Socialism Does Not Work

right now the world is in economic trouble.. except one manin country..

China. a communist socialist country, who was our greatest creditor until this month when the japanese took that title.

what is the happies place to live in the world via world wide studies year after year..

Norway

and whats theri form of gov.. socialism

Bonus question sicne We all know why this was written.. DOOM and GLOOM and OBAMA

who is the number #1 capitalisyt on the planet?

THe USA

no i mean indivual.

warren buffet is the richest man on the planet.

he is capitalism.. he is thje winner of the game, the guy on top

and he supports barrack obama for president.

thanks for tryign to scare us but the last 8 years were scary enough.. we are goign to roll things back to the times of the clintons.

what really scares the gop is to hav back to back popular dem presidents.

Bud,

Under real socialism - there is no government.

Communism needs capitalism to feed it. 

Somebody tell joulesbeef guy to use spellcheck. Not from America and don't speak well but have brains enought to use spellcheck. And Norway not  so great. Just a country where nobody really do anything but sit on butt  let rest of world do their dirty work

inmyc,

No - that's the Fabians.

 PROLETARIAN,  I looked  up Fabians in dictionary.  They're socialist.  Our tax money goes to them.  US businesses goes to China. The last to go down in a depression are American businesses. that's why China is begining to feel the tug as the financial train falls off the cliff.

inmyc,

Did the dictionary tell you that the Fabians founded the London School of Economics???  Or that David Rockefeller wrote his thesis on the Fabians while attending one of the Ivy League schools?  Or that David then did his graduate work at the LSE???

Did the dictionary tell you why the Fabian's logos are the turtle and the wolf in sheep's clothing???

Bud: Another inaccurate opinion - from the Title down. You see, you don't have any idea what socialism is so anything you disagree with is labeled "Socialism" like some kijnd of Boogeyman.

As I understand it, wealth redistribution is a basic tenant of socialism.

No; wealth redefinition is. If you eliminate Inheritance and private property, people are able to enjoy the fruits of their own labor; not someone else's (which is what we havenow with private inheritors through a government fiat or contrivance called private property were able to steal our economy and then protect it through government edict - kind of like the kingdoms in Europe - but instead of kings and queens, and dukes and earls we have Rockefellers and Mellons and Dukes and Du Ponts)

Another basic tenant of socialism is gun control.

No, socialism says nothing about Gun Control. It's all about Economics, in fact any economic system is an asset allocation system; the question is whether the actual working people get the assets or the inheritors.

Kaiji - Of course then it's no longer appealing to government because they don't get to be the middle man and take their cut.

as PROLETARIAN said "Under real socialism - there is no government."

BUD - reported as inaccurate - you need to take some classes in economic theory and understand what you are talking about. Had you said "Obamaism will not work" or something to that effect you may have had a vaslid point; this has nothing to do with Socialism. Learn what socialism is.

as PROLETARIAN said "Under real socialism - there is no government."

BUD - reported as inaccurate - you need to take some classes in economic theory and understand what you are talking about. Had you said "Obamaism will not work" or something to that effect you may have had a vaslid point; this has nothing to do with Socialism. Learn what socialism is.

Socialism is Government ownership of all private propoerty.

Anarchy is absence of a government, it is Libertarianism taken to it's extremist conclusion. 

This is quoted directly from the dictionary in comment #7

Note: There are different forms of anarchism.

Still, I think you are closer to my philosphy than you imagine yourself to be. Still, you make assumptions about my political affiliations and launch into a long series of ad hominem attacks merely for my criticism of Medicare.

We are clearly at a point in our history where we are going to have to decide on a philosophy by which we conduct government, as the current financial order, built upon fiat money is going to collapse.

You seem to propose elimination of private property, this is an idea functional in smaller communities, and as a Libertarian I certainly would support granting them sovereignty if they so wished.

If you wish to inform me further may I ask that you reccomend to me books.

As for others, may say that Locke's "Second Treatise on civil government" And Bastiat's "The Law" should have been required reading for all students for decades.

For a great Austrian economics (economics based on essential facts of human action) text, Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises or "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothhard (audiobook is free on mises.org)

Or, may I simply reccomend the more esoteric, but also political, text "The Tao Te Ching" by Lao Tzu. Many consider him to have been the first libertarian.

Jivatman, I suspect you know that Marx taught that the state "withers away" after the proletariat gains power.

I would recommend "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx as well as "Revolution and the State" by Lenin.

Jivatman, I suspect you know that Marx taught that the state "withers away" after the proletariat gains power.

Perhaps, but I do not believe it coherently describes the ways in which members of such a society would conduct themselves, unlike Murray Rothbard's books such as "The Ethics of Liberty" which presents a very compelling and concrete method based on natural rights. Such a complete system beggars criticism though.

I disagree, for example that there should be such thing as "Intellectual Property"

However, again, it uses natural rights to deductively reason a civil society, whereas communism merely asserts "Everyone should just go be nice to eachother and not own anything" - an assertion, while possible on a small scale among people who specifically choose to belong to it, seems impossible for any larger state.

I am not impressed with higher learning institutions and their mostly left wing ideologies, so I will most likely never take an economics class.

Both the most pervasive and most flawed economic is Keynesian. He considered his greatest accomplishment to be the elimiation of the gold standard because he wants the state to have as much control over the economy as possible.

Otherwise, Modern economics also has a tendacy towards flawed utilitarianism, historicism, and other relativist systems which are abstracted from rational, thinking, humans.

I reccomend you go yourself and read some of the economists of the Austrian School, which are the only True neoclassical economists that remain, and are the closest to both the classical liberal philosophers, and the Western philosophical rationalist tradition.

equipment operator and volunteer firefighter/EMT

Thanks for your service.  Your argument is framed adequately for those who are focused on the merits rather than their own socialist ideology.  The lessons of the USSR, et al, are intentionally ignored by those who have been indoctrinated already.  Fortunately, such is not the case with the vast majority of Americans.  However, this election and the prevalence of America-hating, spoiled-brat, "I-want-it-now", cyber socialists has sounded that alarm of which you spoke.  Expect to hear a lot more about it over the next few weeks.  Fortunately, America seems to be paying attention now.  If we clip the wings of the nation's eagles, we will become a nation of turkeys.

Ellie ???????

Someone please explain to me how giving money to these capitalist institutions is "socialism."

Warren Buffett buys Wells Fargo - congress bailsout Wells Fargo.  Socialism?????????  I think NOT.

I agree that it is wealth redistribution but when you buy a car that is also "wealth redistribution."  Does that make it socialism???

The point is - where does wealth come to rest.  Under capitalism and its "democratic" capitalist republics and its equally degenerate sham worker states it comes to rest in the hands of the very, very few.

Under real socialism wealth come to rest in the hands of the very, very many.

I do not believe for a second that Obamas plan is socialism. I believe that the tax cuts for the rich under The Bush administration did not help and did hurt the middle and low income people. The wealth did not trickle down as a matter of fact the people in the middle worked to make the fat cats fatter. There is a total imbalance of wealth and this country is looking more like the south the last 5 years. Their is less of a middle class and more people that are poor under the failed policies of the current   administration. Infant mortality is increasing and it is a matter fact that 27 other countries are doing better in this area than we are. There are the once middle class people that are trying to find places to park their vehicle at night because they are living in their cars. The onus is on  some of these people but I have never seen anything like this in  my lifetime.Family members and friends are living under tighter and tighter budget constraints each and every year and they are working harder. This is not something that just happened with the stock market dropr this year. It has taken years to get to this place. During the housing bubble fiasco many people tapped into their equity; some for pleasure and frills but others to make ends meet. Our economy is consumer driven and when the housing bubble burst   and their wasn't anymore instant cash the economy started to unravel. People then realized they had somewhere along the line became the working poor. If the average americans are allowed to pay less taxes then it will be returned to the economy and those at the top will also prosper. To put it simply to keep the rich rich we need to keep spending. In order for many people to make ends meet they need to pay less taxes. This system is broken, and those that squawk  socialism  just do not get it. Obama is not going to take money from Bill Gates and give it to me and he is not going to give away the access homes that mccain maynot need. The rich will stay rich and maybe a guy in the middle will start moving up instead of stagnating or getting poorer as time goes by.

