Live data from Hacker News

Socialism, American-Style

nytimes.com

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#61
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, [the] Netherlands would probably much more prosperous if taxes were lower and Govenment [sic] is less socialistic. Who would be more prosperous? The richest 1% would be much richer, yes. The bottom 50% of the population would be a lot worse off: sick and uneducated.

I would challenge that. What is the average salary of %50 and their tax percentage?

Not the most reliable source, but I don't have much time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...

Median gross salary is €1714 monthly or €20568 yearly.

Then, looking up the income taxation (reliable): http://www.belastingschijven.net/belastingschijven-2015/

It seems that median salary almost entirely fits in the first 'schijf' (english: disk) of taxation. This means that the total income tax is:

19822 * 0.365 + (20568 - 19822) * 0.42 = €7548 yearly.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to have to back up those bold claims for them to hold any value. Also, please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good'. In fact, I'd argue that the american economic and social system is broken (and thus an 'american' social system does mean a 'bad' system). Your 1% is depriving the 99% of most value.

please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good' That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country. I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always…

> Socialism always results in tyranny.

Anarchist Catalonia? (Admittedly, it didn't last long, thanks chiefly to a different bunch of socialists, who were in turn defeated by fascists.)

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#63
I wish there was a mainstream medium that discussed (and made accessible) the real risks and benefits of policy ideas. The biggest policy decisions our government makes are more or less discussed and debated through anecdotal stories shared in op-ed pages of major newspapers. (Note: I'm talking about policies pushed by both sides of the aisle, not just this particular op-ed.) This seems to be the biggest driver of polarization in the political sphere, as individuals tend to seek out op-eds that reinforce their own views in an exercise of confirmation bias, instead of thinking critically about what the positive and negative effects, plus potential risks, would be.

Personally, I tend to default to looking for free market/libertarian solutions to societal problems based on two major risks. First, if the government fails to deliver the good or service promised (like energy for your home, or healthcare), you normally have no other alternative to choose from. This can cause an entire population to suffer greatly, especially given the government is most often tasked to providing fundamental goods and services most necessary for human life (water, energy, healthcare). Second, choosing your government to provide a solution for you is fundamentally saying that 1 (non)elected government official can offer a better solution than ~330 million other individuals (in the US). Statistically this is highly unlikely, even considering the advantage of coercive power the government-provided solution possesses. I'm not opposed to government control over productive capital in some arenas, but any policy idea needs to mitigate and address these two fundamental risks. Very few policy proposals pass this test, and no mainstream media source exists to provide an objective risk analysis of the ideas and policies being debated by our elected officials.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#64

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…

Socialism is a "bogeyman" in the US because it has contributed nothing to the success of our country and capitalism and private property, its antithesis, has been responsible for our rise as the greatest economic power the world has ever seen.

Half of the comments on here are extolling Elon Musk and this forum exists precisely because of the advancements of similar private tech pioneers. The Netherlands is a great place and I loved the time I spent there, but no one talks about replicating the inventiveness and penchant for the creation of world-changing technologies of the Netherlands. The US is the innovation capital of the world for a reason.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#65
post #53
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.

As long as it is state funded I see no difference. I bet if it would have been developed by the `state engineers` it would even fail worse.

State engineers we do have (Army Corps of Engineers, NASA) often do a fantastic job.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#66

Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either di…

Should all land be publicly owned and rented out? I don't see why that's unreasonable.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#67
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that if I'm doing very well for myself, I'll give up a bit more than I would've in a strictly capitalist country. Instead of paying 25-30% tax, I'll pay 50%. And that doesn't matter. If I'm earning 300k+ in a year, I can miss it. In return I know that my life is safe from being destroyed, regardless of social class I'm born in or will move to. My parents don't have any money? It doesn't matter, education is…

As far as I recall the Obama Healthcare Website was not developed by the government. It was developed by a private company. The front end was developed by Development Seed and the backend was developed by a multi-national. That's what I mean about propaganda. To say this is the doing of socialism is pure propaganda.

Government IT has a huge impedance mismatch in the interface from the government agency to the contractors.

Specific to "Obamacare"/the ACA, America missed the move to "socialized medicine" immediately post-WWII. Europe had significant disruption because of seven years of tanks and bombers. There was during the Truman Administration a "wage and price freeze" in place to avoid a phantom anticipated inflation. Employer-based insurance and other "perks" were given tax protected status instead.

And for a long time, this turned out to be a more effective system. But accumulated rent-seeking and other problems rendered it less cost effective over time.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please do not confuse 'unamerican' for 'bad', and 'american' for 'good' That's your own projection, not mine. I clearly stated in my comment that socialism was unamerican because it goes against the founding principles of the country. I don't deny the current system is broken. It has been for a long, long time. But, if you think socialism is the solution, you haven't been paying attention to history. Socialism always…

> Socialism always results in tyranny. ?! Firstly, the countries you listed identified themselves with communism, not socialism. Secondly, they never implemented actual communism - there was still an upper class and immense amounts of corruption. Lastly and more importantly, those systems were put in place by the tyrants, not the other way around.

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#69
post #44

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…

According to Richard D. Wolfe https://www.youtube.com/user/RichardDWolff It's because American Capitalists felt threatened by the Socialists, because the New Deal and a bunch of other things that happened in the 20th century due to unions and Socialist activism along with American elite alignment that scared them and their continued ability to run America for their interest, so they spread tons of rhetoric and propag…

I think it generalizes to Americans being uncomfortable with anything they perceive as ideology. The propaganda just serves that.

Lyndon Johnson would have "gotten away with" The Great Society had he not also been forced to deal with Vietnam. Regardless of what we in the US say of that, those programs are very much part of our ...portfolio.

At an ethical level, Americans are much more likely to embrace consumer surplus as a core value, hence the emphasis on work rather than on government. Our "conservatism" when it is coherent is really a more-radical Liberalism in the sense of an emphasis on a self-reliant individual.

Re: Socialism, American-Style

#70

Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…

"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Propaganda I assume. Socialist ideas may be ok as long as the word isn't used. I guess we need to find a new politically correct word for it because the old one is too pejorative now.

"Fragile By Design" does an excellent teasing apart of the small differences between Canadian and American social... consciousness as expressed in government policy. A very surprising book.

The too-short upshot is - Canadians actively consider the social welfare function as a thing in itself, while Americans try to bury it under complicated things like mortgage subsidies.

Post reply on HN