What would a socialist America look like?

[Harpy Eagle]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

I just don't understand how we can discuss anything when everyone is working off of different definitions.

It looks pretty clear that this issue is not going away, so a conversation sure would be helpful.
.

Everyone works off the definition that helps them politically.

Will seems to be making the point that the very definition that the right wing uses for socialism is what is they are doing to our country today.

 

[danielpalos]

Simplifying Government is still a cost effective alternative.

 

[2aguy]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like Venezuela......

 

[HaShev]

Let's have a physical visual type view of what Socialism would look like in the US.
In Cuba, socialism visually took on the military attire and Castro Beard.
In the U.S., with Hollywood's help, it will look quite different, maybe something like this:

 

[danielpalos]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Like Venezuela......

One version.

We had, 1929.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I just don't understand how we can discuss anything when everyone is working off of different definitions.

It looks pretty clear that this issue is not going away, so a conversation sure would be helpful.
.

WTF?? Will concedes the very point you seem to have stuck up your ass: the socialism being promoted by the Democrats is nothing like the socialism of the early twentieth-century. In fact, it's very much like the status quo accepted by both major parties.

There is a difference. The dems and repubs are pushing open borders, one world order while trump is trying to close the border and pushing sovereignty. The status quo is the spending....in both parties.

 

[danielpalos]

I just don't understand how we can discuss anything when everyone is working off of different definitions.

It looks pretty clear that this issue is not going away, so a conversation sure would be helpful.
.

WTF?? Will concedes the very point you seem to have stuck up your ass: the socialism being promoted by the Democrats is nothing like the socialism of the early twentieth-century. In fact, it's very much like the status quo accepted by both major parties.

There is a difference. The dems and repubs are pushing open borders, one world order while trump is trying to close the border and pushing sovereignty. The status quo is the spending....in both parties.

Only lousy capitalists Lose money on border policies.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Simplifying Government is still a cost effective alternative.

Who is going to do that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Simplifying Government is still a cost effective alternative.

Who is going to do that?

These guys would if anyone would give them a chance...

Libertarian Party

 

[WinterBorn]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

 

[danielpalos]

Simplifying Government is still a cost effective alternative.

Who is going to do that?

Congress is supposed to do that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

 

[danielpalos]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

 

[WinterBorn]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

 

[WinterBorn]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Paying people who, for whatever reason CANNOT work is one thing. Paying people who CHOOSE not to work is another.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs, is another version.

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

 

[Brain357]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

 

[dblack]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Disappointing to see Will refusing to see the difference between real socialism and the Euro-socialism advocated by many Democrats.

It's an important discussion, but intellectual honesty would be required.

Thats what I was thinking. There are huge differences. Will has gone downhill over the last few years. He was rock solid for a time but that time has gone.

Has he gone downhill, or everyone else?

He's "gone downhill" because he's not a Trumpster (ie because he's actually a conservative)

He was headed out 10 years ago under O. As far as conservatives.....what are they? Will ain't one of em. Lol.