Most of the members of the Democratic Party probably view Capitalism as shown in the poster above. So it is that I cracked up when Hillary Clinton announced yet another excuse for her election loss.
Hillary Clinton agreed Wednesday that being a capitalist likely damaged her 2016 campaign because nearly half of Democrats say they are socialists.
“Probably,” Clinton said at the Shared Values Leadership Summit in New York City, after being asked whether support for capitalism hurt her at the polls.
“It’s hard to know, but if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists, or self-described socialists, and I’m asked, ‘Are you a capitalist?’ And I say, ‘Yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability,’ you know, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist.'” (continued here)
If you find it difficult to believe Clinton said that, listen to the video.
Because so many think she is crooked, I suspect H. Clinton’s credibility hurt her more than anything else. Sadly, what Clinton’s record shows is that she believes in any economic system that puts her on top. When we have Capitalism with H. Clinton’s idea of what constitutes “appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability”, we have a form of Socialism that looks like that poster above. Because people inevitably abuse great power, that is what Socialism in the United States looks like.
Anyway, this is the second post in a series. POORLY TAUGHT — PART 1 was the first. Here we will begin dealing with a question.
So how specifically does support Socialism?
Is this post really about ? No. The point is to examine some of his ideas, which I think are common misunderstandings propagated by the public school system and the news media. Note that I once believe the same. I believe the solution for this problem is some independent study.
In POORLY TAUGHT — PART 1 we observed two problems.
- The lack of coherent ideology that explains government’s role in our economy. (Will cover this issue in this post.)
- Acceptance of the plain fact that mankind is deeply flawed. (Will cover this issue in POORLY TAUGHT — PART 3.)
The Lack Of A Coherent Ideology
What is the problem here? Understanding. What does Capitalism involve? Capitalism is a economic system that allows people to negotiate their own deals with each other. Instead of some mastermind telling us what we must do, we just advertise our products and services, and we shop for we want to buy. We allow supply and demand determine prices. That way everyone pays appropriately for what they get, and that way those who provide products and services have a huge incentive to satisfy their customers.
Does really understand Capitalism? No, and unless understands Capitalism he really cannot appreciate what a disaster Socialism must be. Consider how he responded when I pointed out he has not established any hard limits (or criteria) that would limit his application of Socialism.
Certain moral and practical considerations require that we work together as a community, and make every person responsible for contributing to toward the public goods and services that he/she enjoys as a member of that community. For example, the business that pays no taxes for roads and highways but enjoys the benefit of those roads is committing an immoral theft of public good and also the practical economic inefficiency of literally being a “free rider”. (from here)
What describes is the typical Socialist justification for “freeways”. What this is is an excuse for making everyone pay taxes for transportation infrastructure whether they receive a benefit or not.This Socialist solution puts politicians absolutely in charge. Taxpayers pay no matter what is built, where it is built, or whether it is used.
In the past Americans paid for roads and bridges with user fees. The government financed transportation infrastructure with bonds, and users paid off the bonds by paying tolls if and when they used that infrastructure. The bonds sold if the buyers thought the project worth the investment.
Did anyone receive a benefit from transportation infrastructure without paying for it? No. When the producers of goods and services determine what is necessary to make a profit, they have to include the cost of paying tolls for the use of transportation infrastructure. To make a profit, the producers of goods and services must pass on the cost for their use of transportation infrastructure to their customers. Hence, many of us pay tolls without ever realizing it, and paying tolls is much more fair than paying taxes for transportation infrastructure we never use in any way shape or form.
Here is another example. Here justifies using Socialism.
“— You have very little effort to justify using government.”
That’s because the moral and practical arguments for when and how much government to use, as I said, is situational, dynamic, complex and defies such closed loop absolutism. By way of example, let’s take my efforts to replace the windows in my home.
Industries used lead in a number of products, including paint, because it was effective and cheap. What we found was that lead was poisoning us and our children to the point of causing brain damage. Industries were externalizing a real cost (lead poisoning of children) so that it was not part of the true price of their products. The EPA therefore banned lead in these products and thus internalized the true cost of the product into the price. This was both a moral good and a practical economic efficiency. Now to my windows. (from here)
Does environmental regulation equate to Socialism? Well, if government starts using regulations to tell business people how to run their businesses, any kind of regulation can effectively become government ownership. However, government’s proper role is to protect the rights of the People. When business people dump pollutants on their neighbors or jeopardized the safety of workers, those business people violate the rights of others. Just to make a buck, no one has the right to poison anyone. Hence government must enforce certain prohibitions, but so long as the practices of business people don’t violate our rights, it is not government’s job to tell them how to run their businesses. Does anyone believe those government bureaucrats would know what they are doing? Of course not. How could they? Yet the Socialist would insist upon giving the bureaucrats control.
To Be Continued