Excellent Teresa:

"Their is less of a middle class and more people that are poor under the failed policies of the current   administration. "

Which is exactly what Marx predicted - it is the only logical condition to which capitalism can lead - and ultimately only 2 classes will exist.  The very, very wealthy and the very, very poor.

People can begin to do something now or they can wait until they are destitute.  YOUR choice.

For those who are interested in learning more:

link

Socialism in the US="sharing" corporate losses, government purchasing stinkola assets rather than letting the free market handle it (bad corporations going under).  Of course, because of job losses, I was in favor of the "rescue".  Too bad it hasn't turned out the way it's supposed to yet.  Unemployment has continued to rise (as has bank deleveraging).  I would like to see some balance here...and an exit strategy, but, I won't digress.

America is a socialist country.  65% of your money is going to socialist health care programs.  But it's not working, yet we want more of it.  And we don't like it because we want change.  Someone has to collect our money so that they can spend it for us, that's socialism or spreading the wealth.  That's what we already have.  And we're mad because their not spending our money the way we want them to.  Why depend on someone to spend our money for us when we have what it takes to be independant.  This is America, remember.  It can be whatever we make it.

inmyc,

What you are describing is capitalism - in a socialist society you would not even have a "co-pay."

we have what it takes to be independent. 

Who has the deed to your home?  Who has the title to your car. 

Even if you have the title to your car chances are you could not sell it for enough to pay for the medical expenses of even one illness.

The vast majority of people in this country "own" nothing and never will.

public school is socialism

the state owns it, it is paid for by all of us even if we dont have children..it's not the best, but it is better than none.. in a truely capitalistic society.. all school woudl cost money.

the military is socilism.. the state owns the military and provides military services.. we all pay for the military.. in a truely capitalistic society.. corps would hirer mercenaries

the police, fire, social security.

 in my state we own the power company. and that works well .. whie cali was gettign rolling balck outs and expesive elec, we enjoyed soem of the lowest elec in the country and we have enver had blackouts.

they like to screem socialism is evil and will kill america

but that screeem fall silent when the entrie planet is doing poorly except some socialist countries.

But everyone gets the same benefit from those services.  The public school thing is one were there is an imbalance and maybe that should be fixed somehow.  When you start taking money from the rich to pay for health care for the poor, then the rich get no benefit from that service.  that's the wrong kind of socialism.  I'm all for paying into the services that benefit everyone - firemen, police, social security (before the dems raided the funds that were meant to be on hold)  if you put into it, you should get out of it.  Obama's brand of socialism goes too far.

that arguement doesnt hold water prof

when you start taking money from the rich to pay for schools for the poor, then the rich get no benefit from the service. thats the wrong kind of socialism

see how the logic fails

health care for all and school INCLUDING college for all is beneficial to every single member of society, whether they realize it or not

hard to argue with that,

"when you start taking money from the rich to pay for schools for the poor, then the rich get no benefit from the service. "

Of cousre they do - the poor kids become the rich kids employees.

Try to imagine how much the rich save in training costs if a kids takes key boarding in school.

Why do you think we even have public schools - it wasn't done out of the goodness of anyone's heart.

They develop employees and if you move between class rooms you even learn to be some place (like work) on time.

It is all a very subtle form of brain washing - well, indoctrination really.

yes and the rich would get healthier employees and would pay less in health insurance for their employees (sure it would likely equalize in taxes but still)

and also by turns a better educated society includes far less crime, violence, and poverty

so college for all gets the rich a safer place to spend their wealth and live

by the way i dont like how cynical you are it makes me feel not cynical enough ;(

Thanks - I'll take that as a compliment.

Capitalism does work.  It did in the 50's.

Check out my artical on Life In The 50's.

http://joysteele.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/08/1972873-life-in-the-50s

The way this country works, if you have a lot of money it opens up opportunities and privileges that make it even easier to earn more money.  Opportunities and privileges that aren't available to those with less. So what is wrong with having to pay for those opportunities and privileges? If you possess a larger percentage of the money, it makes sense to pay a larger percentage of taxes. It definitely does not make sense to give tax breaks to big business and the extremely wealthy, as McCain wants to do.

Mark - exactly, and as Obama will also do.

see the gop belvies there is no right to privacy in the constitution..

welll except when it is their gopr vp and her email gets hack and then.. oh my

There is no place for government.. well except in a womans body, then we need huge intrusive gov.. and more gov.. we also need gov to tell us morals , and that we should be good Christians

Fears of voter fraud dont matter.. diebold.. dont be such a paranoid ninney.. but acorn and some kids makign up mickey mouse are goign to bring down the foundation of our democracy.

If you have a child out of wedlock.. you are part of the problem, and idiot strainnign the system. And it is all your parrents fault.. but when it is a gops kid.. oooo that is off limits.

the gop only wants rights for themselves.

when you want rights.. when you wnat the constitution protected.. they will call you paranoid.. and a tin foil hatter.

rememerb they screamed the dems werent being bipartisan cause they were capilating each and every time to bush and them.. they are so not used to not beign in power.

Somone tell Joulesbeef guy to please use spell check. I not from US of A and do not speak good english but have brains enought to use spell check.  And Norway not so great. Only people who sit on butt and let rest of world do dirty work.

I not from US of A and do not speak good english but have brains enought to use spell check.

Texas mom's, pretending to be a Taiwanwese "joeywang", and bashed American like crazy (see below), evaded the SS payment,

A PROFILE OF A SELF-PROCLAIMED AMERICAN LOVER AND CHINA BASHER, digadogabone (aka joeywang)

Your criticism about your own country (SORRY YOU NOW RENOUNCED IT): Downfall, lost, no longer tough, whimp, could not survive, soft fat and lazy, cry, hyphenated Americans (hidden racial overtone)

·        Social Security..the down fall of AMERICA...once we started expecting and demanding our Fereral Government take care of US we as a people lost our endeavor to persevere. We are no longer tough enough nor do we have the mettle to survive. We are now engulfed by whimp ass Americans who yell..... Help me I can't make it.... NO KIDDING....Today's AMERICANS could not survive a Great Depression or a World War. They just couldn't do it. They are soft, fat and lazy. And the minute things get difficult they cry for FEMA or Food Stamps or Money or just FREE STUFF. And what is it mostly? just a buncha hyphanted-AMERICANS....all you are is a ....( fill in whatever you claim to be)----AMERICAN...This country is divided and falling apart because you divide yourself to start with.  You can't... nor do you chose to be just a plain AMERICAN.  And you don't even try for the good of the Country.

You criticized your government as half baked SS, you bought Gold and buried them, and you call SS Whimp, dumb,

·        I can do better with MY money than some half-baked program called Social Security. Hell if I had taken my social security monies pilferd out of my paycheck since I was 16 and bought Gold and buried it in my back yard I'd be better off than I am now. Social security is for the whimpy and the dumb ones who can't make it. Even with Social Security you still have to make personal investments in order to retire. So what does that tell you right there? I'm an adult, I don't need a freakin' allowance

You said America whimped out, no guts, no balls to survive, fat, soft, weak

·        Americahas whimped out and has not the guts nor the balls to survive anything close to the great depression or a world war. We are fat, soft and weak.

