Well, I can't say I like any of the economic systems. And I'd like to scale
the current one we have back a bit to pre-Regan, before he dissolved the
anti-trust act, deregulated the banks, and ended up diving us into not one
but two nasty recessions.
But, I've discussed and analyzed this situation with economists, both at my
own company and elsewhere. And...the pure Marxist model doesn't quite work.
I read Marx, Lenin, Lock, and Hegel in college, and see them more as
socio-political philosophers than economists. It's an idealistic vision but
not a realistic one.
In the last US election, we had Bernie Sanders (whose basically the
American version of Corbyn, as far as I can tell, possibly a little to the
right of him.). He had some great ideas -- like free state supported
university education. But no plan on how to pay for it. Was this supposed
to be tax supported? Was it state supported? Would teacher's salaries be
lowered?
And also would the education be the same level as non-state supported?
Would other options be available? These are hard questions that need to be
answered. I used to listen to my co-worker (the economist from Cypress)
rant about him. A lot of Americans thought hey why can't we have what
Sweden does? Except Sweden has a far stricter immigration policy, is a much
smaller country, with about a far smaller population, they can afford
things that we can't based on taxes. And their country is different -- they
don't have fifty states, with fifty separate governments, plus a
centralized government. It's like comparing an apple and a banana.
The problem with Marxism is it doesn't look at all the variables. And, look
at the US? We changed how we did business, were governed, etc in the 1700s,
and it was not peaceful, it was not pretty, we had not one but two wars.
The Civil War was the result of an economic system sustained by slave
labor. That had to happen. Our economic system had to change - it was pure
evil, but there was a lot of death and pain involved. And some areas of our
country are still struggling with it. Then jump over and look at the French
Revolution which was also based on economics...and resulted in a lot of
upheaval across Europe. It took France years to resolve itself.
Russia? The Bolshevik Revolution, with the opposing economic theories of
Lenin and Trostky, and their power grab. That hardly ended well. But they
had to change things.
I think we're probably getting close to another economic revolution of
sorts in the US, because the divide between the wealthy and middle class is
beginning to grow to insane levels. But, does doing away with Capitalism
entirely and replacing it with Socialism work? I don't know. The Dodd-Frank
Act was useful to an extent -- regulating the banks, but it also made it
impossible for many people to ever get a mortgage.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no expert, the best approach may well be what
you have already, a socialist-capitalist hybrid. Where certain agencies,
say transportation, sanitation, etc are government run, while other's are
private. A lot can be achieved if you allow private parties to fund Space
Exploration -- look at SpaceX. But a lot of people can be hurt, if you
don't have governmental regulations and controls on housing, bio-tech, and
environment. It has to be balanced. At least that's what experience has
taught me. I do not believe the answers can be found between the pages of a
book written over a century ago.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2017-06-15 07:58 pm (UTC)Well, I can't say I like any of the economic systems. And I'd like to scale the current one we have back a bit to pre-Regan, before he dissolved the anti-trust act, deregulated the banks, and ended up diving us into not one but two nasty recessions.
But, I've discussed and analyzed this situation with economists, both at my own company and elsewhere. And...the pure Marxist model doesn't quite work. I read Marx, Lenin, Lock, and Hegel in college, and see them more as socio-political philosophers than economists. It's an idealistic vision but not a realistic one.
In the last US election, we had Bernie Sanders (whose basically the American version of Corbyn, as far as I can tell, possibly a little to the right of him.). He had some great ideas -- like free state supported university education. But no plan on how to pay for it. Was this supposed to be tax supported? Was it state supported? Would teacher's salaries be lowered? And also would the education be the same level as non-state supported? Would other options be available? These are hard questions that need to be answered. I used to listen to my co-worker (the economist from Cypress) rant about him. A lot of Americans thought hey why can't we have what Sweden does? Except Sweden has a far stricter immigration policy, is a much smaller country, with about a far smaller population, they can afford things that we can't based on taxes. And their country is different -- they don't have fifty states, with fifty separate governments, plus a centralized government. It's like comparing an apple and a banana.
The problem with Marxism is it doesn't look at all the variables. And, look at the US? We changed how we did business, were governed, etc in the 1700s, and it was not peaceful, it was not pretty, we had not one but two wars. The Civil War was the result of an economic system sustained by slave labor. That had to happen. Our economic system had to change - it was pure evil, but there was a lot of death and pain involved. And some areas of our country are still struggling with it. Then jump over and look at the French Revolution which was also based on economics...and resulted in a lot of upheaval across Europe. It took France years to resolve itself. Russia? The Bolshevik Revolution, with the opposing economic theories of Lenin and Trostky, and their power grab. That hardly ended well. But they had to change things.
I think we're probably getting close to another economic revolution of sorts in the US, because the divide between the wealthy and middle class is beginning to grow to insane levels. But, does doing away with Capitalism entirely and replacing it with Socialism work? I don't know. The Dodd-Frank Act was useful to an extent -- regulating the banks, but it also made it impossible for many people to ever get a mortgage.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no expert, the best approach may well be what you have already, a socialist-capitalist hybrid. Where certain agencies, say transportation, sanitation, etc are government run, while other's are private. A lot can be achieved if you allow private parties to fund Space Exploration -- look at SpaceX. But a lot of people can be hurt, if you don't have governmental regulations and controls on housing, bio-tech, and environment. It has to be balanced. At least that's what experience has taught me. I do not believe the answers can be found between the pages of a book written over a century ago.