Is socialism really that bad?

[_Inconceivable]

I'd sure feel more positive about a representative government that would encourage us to take personal responsibility for ourselves.

It does not teach us this by absorbing the consequences of poor judgement.

Socialism/Marxism/communism lends it's influence to this type of social architecture.

I honestly believe that people can and will take care of themselves if given the opportunity. Particulary if they are made aware of the positive and negative consequences.

Both Obama and McCain have the tendency to encourage government to intervene in this natural process. Moreso Obama (in a most profound way).

At least McCain has a record of bending toward personal responsibility when pressured.

[_Thama]

That is not right. The great depression was not the result of "pure capitalism." In fact, it was the result of the U.S. government interfering with the economy in ways it didn't understand at the time. I had a Massachussets school of economics professor (read: keynesian economics believer) who taught me this (just for the record, I am a Chicago school of economics believer myself).

The U.S. government caused the great depression, pure and simple. I can even remember my keynesian economics professor explaining the great depression then concluding that it should have had a big fat sticker slapped on it that said "Made in the U.S.A.!"

If by "interfere with the economy" you mean "completely deregulate virtually every industry", then yes.

[_EAllusion]

The short answer is that socialism generally reduces gross economic efficiency and innovation and thus retards the growth of standard of living. As was stated before, there might be other reasons that might make a socialist policy good or bad, but you can almost invariably count on it resulting in a less optimal allocation of resources to maximize valued goods and services than basic free markets. As a secondary matter, socialism puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few government officials who can use it to harm a society in their efforts to shape it. It's "risky" in that sense. The difference between them and wealthy business owners and corporations is the government has a monopoly on the use of military force.

That said, the US is a mixed economy - meaning a combination of markets and socialism - and the differences between the major parties are a matter of small degrees in the big scheme of things. The most socialist thing I saw out of this campaign was McCain's mortgage renegotiation plan, and that includes Obama's health care plan.

[_The Dude]

The most socialist thing I saw out of this campaign was McCain's mortgage renegotiation plan, and that includes Obama's health care plan.

No joke. I bet McCain put about as much thought into that plan as he put into his choice for VP.

[_EAllusion]

And while BCSpace is a giant douchebag, one of the harms of socialism is how it robs people of their individual liberty to make economic decisions for themselves. Even if you regard this as a necessary in some circumstances, as almost everyone does, I think it is important to regard this as a harm that must be outweighed, not ignored.

[_dblagent007]

That is not right. The great depression was not the result of "pure capitalism." In fact, it was the result of the U.S. government interfering with the economy in ways it didn't understand at the time. I had a Massachussets school of economics professor (read: keynesian economics believer) who taught me this (just for the record, I am a Chicago school of economics believer myself).

The U.S. government caused the great depression, pure and simple. I can even remember my keynesian economics professor explaining the great depression then concluding that it should have had a big fat sticker slapped on it that said "Made in the U.S.A.!"

If by "interfere with the economy" you mean "completely deregulate virtually every industry", then yes.

Uh, no. I am referring to the creation of the Federal Reserve (which was done in response to the financial crisis in 1906-07 (I think those are the right years)). With the Federal Reserve involved, we now had a quasi-governmental agency (sound familiar? Fannie/Freddie) controlling the nation's money supply.

Shortly before the 1929 stock market crash, the uber genius leader of the Federal Reserve - Benjamin Strong - died. The idiots that fought to run the Federal Reserve after his death didn't know what they were doing. Instead of loosening the money supply when the market crashed, they tightened it up making things worse. The government also stopped spending, which further made things worse.

If the market crash of 1929 had occurred in a purely capitalistic society, it would have been much more like the panic of 1906-07. A few banks would have failed and within a year or two things would be back to normal. Instead, the government's bungling prolonged it and made it horribly worse.

[_Thama]

Uh, no. I am referring to the creation of the Federal Reserve (which was done in response to the financial crisis in 1906-07 (I think those are the right years)). With the Federal Reserve involved, we now had a quasi-governmental agency (sound familiar? Fannie/Freddie) controlling the nation's money supply.

Shortly before the 1929 stock market crash, the uber genius leader of the Federal Reserve - Benjamin Strong - died. The idiots that fought to run the Federal Reserve after his death didn't know what they were doing. Instead of loosening the money supply when the market crashed, they tightened it up making things worse. The government also stopped spending, which further made things worse.

If the market crash of 1929 had occurred in a purely capitalistic society, it would have been much more like the panic of 1906-07. A few banks would have failed and within a year or two things would be back to normal. Instead, the government's bungling prolonged it and made it horribly worse.

Certainly the mismanagement of the Fed exacerbated the problem. It's simply a load of right-wing garbage to ignore the root of the crisis in the first place, though: the failure of government to protect the working consumer, and the subsequent inability of the common consumer to purchase essential products. When the majority of the populace can't afford to purchase toilet paper and underwear, the manufacturers of toilet paper and underwear aren't going to last long. An economy cannot survive very long with its primary focus on the production of high-end luxuries: a bubble inevitably forms, and once the euphoria gives way to reality, it breaks.

The Panic of 1906-07 occurred before the massive upward redistribution of wealth had occurred in the 1920s, and the economy was thus more diverse and resilient.

[_EAllusion]

In addition to the money supply crunch caused by the Fed, the Smoot-Hawley tariff and subsequent retaliation by other countries chilling international trade is widely believed to be a major government screwup that helped make what should've been hard, short recession into something much worse.

[_EAllusion]

I forgot. Smoot is a famous Mormon. Well, that just brings it full circle, now doesn't it? One of the fun things about the Smoot-Hawley act was that economists on the whole were begging the government not to do it. It wasn't like its effects couldn't be anticipated.

[_Jason Bourne]

::::clapping for thama:::::::

I agree.