You said that everyone said you are nuts

·        Well I didn't invest in the stock market....never have.   I bought GOLD FUTURES for many many years and everyone said I was nut's 

You said that SS was dreamed up, Federal Government SU**

·        And What..you think Social Security is in better shape than the stock market? It's my dam money...just give it back to me. I can make my own investments and take care of myself and do a better job a than any goverment program. You think I'm gonna sit on my ass and wait for FEMA with the rest of the lemmings in a flood? You think I'm gonna rely on this GREAT  Social Security program they dreamed up long ago?  Name one social program by the Federal Goverment that does not SUCK. 

You said that you have more money hidden somewhere

·        Have more money than do  you dolt......invested it wisely I wouldn't count on Social Security anymore than I would FEMA

·        Many people do count on Social Security to be their retirement plan.. I don't   No I  suspect your grasp on Social Security ir rather obtuse.

You denied that you are a Christian but pray to God and Virgin Mary but not Jesus

·         First off When did I say I was a Christian?

You love American yet bash it like crazy, my mom told me that when someone said "trust me", beware he is a charlatan

·         I love America....been here all my life....done more for this country than you will ever do...trust me

You Called certain minority groups - Fat, Soft and Lazy, SU**-off, turds, waste of life

once again watchdog doesn't understand

Please see your own American bashing above, not once but 36 times!, how do you feel? Ashamed? You openly disowned your country and then said that you loved it so much?  Probably you'll tell me that you were just kidding around?

Yes, I really don't understand you.

Only you would go all over these sites and CUT AND PASTE all my comments.

WHO is doing the stalking?...You are a sick man....from China no doubt....You blame the US of A for everything China does bad. I will pray to the Holy Spirit for you.

You simply don't understand sarcastic journalism and have no clue what it is to be an AMERICAN.

I'll say hi to Joey Wang for you. (That old guy with an outdated computer.) I swear I do laugh at some of the stuff you write. You mixed up guy. Now go mix paint and leave me alone

it's purposful

part of their whole redefine terms thing.. like liberal is evil.. dem means tax and spend.. muttracker is an evil person.

they normally come up with a list of failed socialist countries.. they love to point out hitler wwas a socilaist. (they really dotn have a concept of facism).. but they whistle loudly when you point out that not only are their socilist countries doing well.. but theri "rich" and yes you can still get rich.. never moved away

the main things that need to be socialised in a modern world are the things we need to no be manipulated by capitalism.. like our energy. MY power company is owned by the peopel of our state.. it is liek fannie sorta.. a gov sponcered enterprise. They make a proffit. They cant make obscence proffit. Their ceo makes a ton. He cant make an obscene ammount. When the company makes too much money, we get that money back. when they need expansion or an increase, we give it to them.

It works really well.. and we keep icnreasing our power infrastucture to keep up with the times.. and not keep it in the past to maximize proffits as the ammount of elec has a hard toiem to keep up with population.. alal enron and such.

certain thinsg we cant afford to be manipulated to the point of hurting our economy need to be socialised.. and our smart regualted.

the us shoudl buy all the oil it needs.. and then we shoudl refine it and we shoudl resell it to ourselve.. becasue the capitalistic way is the cheveron memo.. to reduce refinery capacity o maximise profits.

which is all good and all.. untikl hurricane season.. AND worse than that twice a year our gas spikes as we chaneg from a winter formula to a summer one.. all cause we dont have enough refineries. When they have to go down for repairs.. prices go up.. Bush offered them free land for refinereis.. they refused.. congress offered to build them one and they finally admitted that despite balmign the enviros and that whole no refinery in 30 years.. was really them.. they dont want a new refinery.

so every hurricane season.. we iwll pay more.. and every time they have to switch the formulas we will pay more.

it shoudl be a GSE and yeah there have been soem big failurs but there have also ben soem big sucesses.

of you dont think we should own part of the gas not oil companies.. than atleast you can get behidn the idea we shoudl build our own refinery and go oin competition with them.. so that our prices dont spike during hurricane season.. so that we can maniopulate our output to effect price. Or we shoudl forcible build them mor erfineries so that our ccapacity isnt alwasy running at over 80%

the main things that need to be socialised in a modern world are the things we need to no be manipulated by capitalism.. like our energy. MY power company is owned by the peopel of our state..

My energy company 'PSE' is being sold to a Canadian company.
They do plan on raising rates. - sigh-

There are many forms of socialism. Anyone with half an ounce of integrity has done the research and knows this.

A failing of history taught in schools is that they rarely look beyond large scale at-war based lessons of socialism.

The United States is behind all other major industrial countries in what the government does to help their own people.

This country is managed by large scale lobbyists who make a living marketing congress and the American people. A recent example comes from the Oil, Coal and Natural gas associations. Six months ago, American's didn't feel the need to drill drill drill, today a majority have been "marketed on half truths" to believe drilling is a solution to lowering the price of gas and energy indepence.

In reality Oil companies have an excess of oil they sell to foreign governments. Without the needed refineries the Oil companies cannot process the Oil they have today.
Even having access to new leases won't effect the market supply or price we pay at the pumps for a decade or more- many variables including there being new Oil to drill and having the capability for production.
The marketing sold half truths, but the majority of American's bought into their message and now support this industry. Americans were sold bogus information and provided a lifeline to Oil companies who are in the way of progress for alternative energy.

People are comfortable being told how to think and react.
You'd think these people would recognize their real masters.

Interesting example Joules. Let me make a comparison here from a Libertarian perspective,

Individual Rights>Local Rights>States Rights>Federal rights.

Power should be decentralized to the greatest extent possible. Though your power-sharing system may be social in nature, it is at the level of local rights so it is not as dangerous as state power, and much, much less dangerous than federal power.

Consider that most socialist countries that people Ideologies as "successful" Ie, the Nordic European countries, have populations that are comparable to an american STATE.

One may view the destruction of States Rights (the second most fundamental principle of Jeffersonian Democracy, after Individual rights), as a result of the power previously competing states being crowded out by the monopoly of government power.

Furthermore, this monopolistic government grants personhood and limited liability to corporations. In a libertarian society only individuals have rights: Their natural rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.

Jivatman,

"Consider that most socialist countries that people Ideologies as "successful" Ie, the Nordic European countries..."

They are, at best, "degenerate worker states" just as the U.S. is, at best, a "degenerate capitalist state" - in terms of ideological purity.

So his health care plan will not involve the government being intertiwned and owning any part of the health care system?

Whose health care? The one McCain gets?

Socialism didn't begin with Bush.  He's the end of capitalism.

Good one inmyc

socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with utopia or guns

sheesh wth is wrong with you guys, just cause most of europe has gotten rid of guns has nothing to do with socialism

and anyone who truly believes that this statement is true

  2.  "Taxes were never meant for supporting those with no ambition to make anything of themselves."

has never had to work a day in their life

i work 40 hours a week at a job that pays decently considering the city i live in and i go to school full time, AND my wife works full time making a bit more than me

but we need help sometimes becuase we dont make quite enough for a family of 5

but suddenly that makes me someone who has no ambition to make anything of myself? how about you go @!$%# yourself K?

hi yet again you are lying to anyone reading your comment

if you imagine socialism is to create utopia thats a lie

if you imagine socialism requires the removal of guns thats a lie

you seem obsessed with this utopia idea and that has nothing to do with socialism, maybe you should rename the article to utopia doesnt work

Bud,

Then one day your employer moves to china - or whatever other financial disaster you care to insert - and you no longer have an income.  That means no place to live, etc, etc, etc.

