For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect.
The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections.
In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services.
One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living.
So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
I think some of these thoughts have scientific answers. I have heard that the average person can know, care about, and maintain relationships with about 100 people. If we broke down into communities of that size, or near it, we could probably implement socialism pretty well (like in your family example).
Second, inequality is bad. It increases strife and conflict between groups and all that. I’m sure it would be nice if we could be happy with what we have and be happy for those that have more. We (humans) don’t seem to work like that. Consistently, people’s sense of wealth is relative to their peers and regardless of their actual wealth, it’s that they perceive their peers have less that makes them happy. Societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else. I mean haven’t you seen kids fight over who got the biggest slice of pizza or who’s cookie has the most chocolate chips?
You correctly point out that families work differently from larger groups and that socialism does work at small scale. I agree that great inequality among peers is a problem. However, not everyone in a society is a peer. I would care if my coworker were paid ten times as much as I am. I don't care that Musk and Bezos are many times wealthier than I am. In fact, I'm glad that they are richly rewarded for building companies which provide great value to me and many others.
Which types societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else? That might describe small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Historically, there have almost always been people at the top who own or control more than everyone else. For the vast majority of history, that position was determined by force and heredity. It's far better that the people on top get there by building successful businesses that provide value to customers.
Well, in places like Germany and Sweden where tax rates are higher there is a much smaller difference between a plumber and a doctor. It seems to be a more cohesive society. Also, significantly less materialistic. The trade-off is that it is more difficult to build intergenerational wealth through property and entrepreneurship. I don’t think it is about everyone being peers, it is about everyone being a productive member of society, and everyone living with dignity and pride in their place within their society.
I do think it is too easy in the USA to get left behind, and it can be very hard to get caught up. I’m glad you don’t mind multibillionaires, but many people do. Many of the richest people aren’t just company builders, there are many children (and further down the family tree) of company builders. So without taxation to fix it, we create our own modern day top defined by “force or heredity.” (Force probably applies outside the US, like the Saudis and Putin)
I'm having difficulty understanding the second paragraph above. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by "left behind." Are you referring to people in poverty? If so, what do they have to do with the very wealthy or their heirs? Do you think the fact that there are very wealthy people increases poverty?
Yes. Left behind refers to poverty, of finances and of life in general. I have one cousin from a small town who grew to be an executive at one of the biggest companies in the world and another cousin who was encouraged not to go to college (because of the liberal indoctrination blah blah) who after years of no direction and few prospects died of an accidental drug overdose. That cousin was left behind.
In a country with high taxes, the rich people pay more and the social services are greater - higher education is free, as are apprenticeship programs.
AFAICT, you're arguing for more social services, which may be justified. Again, I ask how the problems of the poor are made worse by the existence of very rich people.
It’s not really a position. It’s something research has found. It has also found that when there is less income disparity there is less conflict. I think both have been sufficiently researched to be accepted by science. They don’t really contradict each other. “ I feel rich when I have more”, doesn’t really contradict “everyone here basically has the same so we worry about other things,”
The point is really what a person believes individually is very different from the dynamics of a society. As much as I’d like change people to be the way I’d like, I have to take the society as it is. But if we’re talking about ideas, we can look at different places and see cause and effect of policies and cultures, etc and have opinions on what is better.
So, you think people's perception of their peers matters and that it is not about everyone being peers. There are no contradictions? BTW, you might consider the fact that Sweden and Germany have been losing cohesion as they have accepted more immigrants. The US is more resilient since we are a nation of immigrants.
For 90 minutes, I was waiting for Glenn to ask where has socialism ever worked? I thought that would be one of his strongest possible arguments. He had to wait until the debate was ending to ask it? I was trained as a lawyer (and a Pizza Man) not an economist. But my understanding is that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, on a large scale at least. On a small scale a socialist collective can work because it's made up of self selected individuals. Actually, a nuclear family operates on a "to each according to their needs" basis. But once you move beyond families and relatively small groups, socialism runs smack dab into human nature. Most people are unwilling to expand extra effort without perceiving a personal benefit If I get paid exactly the same whether I work really hard or do just enough work not to lose my job, why would I work hard? I believe that is sometimes called the freeloader effect.
The institution of socialism is largely incompatible with personal freedom because it requires the creation of a strong central government with the power to make the decisions made by the market in a capitalist system. It is at least theoretically possible for that central government to be democratically elected, but it usually devolves into a dictatorship. While Hugo Chavez may have come to power through a democratic election, I don't know anyone that believes Nicolas Maduro remains in power because of free and fair elections.
In the real world all economies are mixed. I don't know anyone advocating pure socialist or pure capitalists economies. Scandinavian countries that are sometimes cited as socialist success stories have moved in recent decades much closer to free market systems albeit with high taxes and high social services.
