR itself. North Korea, Cuba anyone? In every Socialist state run by dictators (dictatorship of the proletariat) extreme poverty is the result. Strict application of Karl Marx's dictum results in everyone being poor.

Canadian and Western European Socialism appears to do better in regards to leveling the economic field without reducing everyone to poverty.

thanks for the reply GG.

Of course it didn't help that Soviet Russia wasn't capitalist first during either the czarist era or the provisional gov't(to have the capital there to begin with) before going Communist.

I wonder then, if Western European/Canadian-Style Socialism (or is that Social Democracy) is doing better, why hasn't SD caught on here in the USA. Is it some sort of NIH?

[GreyGeek]

If everyone is poor, wouldn't everyone suddenly become "rich", since prices for almost everything would have to fall (deflation), thus increasing the buying power of the currency (benefitting the "poor")?

Actually, there is evidence of the opposite of that. East Germany made everyone poor and no one benefited from the poverty. Same for Yugoslavia and other USSR satellite states, and for the USSR itself. North Korea, Cuba anyone? In every Socialist state run by dictators (dictatorship of the proletariat) extreme poverty is the result. Strict application of Karl Marx's dictum results in everyone being poor.

Canadian and Western European Socialism appears to do better in regards to leveling the economic field without reducing everyone to poverty.

[bsniadajewski]

@dibl: "the companion site to that one. The name of the site would be 'List of the Ways the Government Totally Wastes the Taxpayers' Money'."

Agree completely! I hate the waste, and I feel that should be top priority for any administration, to chase down the fraud, the waste, the inefficiencies, the inequities, and thus reduce necessary costs of programs (and eliminate redundant/unnecessary programs). Maybe THAT is an area where government isn't good -- at analyzing and eliminating waste. So ... why not hire private, specialist companies to do it for the gov't? Not on some bs analysis-study basis, but on a real, agreed upon action basis. In fact, why not hire private companies to run those gov't programs? But then, there's our war experience in Iraq, with Halliburton and the likes and such ...

Yeah that could become a problem if your not careful.

[bsniadajewski]

I'm very afraid that a government-engineered solution to this "problem" would produce the result that everyone is poor.

If everyone is poor, wouldn't everyone suddenly become "rich", since prices for almost everything would have to fall (deflation), thus increasing the buying power of the currency (benefitting the "poor")?

[Qqmike]

@dibl: "the companion site to that one. The name of the site would be 'List of the Ways the Government Totally Wastes the Taxpayers' Money'."

Agree completely! I hate the waste, and I feel that should be top priority for any administration, to chase down the fraud, the waste, the inefficiencies, the inequities, and thus reduce necessary costs of programs (and eliminate redundant/unnecessary programs). Maybe THAT is an area where government isn't good -- at analyzing and eliminating waste. So ... why not hire private, specialist companies to do it for the gov't? Not on some bs analysis-study basis, but on a real, agreed upon action basis. In fact, why not hire private companies to run those gov't programs? But then, there's our war experience in Iraq, with Halliburton and the likes and such ...