Now you say, but I'm a rugged individualist who will muddle through somehow without help.

That may be true but it is also no reason for me - or anyone else who doesn't want to - to accept the current realities of life under this despotic/exploitative system.

You may live on your mountain top cleaning your guns and we will have no reason to bother you.  If your crops fail we will even be glad to share some food with you.

We can even pretend to let you take it from us with your gun if that would make you feel better.

<blockquote>Then one day your employer moves to china - or whatever other financial disaster you care to insert - and you no longer have an income.  That means no place to live, etc, etc, etc.</blockquote>

Medicare/Social security are notoriously wasteful and fraud is rampant. This is a direct result from something being controlled in a Federal, centralized manner.

In a free society the government limits itself to respecting the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Hapiness.

In such a society, people's money would instead go to charities, and the government would responsibly take the role of ensuring that the charities did not commit fraud (I.E. violate the property of the donors) 

These charities would fulfill the functions of Medicare/Medicaid in a much better manner, and would also create a society of much Good Will, where people further realize how responsible they are for the welfare of their fellow humans.

Jivatman - You said:

Medicare/Social security are notoriously wasteful and fraud is rampant. This is a direct result from something being controlled in a Federal, centralized manner.

Where in the world do you get this? Have you ever in your life actually seen the statistics on "waste and fraud" in these programs - less than 2% is somehow "rampant" to you?????

And in no way does this become different if it is privately run as opposed to being controlled in a Federal centralized manner; all large corporations are controlled in such a manner are they all wasteful, fraud ridden?

These comments reflect an uncomprehending, insensible prejudice and no reality, no actual thought. You need to turn off that conservative talk (blabber) radio and turn on to the library, the internet; learn from a variety of views, do your own thinking.

It's scary and new but it won't hurt you

Jivatman,

In a free society there is no government because it withered away.

Free yourself - stop thinking in terms of government.

Luther,

That may be true but it doesn't follow that the rest of us should just accept our lot because we were not born with the key to a trust fund in our mouth.

The wealth of the rich is a result of accumulated labor.  They make a profit because they can purchase that labor for less than they can sell it for.

And if you think that you are getting a fair shake on your wages then read this.

link

I am not implying that one should accept their lot, I am just saying that human nature will not allow socialism to work in a practical manner, someone always gets greedy.

Luther,

Yes, and what is greed but covetousness, and what is coveteousness but the desire to steal, and what is theft but the fulfillment of that desire.

Those who are greedy will have to be corrected.

<blockquote>I am not implying that one should accept their lot, I am just saying that human nature will not allow socialism to work in a practical manner, someone always gets greedy.</blockquote>

Socialism does not work because it violates the critical principle of human nature that people have a right to the fruits of their labor.

Life, Liberty, Property.

Luther (inappropriate name) - I am sorry for you that you have lost your faith - in the goodness of your fellow man or of your "God" - such that you believe that (a) a system can not be designed that controls Greed or that (b) someone will always be greedy or that (c) the only thing to be greedy about is money / possessions rather than "respect", or gratitude; etc.

Jivatman - another in a series of self-contradictory comments. Socialism does NOT violate any principle of human nature; nor has people having a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor ever been a practiced princip-le in any western civilization (from priests to kings / princes, to owners of capital / controllers of corporations; western civilization has always had someone who has had  or been able to get the fruits of your labor, in most cases without your consentr.

The only wya to stop that is to end the notion of ownership - you and only you may own your labor / be entitled to the fruits of that labor; you may not be an emlpoyee of anyone but yourself. That is called Socialism and that is what life and liberty are about and why property is opposed to life and liberty; property is about ownership, and about the fruits of your labor being someone else's property.

eriq,

Bravo - well stated.

Eriq: Inappropriate name? Not that you need to know but every once in a while the self righteous must be smote down, it was my father's ( a baptized roman/catholic Irishman) christian name, not all of us are heratics!

Regulation is not socialism.

Redistribution of earned wealth and resources IS socialism.

nice talking point but where did I bring "redistribution of wealth" up?  I only ask cause you hit the button to respond to my statement. 
Paying for the commons is not redistribution of wealth, its providing for society as a whole.  I'm all for paying for it individually, if individually we could afford it.  But how practical would each of buying our own highways and bridges, missile defense shield.
My point is, in order for the society to suceed there are things that we need to do in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
If a cost of societal survival, like education or medical care, reaches such a point that it is draining resources from our ability to be great then I would argue it is a point of true national security. 

Blearc,

In post 12 you used the word "pay" several times and what you said was exactly correct.

The problem is - the ultra-wealthy do not have to pay you or anyone else in this country in order to make a buck.

They are too busy lending money to China at interest.

Imagine that China is at a stage of development similar to that of the U.S. in the 50s.  Now imagine how much interest you can earn funding their rise to the 21st century.

Why should I fund a car for you if I can fund a building
for them.

Just try to see things through a lense which permits it all to make sense instead of seeing the chaos that they want you to see.

The way I see it, if there's a problem, then fix it.

If the "ultra-rich" are the problem, how do we remove the need for them.  If what you say is true then we need to figure out how anyway.

My solution, remove all enviromental rules that benefit them and hurt our population.

Blearc, my solution:

1. Free healthcare for all citizens.

2. Full Social Security retrirement at age 50.

3. $15 per hour minimum wage.

4. High protective tarriff on all goods manufactured outside the U.S. by "American" companies and do not permit them to pass the cost on to consumers.

5. Tax rate of 75% on trust funds.

6.  The elimination of taxation on incomes of less
than $75,000 per year.

And that is just the beginning.

link

1. ok, but for capitalistic reasons, its a competive market and we are losing the battle on that production cost with the rest of the world

2. no, at 50 one is not useless, nor would that be feasable with our current population.  Plus we'd have a bunch of bored old farts with nothing but time and viagra. 

3. debateable on the number,  but if we could get a parent back into the house to raise their children I guaruntee the cost of education would go down.

4. easier to remove most tax loop holes and only give tax breaks to those that have the majority of their workforce here in the states.  I agree with tariffs as long as they are equal on both sides and not applied to things that we do not make here,

5. Hell no, I'm working my tail off so my kids can continue my work not impeded by financial concerns.  The Paris Hiltons of the world can be solved by other means

6. Nope, mainly for psycological reasons, why strive for more when I'll have to pay?

That kind of Socialism does not motivate humans to be better than they are.  But top heavy, individualistic capatalism does not motivate enough people.

There needs to be a balance between I and we,

If we take care of the "we", the I can flourish

But if we don't challenge the "I" the "we" will cease to exist.

What you both are really saying is that the problems can not be fixed.

What I say is, there will be change.  The question is who will decide what that change will be.

You both oppose a $15 per hour minimum wage.  Would it surprise you to learn that $15 per hour would simply be a return to the purchasing power of the 1967 minimum wage.

link

Simply stated - if you currently make less than $15 per hour then you have less actual purchasing power than a minimum wage worker in 1967.  You can call that progress if you want, but I call it exploitation.

proletarian there is a problem with your $15 minimum wage

they threaten us with higher prices any time a new minimum wage is put forth, and it usually doesnt happen becuase the raise is small generally in less than a dollar at a time increments so we dont notice a 10 cent raise in the price of our burger

but nearly tripling minimum wage could easily lead to a doubling in the price of our burger, and that would just be to stay in business

now granted the food industry is easily the most dependant upon minimum wage workers, there are most likely some industries that would be less effected by it

but there is little doubt that it would lead to fairly widespread inflation, which of course would defeat the entire purpose of raising it in the first place

Prices are not a problem - freeze them.