One of the chief complaints about free market economies is the way they allow and often exacerbate income inequality. The rich get richer faster than the poor and middle class do. I think that's true. Elon Musk has (or had till he bought Twitter) a net worth of something on the order of $100 Billion. But is that really a problem? The problem with focusing on income inequality rather than standards of living is that a system that puts a limit on the ability of people of people to profit from their innovation reduces the overall amount of innovation in the economy and innovation is what allows for increased standards of living.
So long as our economic system raises the standard of living for the poor and middle class does it matter if the wealth of the super rich increases by 300% rather than merely doubling? More importantly, if policies to reduce income inequality by reducing the income or wealth of the super rich will also slow or reduce increases in the standard of living of the poor and/or middle class, should those policies be implemented? I used this hypothetical example when I taught high school social studies. Let's say the class got to vote on whether everyone in the class except for Johnny would get $10 while Johnny got $100 or everyone but Johnny got $5 while Johnny got $10. The second option is worse for everyone, but it could be seen as fairer with Johnny getting only twice as much as everyone instead of 10 X.
I think some of these thoughts have scientific answers. I have heard that the average person can know, care about, and maintain relationships with about 100 people. If we broke down into communities of that size, or near it, we could probably implement socialism pretty well (like in your family example).
Second, inequality is bad. It increases strife and conflict between groups and all that. I’m sure it would be nice if we could be happy with what we have and be happy for those that have more. We (humans) don’t seem to work like that. Consistently, people’s sense of wealth is relative to their peers and regardless of their actual wealth, it’s that they perceive their peers have less that makes them happy. Societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else. I mean haven’t you seen kids fight over who got the biggest slice of pizza or who’s cookie has the most chocolate chips?
You correctly point out that families work differently from larger groups and that socialism does work at small scale. I agree that great inequality among peers is a problem. However, not everyone in a society is a peer. I would care if my coworker were paid ten times as much as I am. I don't care that Musk and Bezos are many times wealthier than I am. In fact, I'm glad that they are richly rewarded for building companies which provide great value to me and many others.
Which types societies seem to work best when people feel they got just as much as everyone else? That might describe small tribes of hunter-gatherers. Historically, there have almost always been people at the top who own or control more than everyone else. For the vast majority of history, that position was determined by force and heredity. It's far better that the people on top get there by building successful businesses that provide value to customers.
Well, in places like Germany and Sweden where tax rates are higher there is a much smaller difference between a plumber and a doctor. It seems to be a more cohesive society. Also, significantly less materialistic. The trade-off is that it is more difficult to build intergenerational wealth through property and entrepreneurship. I don’t think it is about everyone being peers, it is about everyone being a productive member of society, and everyone living with dignity and pride in their place within their society.
I do think it is too easy in the USA to get left behind, and it can be very hard to get caught up. I’m glad you don’t mind multibillionaires, but many people do. Many of the richest people aren’t just company builders, there are many children (and further down the family tree) of company builders. So without taxation to fix it, we create our own modern day top defined by “force or heredity.” (Force probably applies outside the US, like the Saudis and Putin)
I'm having difficulty understanding the second paragraph above. In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by "left behind." Are you referring to people in poverty? If so, what do they have to do with the very wealthy or their heirs? Do you think the fact that there are very wealthy people increases poverty?
Yes. Left behind refers to poverty, of finances and of life in general. I have one cousin from a small town who grew to be an executive at one of the biggest companies in the world and another cousin who was encouraged not to go to college (because of the liberal indoctrination blah blah) who after years of no direction and few prospects died of an accidental drug overdose. That cousin was left behind.
In a country with high taxes, the rich people pay more and the social services are greater - higher education is free, as are apprenticeship programs.
AFAICT, you're arguing for more social services, which may be justified. Again, I ask how the problems of the poor are made worse by the existence of very rich people.
It seems you've changed your position. Do you no longer think that people's perception that their peers have less makes them happy?
It’s not really a position. It’s something research has found. It has also found that when there is less income disparity there is less conflict. I think both have been sufficiently researched to be accepted by science. They don’t really contradict each other. “ I feel rich when I have more”, doesn’t really contradict “everyone here basically has the same so we worry about other things,”
The point is really what a person believes individually is very different from the dynamics of a society. As much as I’d like change people to be the way I’d like, I have to take the society as it is. But if we’re talking about ideas, we can look at different places and see cause and effect of policies and cultures, etc and have opinions on what is better.
So, you think people's perception of their peers matters and that it is not about everyone being peers. There are no contradictions? BTW, you might consider the fact that Sweden and Germany have been losing cohesion as they have accepted more immigrants. The US is more resilient since we are a nation of immigrants.