I live, work and thrive in a market economy and I am not a socialist.
But today a read a message from a good friend who said "socialism is trickle up poverty"; a clear rebroadcast of a throbbing theme from AM radio or cable news.
So I wondered. Could he be right? Or do my Swedish friends know something that we don't? Is socialism a scourge or a bastion?
The book At the Front Lines of Medicine (2004) by Dr. Howard Waitzkin helps clear things up for me.
On nearly every measure people in socialist countries lead better lives than people in capitalist countries. Physical Quality of Life (PQL) is a composite index that the author uses to measure political-economics, socioeconomics and health. It shows us that people in socialist countries are better educated, have greater access to doctors and teachers, eat better, have schools and jobs and yes, live longer. The data is attached below.
The conclusion has anecdotal support as well. On a recent trip to the Nordics, I found clean, crime-free, free moving, integrated cities with top-notch schools, low unemployment and high wages. Last night I talked with a 45-year-old Finn who told me he'd never seen marijuana. It seemed completely foreign to him. And his taxes are about the same as mine. Furthermore, businesses and entrepreneurs in these countries thrive in global markets. Think Nokia, Volvo and Linux.
Admittedly, Dr. Waitzkin doesn't tell us if more people have a chance to become wealthy in one environment vs. the other. I think that is self-evident. But he does point out that even the rich don't live as well in capitalist countries as they do in socialist countries.
So then I wondered, why do we fear socialism? I suspect it is for the same reason that we fear anything: we don't understand it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
What you are missing is the simple fact that WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY AND OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO UNILATERALLY CHANGE THAT. Right or not, socialism is not what our nation was founded on and not where our nation is headed long-term. It is the will of a liberal and naive president who has an agenda that includes control of every detail of social and financial control headquartered in Washington DC. This is not acceptable, logical, or realistic. It is going to cost big bucks, destroy the country for years to come and drop us from the ranks of the world leader to one of world middle class. Our currency is no longer the standard and our economy, policies and agendas will not be revered and followed loyally by most other nations as they have been for so long. We peaked. This president is just hitting the accelerator and driving us off the cliff where we have no chance of recovery.
All that said, a sound retreat to fundamental capitalist values and the time to reach equilibrium where our nation can sustain itself financially in terms of resources, debt, and production. We don't need to change to a socialist society, we just need to step back to a conservative society where the business owners can run corporations and are encouraged to take risks, make changes, and grow.
Over and out.
Our currency has failed because it's been shipped, at the rate of ~700B a year for the last 25 years, to the Saudis, Russians and Venezuelans for oil. Under GOP watch, mostly.
Our corporations have failed because their leaders risked it all on big cars and never-ending suburbanization. Under GOP watch, mostly.
Your take-over talk is desperate, uninformed and ignores facts: TARP money returning. Chrysler in and out of CH11 in 2 months.
Last, friend, there are no such thing as fundamental capitalist values. Values aren't economic. They're moral. They are about doing good, not doing whatever markets desire.
Try again.
I did not read in Nick's comments that he was suggesting we become a socialist country. Only that all citizens under socialist governance achieve more happiness and well being, not just the top few percent.
I also find a call to a return to capitalistic values fascinating. Have those in favor of unbridaled growth, beleiving that "corporations" have only our best interest in mind been the leaders in self-control when it comes to use of resources and reduction of debt (both personal and corporate)in order to have sustained production cycles? I am pretty sure recent political history would show that under Republican leadership personal and corporate debt has not only sky-rocketed, but it has been encouraged by those administrations as the driving force to unretrained growth, abuse of resources, and the economic growth that drove us off the cliff. Current economic policy is attempting to throw out a parachute to slow down the impact before we all crash into the bottom of the economic dive that President GW Bush claimed was not coming just a few weeks before it all crashed last fall.
Thanks for yoru continued well measured comments Nick. Even if some wish to keep on the blinders and follow the train over the cliff.
Post a Comment