Want to take your business to China - go ahead, but your assets ALL stay here.  Have a nice life.

Solving problems is easy when you aren't kissing the rear ends of the people who really cause the problems.

Freezing prices will lead to immense shortages. It's a silly idea. Only countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea are freezing prizes on a large scale.

They import - we have vast amounts of agricultural land.  Plant it.

You only think it is silly because that is what the politicians and the media have told you to think.

Keep thinking that way and YOU and your family will be starving while they export food to some place where they can get paid more for it.

while i see your point proletarian about kissing asses

we have done the whole price freeze thing before, and not having experienced it myself everything ive ever seen or read or heard about it was that it was a failure

and secondly what would you price freeze? everything? cause i can tell you food restaurants rarely have enough profit to absorb an almost tripling of labor cost
it would send almost every fast food franchise out of business and many steakhouse type establishments out too

Here is the heart of the matter.

I talk about people.  You counter by talking about business.  Does society exist to benefit people or to benefit benefit business? Currently society exists to benefit business.

We now truly teter on the edge of an abyss. If we fall into that abyss not only will society exist to benefit business but people will also exist ONLY to benefit business.

You doubt that? Do you remember when businesses had "personnel" departments? Now they have "human resourse" departments. They do not even try to hide the fact that you are only a commodity from you.

The choice is YOUR's.

They import - we have vast amounts of agricultural land.  Plant it.

You only think it is silly because that is what the politicians and the media have told you to think.

Don't second-guess my character. I think it is silly because I see the ruinous effects in the countries I mentioned. And because I studied economics.

Handshake,

Here is the heart of the matter.

I talk about people.  You counter by talking about business.  Does society exist to benefit people or to benefit benefit business?

Currently society exists to benefit business.

As a student of economics tell me how the average U.S. worker should protect themselves from the inflation which will result from this bailout?

I don't talk about business only. I talk about the entire economy: people, business, government. When shelves are empty because of your 'people-first' price controls, then most people can't even get what they need. Is that what you want?The average US worker needs to save more money urgently. The average US worker would also be quite happy if the bailout prevented the entire US banking and financial system from collapsing.

How can workers save more when they have less real purchasing power than a minimum wage worker had in 1967?????

I see you dodged the question about inflation - we both know why.

There would only be shortages from a price freeze if we stood by and let them happen.  Let big business hold its breath till it turns purple - I don't care.

Like I said,   far as I'm concerned they can have a nice life WHEREVER they choose to live it but they aren't taking the accumulated labor (capital) of the workers with them.

How can workers save more when they have less real purchasing power than a minimum wage worker had in 1967?????

By buying less on credit. By buying a house that they can actually afford, instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses. And for those Americans in the bottom 20%: I think the government should do a lot more to help them. Including redistribution. But freezing prices will hurt those people most. Which brings me to:

I see you dodged the question about inflation - we both know why.

I think I explained to you quite clearly why freezing prices doesn't work. It will hurt exactly the people you seem to care about most, namely the poorest. They have few alternatives when the shops are empty thanks to price controls, as they are in Zimbabwe. At least the rich can just import or go abroad.

There would only be shortages from a price freeze if we stood by and let them happen.  Let big business hold its breath till it turns purple - I don't care.

Are you suggesting forcing businesses to sell stuff at the prices you dictate? This keeps getting more interesting. You might not care, but I'm glad that any sensible eocnomist, left-wing or right-wing, would laugh at this idea.

Handshake,

"Are you suggesting forcing businesses to sell stuff at the prices you dictate? "

Well YEAH - tha is what price CONTROLS are.  Of course, they can sell for less if they want.

"....I'm glad that any sensible eocnomist, left-wing or right-wing, would laugh at this idea."

YEAH - the same people who got us in this mess.

"Which brings me to: I see you dodged the question about inflation - we both know why. I think I explained to you quite clearly why freezing prices doesn't work."

Yes - but that wasn't the question. Try again.

They can less for less, how very generous.

YEAH - the same people who got us in this mess.

Countless economists have warned about this mess before it happened, and they still oppose price controls. Try again.

Explain to me how this bailout will result in inflation. You didn't back up your premise.

Handshake,

"Explain to me how this bailout will result in inflation. "

Where the heck do you study economics????

What backs up our money supply?  Answer, nothing. 

How is money created?  Answer, when it is used - it has no value until it is used.

More money = less value.  less value = inflation.

Inflation = higher prices     Higher prices = less money to spend.

Less money to spend = need for pay raise.

Need for pay raise = no from boss.

No from boss = adjusting family budget.

Adjusting family budget = no emergency fund.

No emergency fund = bankruptcy.

Have a nice life.

Again you try to second-guess my background. If I asked you to back up your claim, it doesn't mean I don't understand how inflation works. I think it is important to make our assumptions explicit. That's what economics is about. For example, you appeared to use the implicit assumption that price controls will not lead to shortages. Then you seemed to assume that telling companies what they should sell at which price will help poor people, rather than hurting them. It would have helped the discussion a lot if you would have made this clear from the outset, because the assumptions and premises always form the crucial part of any debate.

Now, about inflation and the bailout. I never claimed that the bailout would not lead to inflation. But I do think it would help to avoid a more pertinent risk: deflation. The real inflation in past years has not been in goods prices, but in housing prices. The American housing bubble is fortunately deflating now, but the bailout is needed to put a floor under the market and to prevent it from collapsing completely. That, and not inflation, would hurt working families the most. Inflation in America is at very reasonable levels, and I don't expect it to rise significantly as long as the dollar remains relatively stable.

I think I already said earlier that the poorest families should have gained more in purchasing power in America. Their stagnant real wages are a disgrace. But that's a redistribution problem, and not an issue for the monetary authorities. Blaming the low amounts of inflation for their trouble means missing the picture: their problem is much, much bigger than that. The American poor are basically being left to their own devices by the government, not by the Central Bank. Trying to stop inflation by imposing price controls would be tantamount to using a crane to crush a fly, because that would hurt poor people even more than inflation did in the first place. Want to give them real purchasing power? Then let them keep houses that are worth anything and give them fiscal stimuli (while minimizing effects on labour supply).

Hand - I'm not second guessing anything, earlier you wrote,

"I studied economics."

Then you ask a silly question about inflation.

Now you write a bunch of mumbo jumbo that means absolutely nothing.

The original subject here was, "Socialism does not work."

There has never been an actual socialist state so the author's premise is not fact.

When people get tired of all the BS the fascio-corporatists are putting them through Marx is available to guide them on how to set up a truly democratic state - which under the constitution is permitted.

Look, Proletarian, I'm out to have a decent discussion if you want to. That's the way to get smarter here, isn't it? I explained why you need to back up your claim. I explained why you need to detail your reasoning. I know perfectly well how money and inflation relate to each other, but you still don't seem to understand how they relate to poor Americans.

If you think I wrote mumbo jumbo, then tell me which part you don't agree with or which part you don't understand. You can't just dismiss an answer you don't like as meaningless, you have to indicate why. Unless of course, you're really not interested in hearing other opinions anyway.

So here's my argument in a different form. Maybe you'll understand it better then. The more urgent need for the US economy is liquidity (especially in the housing market), or otherwise it will slip into a recession. It's way more important for the US poor to prevent a recession than to stop inflation.

Additionally (and this is a new argument) the $700 billion is not all going to be pumped into the economy as cash, because it is financed by bonds, which have a neutralising effect o the money supply. It's not the like Fed is printing all this money directly. So the bailout will not lead to much inflation. There is likely to be an indirect segniorage effect, but it's not very big.

But don't trust me, trust other economists:

That is a legit concern. However, so far the Fed has neutralized the overall impact on reserves and the money supply through offsetting open-market operations. The Fed’s ability to lend is limitless because it can create money. Its ability to offset the lending is limited by its portfolio. Hence, its request to the Treasury to sell some extra Treasury bills.

So your argument is unfounded. See why it's important to explain your premise?

If your ideal socialist state would freeze or dictate prices, then I do not want to live in it. You may state that an actual socialist state never existed, but they have been tried often enough and all of them failed. North Korea and Zimbabwe freeze prices, and look where it got them. Do you honestly think America should join them?

Hand,

Did Karl Marx fund these failed states that you brag about?  No, you know very well that it was the fascio-corporatist capitalists who funded their failure. They administered a heavy dose of Keynesian Economics at an exhoritant interest rate to the third world countries.  Marx did not fail them - Wall Street did.

And what has it done to them - what capitalism has always done. It has sucked them dry and in the process it has also sucked the U.S. dry. Not the capitalists of course - their political servants always ensure that the capitalists are immune from the consequences of their actions.

You also know that selling bonds takes money out of circulation - that is certainly not a "neutralising effect."  What happens to themoney after that?  If it is destroyed the result is a recession.  If it is returned to circulation the result is inflation and probably a recession anyway.

As for America. I think that - for a change - we should do what is best for the average wage earning citizen. That isn't what is going to happen BUT that is what we should be doing.

As for you wanting to leave - go ahead, but you can't take your football or anything else with you.

First off, a genuine thanks for continuing this exchange by focusing on the arguments at hand.

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about 'fascio-corporatist capitalists', but I guess you mean institutions such as the IMF. I don't remember North Korea ever having been involved in IMF borrowing or more broadly, ever having achieved any degree of financial integration with the rest of the world. So Í don't think your argument holds.

The money is not destroyed, but neither is it directly re-injected into the economy. The Fed can hold onto it without doing anything with it. Bear in mind that you can expand the money supply without causing inflation as long as there is real economic growth or slower circulation of money. A recession does not have to happen because government spending can increase growth - in the short run. And the total amount of money can still be neutral if the Fed uses other policy tools, which it does.

I don't live in America, so I don't want to leave. But if I did, I would take my bike with me. I am Dutch, after all :)

I have become familiar with several third parties of various ideological persuasions. I have finally concluded that I will vote for the candidates nominated be the Socialist Equality Party (SEP). They are Jerry White for President of the United States and Bill Van Auken for Vice President .

I have chosen Jerry and Bill because:

1. They are the nominees of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) .

2. The SEP is in solidarity with the International Committee of the Fourth International, the World Party of Socialist Revolution founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938.

3. Trotskyism stands in direct opposition to the Stalinist dictatorships imposed upon 20th Century degenerate workers states such as the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.

4. The SEP is committed to the goals established by Karl Marx - “the ending of society based on classes and, therefore, of the exploitation of human beings by other human beings.”

Hand,

I don't remember North Korea ever having been involved in IMF borrowing or more broadly, ever having achieved any degree of financial integration with the rest of the world.

How about their best trading partner - China?????

True, but does that imply then that North Korea's failure is through trade with China? Or do you mean that other countries finance NK's failure through China? I'm trying to understand.

Interesting choice for the SEP, I would even go so far as to call that a brave step. Also, you put a lot of consideration into it, something which more voters should do.

Hand,

Thanks for the kind words.

As for NK - China likes them as a buffer, they don't want South Korean and U.S. forces just across the Yalu.  I'm sure they also worry about what the NKPA might do with nukes.

China will probably do just enough economic assistance to ensure the current leadership stays in power but not enough to let them get out of the fix they are.

Worst case scenario - NK gets tired of being jerked around.  Unleashes a massive bombardment on Seoul.  China plays good cop, bad cop and prevents the U.S. from making a full military response. 

China brokers a U.N. cease fire which leaves everything just as it currently is except that the IMF and World Bank throw massive amounts of funds at NK. 

Everyone wins - in a capitalist sort of way except the people of Seoul but plenty of money will be made rebuilding the city.

Thank you, you stated my point much more eleqantly than I did.

What's weird is that your post wasn't up when I started writing.  We must have been thinking along the same lines at the same time.

Belarius, I have to argue with you on Socialized Medicine.  It is a failure in every country that practices the pure form of it.  In 2006, the Netherlands began turning to private industry when it realized that cost, long waiting lists, etc. weren't working for its people.  In England, patients have gone without dental care for 2 YEARS because this wasn't deemed a necessity by the government.  In France, there is a partnership between private industry and government with private industry regulating over 90% of insurance.

The problem with Socialism is that it is for the greater good and is emotionless.  If you are old and have a rare illness, then you may not receive the care and proper medicine that you need because it is not in the best interest of the state to provide it for you.  Your cost is too expensive for the collective good.  Therein lies the problem.  In Canada, unless you are wealthy and can pay for a private doctor, your care may be delayed for months.

Anyone who thinks the U.S. can afford Universal Health Care need only look at Medicare.  It is $34 trillion dollars in DEFICIT.  It along with Social Security will cease to exist because NO ONE has done anything to fix it.  It would be fiscally irresponsible to create another bureaucratic government program that is not self-funded and would only add to the Trillions of dollars of deficit that we already have.   

The state has only one goal in a Socialist system and that is to maintain power and control.  The private sector while not perfect is much more efficient, less costly, and faster producing than government ever has been.  The state doesn't run on customer satisfaction, it imposes and enforces its will.  Ever try not paying your taxes?  You are fined or sent to jail.     

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/327-examining-healthcare

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7191793.stm

It is a failure in every country that practices the pure form of it.

See (e) above: just because "pure socialized medicine" (whatever that means) may not work doesn't mean that a more socialized system than we currently have isn't a good idea.  I happen to think France's system works particularly well, in that while the industry may be largely "self-regulated," the industry hasn't been overtaken by behemoth insurance conglomerates.

In any case, "doesn't work" by European standards would be heralded as a glowing success here in the US.  There's still considerable room for improvement (your examples are all perfectly legitimate), but they're living healthier than we are, at lower cost.  If you missed it the first time, you may want to look at the data.

The problem with Socialism is that it is for the greater good and is emotionless.

As opposed to capitalism, which is profit-driven and emotionless?

Anyone who thinks the U.S. can afford Universal Health Care need only look at Medicare.

The myth that medicine must be expensive is a uniquely American one that results largely from the protectionist legislation we employ and the practices of insurance companies.  If generic prescription drugs were legal (and there is no persuasive argument against such legislation, in my opinion), we would pay as much as an order of magnitude less on drugs because they don't actually cost that much to manufacture.  Because insurance companies are structured to lock you into their system (such that you can never affordably go "out of network"), they create an effective monopoly and can jack up the prices.

The reason healthcare is cheap in Europe is because these profit-farming activities are not allowed.  And the reason that Medicare is going bankrupt is because the prices have been so absurdly inflated by the insurance industry.  If we fix the system enough to let the market actually function and bring the prices down to a reasonable level (as France, for example, does), we might still see doctors with private practices who can perform housecalls, as opposed to medical campuses entirely owned by insurance companies.

The state has only one goal in a Socialist system and that is to maintain power and control.

Balderdash.  That's a simplistic statement that is as false as saying "Capitalism is a dog-eat-dog dystopian nightmare."  Socialism can become a bureaucratic nightmare, just as capitalism can turn into a corporate version of Mad Max, but it's simply ignoring reality to say that it must be the very worst is could possibly be.

One need only look at Europe, where labor (in the form of unions) remains very powerful and consumer protections are actually enforced.  France, Belgium, and Spain are not Big-Brother-esque security states, and their citizens actually have higher levels of political involvement (e.g. turnout) and political power (e.g. national referendums) than we do in the US.

Europe is far from perfect, and they have things they can learn from us (First Amendment, anyone?), but we to can learn much from them.

The private sector while not perfect is much more efficient, less costly, and faster producing than government ever has been.

More efficient for themselves does not necessarily mean more efficient for you.  The private sector excels not only at reducing costs but also externalizing them, and much of the private sector's vaunted efficiency comes at hidden costs often imposed on consumers.  Health care is a good example: Many (perhaps most) Americans have less protection than they think they do, and insurance companies make concerted efforts to deny coverage to their customers in order to cut costs.  That drives up profits, but does so at someone else's expense.  Energy is another example: Even as ExxonMobile reports record profits, many Americans are having trouble filling their tanks: if oil companies so wished, they could lower the price at the pump at the expense of their profits, but doing so would result in a stockholder revolt.

The private sector looks out for #1 at all times.  Sometimes, it does so by passing on the savings.  Others, it does so by passing on the costs.  As policy makers, we need to be conscious of which is which.

Ever try not paying your taxes?  You are fined or sent to jail.

Wait... doesn't that happen here?

Would Socialized Medicine work half way in other countries if America went to Socialized Medicine?

I am just curious we seem to be the ones providing the most R&D on medicine and coming up with the most meds so we can make a profit on the Countries with socialized medicine who have to pay whatever we want to charge.  If America went to Socialized Medicine who will be inventing the new meds since there will no longer be a profit?  Hey like the oil and consumer products we can just give that to China and the Middle East too.

Deo - interesting that Canada - which has "socialized" medicine (whatever that means) - has lower prices on the same meds - so much lower that in areas close to the border groups used to charter busses and take trips into Canada to buy their meds; before our Govwernment made that illegal so the drug companies could make more money.

People talking about socialized medicine generally have no idea what they are talking about - some countrioes have long waiting lists because their system is underfunded; it doesn't matter whether it is capitalist or socialist; their are 10 doctors and 10.000 patients; do the math.

We actually have a socialized medicine system in this country - it's called the Veteran's Administration - and you want to compare systems, compare the to that one which runs far more efficient, less costly, better data technology - than the "capitalist" system.

The only reason Canada and Mexico's medicine is cheaper is because I can sell you a burger and turn around to sell you a drug.  We have more restrictions.  Get rid of the restriction as you want and drug cost will go down.

Have you read the book: When Doctors join Unions?  Just imagine if they ALL went on strike. 

As far as the VA, I have heard horror stories including from my Grandmother whose husband was a Lieutenant in the Marines.  Let me put it this way.  I am so glad my family could flip the bill for him to stay in a non-VA home when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Your comment only makes me believe you are against the hippo rights (or whatever they want to call themselves today).  I am all for a database of our sicknesses and medicine recieved.  That will help doctors make better decisions and save lives.

Bud,

Thank you for your service.

One downside is some doctors don't really care about patients because they get paid no matter what happens to the patient.

Same goes for the public school.  The pricipal of your local school might as well tell you, "I'm not going to do what you want/cooperate in any way because I'll get your money whether you're happy or not.  If you leave, I'll still get your tax money."  Does that sound bitter?  :-)

Bud -

cannot use the VA because Clinton made it so only service connected issues are covered.

- False (a) I have no idea where you got this idea, (b) This veteran has his "non-service connected" issues covered and (c) Clinton was president; Congress changes the details in laws like this.

Deortrious - Canada's drug prices are cheaper because their government negotiates for lower bulk prices; Our Congress has forbidden federal agencies from such negotiations. The Drug Companies not only gharge more to US customers, they also get to write off all the costs of research on their US taxes

eriq, I have worked in healthcare for over 10 years.  Trust me when I say that you do not know what you are talking about.  The VA system treats their patients horribly.  I worked for a renowned cancer center and most of the VA patients who could afford it came to us because the VA was very much behind the times when it came to treatment options.  Our veterans deserve the best and unfortunately, they do not get the best care possible. 
As far as drug companies are concerned.  Research and development costs a ton of money because we have the highest safety standards in the world.  Every drug that needs to be approved takes years to get to the consumer.  One of the reasons why is because first animal studies are needed, then three to four phases of human clinical trials which take years for each phase to be completed.  Once the clinical trials are performed, then the drug goes through approval process.  Because of the cost to initially get the drug on the market, the drug company is allowed 7 years to market the drug.  After 7 years, generics can be made.  The company can ask for extensions on their market claim.
Socialized medicine countries do contribute some new procedures and drugs, but they are few and far between.  And before they can be adopted into this country, they have to undergo the same safety and efficacy testing.

Belarius, most doctors in this country DO NOT want socialized medicine.  Medicare and Medicaid are nightmares already.  Do you understand what it costs in time and money to fight with the government to get payment for Medicaid patients?  Socialized medicine would be a nightmare for anyone with a serious medical condition.  If you think it is difficult to get in touch with your doctor now, try it under socialized medicine systems like those in Canada and Britain.  Every country that has tried single payer government health care has rejected it and is going for a more privatized model because people are actually getting WORSE care.  Have you seen the cancer rates in Britain for example.  They are much worse than the U.S. because of treatment delays.
If you have a rare illness and are elderly, then your medications may be next to impossible to get.  Here is a simple example, war hero in Britain has early stage wet macular degeneration.  Easily treated here in the U.S.  In Britain, he was denied care. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92916560 

The insurance companies do not set the rates, it is the government that sets the rates.  The billing codes are based all on Medicare.  Insurance companies negotiate with hospitals to provide their customers with the best care possible at the best rates possible.  The hospital can give cheaper rates to customers with insurance because the insurance company negotiates with the hospital based on the number of payers in their system.  For example, if you have 5,000 insured payers then you can go to the hospital and say we have an exclusive contract with this hospital and 5,000 of our payers will most likely use a doctor in your system so what kind of deal can you give us?  Go to any hospital and ask them what you would pay if you didn't have insurance.  It would probably astound you as to what you would pay.  But, remember the rates are all based on Medicare fees.  The other thing that you have to take into account is how many doctors the government allows to be trained.  Everyone complains that there is a doctor shortage, but that is not necessarily true.  The government through Medicaid dollars funds many of the medical schools around the country.  They determine how many doctors each medical school can train.  Same with nurses and pharmacists.  There are only so many slots available.  So my friend, before you start pointing at private industry as the cause of all these ills, you need to look at what the government has its hands in.  Case in point, here is the latest study from the government which says we are training too many doctors.  Look for cutbacks in residency training programs.  The government has already started to scale back funding for medical schools.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0DC1F39F937A15752C0A960958260

Socialized medicine would be a nightmare for anyone with a serious medical condition.

American medicine is already plenty nightmarish for the millions of Americans who don't have healthcare.  You think they aren't getting cancer, suffering from diabetes, or breaking bones?

If you think it is difficult to get in touch with your doctor now, try it under socialized medicine systems like those in Canada and Britain.

Personally, I favor the French system where, for astonishingly reasonable rates (by American standards), doctors still make housecalls (and are able to do so within a week or two).  Don't make the mistake of assuming that all socialized medicine is the same.  Some systems work far better than others.  As it happens, the French model is something of a public-private partnership, with the industry largely regulating itself.

What you don't see in France is more or less all hospitals being branch operations for insurance companies.  Because customers have real choices (since they aren't locked into an artificial monopoly by their insurance), market forces actually lower the price.  In America, by contrast, you don't really get to choose your doctor, and for many employers you don't really get to choose your insurance company either (you might have a couple of choices if you're lucky).  We have allowed a system to emerge in which market forces cannot effectively regulate the market, because insurance companies have achieved vertical integration of medical services and can 'lock' their customers in.

The fundamental, underlying assumption you (and many other opponents of mixed-model healthcare) is that the high prices of health-related products and services reflect their true value.  If you travel abroad, however, it's quite obvious that our healthcare costs are tremendously inflated.  There is no logic by which our legislation regarding pharmaceuticals better provides for the health of the nation than, for example Canada's - that legislation was written and persists solely for the health of pharmaceutical companies who don't want to have to compete with the generic products the rest of the world uses.

If treatment didn't require being trapped in price-controlled monopolies, prices would drop across the board.  That is why, even when adjusting for taxes, Americans pay more on healthcare despite lagging so far behind the rest of the developed world in terms of actual health indicators (such as lifespan, infant mortality, or preventable illness).  The numbers are quite clear, and the only rhetorical defense critics can hide behind buying into the myth that services elsewhere are somehow inferior (which is a puzzling position, given that we can't even beat Cuba on something as fundamental as infant mortality).

No system is perfect, and plenty of European nations have suffered complications as a result of their heathcare policies.  Those complications, however, are paltry compared to the difficulties Americans are facing.

Check - in every survey, the VA comes out as the highest ranked health system. Now that might just be from the loyalty of the veterans ...

Frankly you hagve a hard time convincing them

DO NOT make the silly mistake of saying "socialized medicine" this, etc. by using anecdotal examples. When you say "difficult to get in touch with your doctor" or other measures, then compare it to an underfunded medical system you will always win with the better funded system.

The problem with Drug companies is that they are writing off all of the R & D costs here in the U*&. S. and not applying the share of those costs to other markets like Canada. Also, Canada negotiates lower prices from a government standpoint, tyhe Republicans in Congress attached clauses to medicare and other bills that those agencies are not allowed to negotiate lower prices but the Medical Insurence, Hospital industry is allowed to.

Insurance companies DO set their rates (which have nothing to do with Medicare - they do not pay the same rates - ) although Medicare does ask for a sampling of what the Insurance companies pay out for a procedure in order to set their rates - but they can get this from the hospitals / doctors as well

The Billing codes were set by the insurance companies - (OK, I have better knowledge than you, I worked as a programmer setting up the programs based on the codes and I know where we got them) - and for the insurance companies purposes. Medicare had a different system but was basically forced into the insurance companies system by Congress.

No, the government does not decide how many doctors there will be, nor is government funding that significant, nor is the one program you talk about the only government funds in medical schools. A number of the VA hospitals are operated jointly with a training/university hospital (for example the Liver and Kidney transplants are done at combined / adjoining hospitals that share staff/doctors). The AMA, on the other hand, wants to keep the number of Doctors lower ...

I have no idea where you got the information you have because it is so totally inaccurate, incorrect, gobbledy-gook as to make your comments based on it laughable. If yoyu come away from this discussion with anything let it be this - do not compare socialized medicine with the budgeting for medicine. You can have a socialized medicine system with adequate funding that does not have the long lines, etc. ot you can have a non-socialized system that does have long lines due to funding. These two concepts are not tied one to the other.

Socialism has never worked in the United States and it won't now....

Socialism has never existed in this country, no wonder it has never worked. You really ought to have some idea what you are talking about before putting your foot in your mouth in public like this where everybody can see it.

Obama's FIT - 39%

+ cap gains taxes + FICA + Medicare + state income tax + sales tax....it's over 50%.

Under obama FICA stops after the first 102,000 starts again at 250,000 If you make over 604,000 "after deductions and LOOPHOLES" that are utilized by everysingle person in this income field then you are right your taxes will go up.I don't know what state your in so I don't know about that  state tax code, but I think Federal taxes paid are a deduction on your State form and State taxes paid are a legitimate deduction on your federal tax form.If your spending every bit of your income on items that require a sales tax then you can say you spend a specific % on sales tax but it seems improbable at best. Capital Gains if you have capital gains to claim then you are one of the lucky ones but you probably won't have it much longer if this system is not changed.I would gladly pay a higher capital gains.Medicare is for old peoples medical care who can argue with that.I would suggest that everyone hire an accountant if they really are worried about paying more than theirr fair shareof taxes.McCains plan gives even more tax cuts to the top1.0% of wage earners than Bush did. go to washington post .com 06092008

Did you see the WSJ's Obama's 95% Illussion?

Handshake,

Newsflash.  Big government is the enemy of business.  It's Republican's biggest complaint about Bush.  That's why your article isn't "selling"

Any President taking office after a down cycle benefits from it: Reagan, for example.  Has nothing to do with their being democrats, per your hypothesis.  Economic policy takes years to work into the system.

Really? If that's true, then why aren't Republicans complaining about John McCain's unsustainable spending plans? His economic policy would increase deficits even further than under Bush. Where are business' complaints about this? Or about all the other Republican presidents who increased spending? 8 years should be enough to prove your worth, and there have been plenty of Repub presidents to try their luck at it. They failed, and economic cycles have nothing to do with that.

I'm not interested in 'selling' articles, I'm interested in selling arguments.

And you have to ask yourself: if business' complaints did not succeed in bringing down Republican spending over the past 60 years, then when will they? Apparently their arguments have consistently fallen on deaf ears.

Through keeping the role of government smaller, Democrats have proven to be the better choice for business and for the economy than Republicans.

Handshake, they ARE.  And, they are criticizing the "rescue".  Bush and Paulson have been forced to explain/sell multiple times the temporary nature of these highly unorthodox measures.  The only businesses who aren't complaining are those getting the bailouts.

Great, but their complaints didn't really prevent the Republicans from approving sky-high spending these past 8 years, did they? If I were one of those businesses complaining about Bush and Paulson, then I'd definitely get behind the Obama campaign asap. At least he'd stop wasting so much of my tax dollars on a costly war and reduce the deficit somewhat, making sure I pay less interest on my investments. I'd definitely not support McCain, who'd do the exact opposite.

inmyc,

Fascists are ultra-nationalists and pro big business and big government -its a control thing. Did Hitler liquidate the Krupps or help them make money? They glorify war.

Capitalists are, of course pro big business. and pro big government - it is the best way to ensure that their interests are protected. They prefer cold wars, lots of money in R&D, a lot less blood is spilt, and they don't have to worry about losing.

Liberals, are pro big business - liberalism was a product of the industrial revolution - and pro big government, the best way to ensure that everyones' rights are protected. Liberals want you to be a happy, content GLBT, tree hugger, pro choice, or virtually anything else you want to be citizen BUT in the context of a capitalist society, because liberals are simply capitalists who are more tolerant than other capitalists, whether those other capitalists are fascists or not. They are willing to tax the "middle class" - like Joe the Plumber, or anyone else, who doesn't make enough money to be a real capitalist or who makes so little money that they seem to be deserving of the liberals' sympathy.

Socialists are opposed to both big business and big government. They know that capitalists are really greedy scum bags and that the only way to have true freedom and equality is to do away with government. Most think that society can move gradually toward this classless, egalitarian society.

Marxists are socialists who think that socialism can only be achieved through violent revolution by the working class.

There are degenerate socialists and Marxists just as there are degenerate capitalists. They are degenerate because they are willing to compromise their ideology. This can result in a fascist dictatorship, a Stalinist dictatorship, or a capitalist democratic republic which can be center left (Europe) or center right (U.S.).

Government in the U.S. can be slighty more fascist under a Nixon or a Bush and slightly more liberal under a Carter. Mostly, however, it varies very little from the ideological center of capitalism.

My answers to your questions is in my columns I just posted.