The West faces two great challenges today: The survival of capitalism, an economic system which has brought prosperity to the masses; and the survival of Judeo-Christianity, a religious system which has brought civilization to us all. Without both, we would be very much more impoverished today, and we probably would still be living in a state of benightedness. Alas, because of recent failures in the economic system, our commitment to capitalism is appearing weak and shaky, and because of the Jihad being waged against a weakened West, our commitment to Judeo-Christianity is appearing weak and shaky, too.
We need to renew our commitment to both the economic system and to the underpinnings of our civilization, but to do that, we need good, strong leadership, and leadership from people who are equally committed to both capitalism and Judeo-Christianity. Sadly, such commitment is nowhere to be found.
In order to surmount these two great challenges we are now facing, we need crystal clear thinking and total commitment to the purpose. To-date, there is evidence of neither crystal clear thinking nor commitment to the civilization which is the keystone of our freedoms and way of life.
President Obama was swept to power in the belief that his administration would usher in a new dawn. He came to power on a promise of hope and change, though before the election, he omitted to explain to the electors what that “hope” stood for, and what that “change” would mean for Americans and for the world.
Obama’s confidence was so great that he promised us all that after his administration, the world would be a very different place. The “audacity of hope” indeed. One could also add the audacity of an upstart!
We all know that Obama wishes to stimulate the American economy by spend, spend, spending. The stimulus package worth $825bn shows Obama’s commitment to spending other people’s money: Taxpayers’ money! For as we all know, governments do not have any money; they have only other people’s.
This stimulus package is being hailed as some kind of stroke of Obama genius, whereas, in actual fact, it is old hat. He is only proposing what socialists have proposed down over the ages: To tax and spend. The only thing that is possibly new about Obama’s proposal is the scale of the stimulus package.
Spending money on roads and other infrastructure is all well and good, and doubtless there are many areas in America which need road-renewal programmes, and badly; but such spending will take a very long time to have an effect on the American economy. The lead-in times are going to be long; these projects are not going to have the immediate effects that Obama will surely be hoping for.
Further, spending public money on this vast scale is a sure recipe for corruption. Contractors, and many others, will be able to dip their hands into the overflowing pots of gold, and help themselves. If Obama thinks he can develop a system that will prevent this from happening, then he is naïver than even I thought.
Then there is the problem which spending public money on such a grand scale will bring with it: It will bring impoverishment to future generations, since future generations will be burdened with the massive debt which today’s generation is in the process of getting itself into.
Government intervention is now the order of the day, and on both sides of the Atlantic. But for government intervention, you can read socialism. For that is the path we are now going down. Wherever and whenever governments get involved in private businesses and corporations, their intervention and the ensuing government regulations end up crippling business communities and stifling initiative.
There is no doubt that we have got into this dire economic situation because of greed; and that greed was born in the complete and utter deregulation of the Reagan and Thatcher years. But what they did was not wrong at all, for their policies proved to be vote-winning, and they led to prosperity. The problems arose not because of the Reaganite and Thatcherite policies themselves, but because they were allowed, over the years long after both leaders had left power, to go on and on, unchecked.
So now, instead of following Friedmanite principles, principles which have been proved to work, we are in the process of throwing out capitalist principles: We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. And, as a consequence, we are being taken down the socialist route, taken down the road which leads to higher and higher taxes, increasing government interference, and stifled initiative. It is a road which leads to no paradise! Of that, be sure!
Of course, the excesses of many, especially bankers and their ilk, need to be curbed. It makes absolutely no sense to allow such people to keep paying themselves vulgar and enormous bonuses, especially when many others are experiencing difficulty in feeding their families. But that is an argument for strong government to put a stop to the worst excesses of the capitalist system; it is not an argument for abandoning the system altogether.
We need to reaffirm our commitment to the system by making it possible for people to start up businesses. This can be done with substantial tax breaks and, where necessary, government loans, subsidies, and grants. Unburden the people of their onerous taxation! Set the people free! Let them work and keep the fruits of their labours! Encourage manufacturing! Encourage initiative! Bring out the best in America!
In my judgement, the way Obama is going about correcting the economy, when Obama will no longer be the president of the USA, others will be left to pick up the pieces and pay the high taxes which he will surely introduce, since there is no other way to finance such an ambitious stimulus package. In short, President Obama shows no commitment to capitalism; on the contrary, his way of government is based on the socialist model.
But what is equally worrying, perhaps more worrying still, is Obama’s lack of commitment to Judeo-Christian civilization. In matters of faith, his vision is blurred to say the least. This is probably due to the nature of his family background. >>> ©Mark Alexander | Friday, February 6, 2009
All Rights Reserved
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
17 comments:
Great essay, Mark.
Here's some questions I have:
1) It seems to me Reagan spent us into prosperity, at least in part, by financing a huge military buildup. I understand your objection to Socialism in principle, and I understand the objection that it will take a lot of time for Obama's spending to "trickle down", but I don't understand the objection to government spending in general. If it worked for Reagan, then it seems to me it will work for Obama. That being said, Reagan combined massive spending with tax cuts; the famous "voodoo economics". This strategy worked. By 1987-88, debt was government was much lower as a percentage of the total GDP.
2) Is it not true that the argument between Democrats and Republicans is not so much between Socialism vs. Capitalism as it is between the degree of Socialism? We are a Socialist government already. the government pays for Education. The Government pays for welfare. The government pays for Medical Research. The government pays for healthcare (the truth is, anyone who has no money can get FREE HEALTHCARE in the U.S. It's only the middle class homeowners without health insurance, who can not get healthcare without paying for it.
3) If you are not a Socialist yourself, then why do you support the idea of the United States government taking over an industry which account for 16.3% of the total GDP?
Hello Pastorius!
Glad you like the essay. Here are my answers to your questions:
1) It seems to me Reagan spent us into prosperity, at least in part, by financing a huge military buildup. I understand your objection to Socialism in principle, and I understand the objection that it will take a lot of time for Obama's spending to "trickle down", but I don't understand the objection to government spending in general. If it worked for Reagan, then it seems to me it will work for Obama. That being said, Reagan combined massive spending with tax cuts; the famous "voodoo economics". This strategy worked. By 1987-88, debt was government was much lower as a percentage of the total GDP.
I don't have the figures in front of me, but I should be very surprised if Reagan depended on government spending as the prime way of making America prosperous. After all, Reaganomics was against this, and in principle. His intention was to reduce the growth of government spending, to deregulate the economy, to lower taxes, and to control the money supply.
His model was similar to Thatcher's.
Obama wants to increase the regulation of the state, and he wants to hugely increase the amount the state spends. Taken to the nth degree, you could end up with the state being the main employer in so many fields. This, in itself, is anti-capitalistic.
Margaret Thatcher used to talk of rolling back the frontiers of the state. She always kept her eye on government spending as a percentage of GDP. But even she was not that successful in cutting back on government spending, because once the state starts being a big employer, and once the state starts giving hand-outs for this and hand-outs for that, i.e. welfare benefits, it becomes very difficult to put a stop to it all. Sometimes it can be politically impossible to do so. Take payments to single mothers as a case in point. It would be a very brave government that would stop such payments!
You said that you do not understand my objection to government spending in general. Well, Pastorius, I do not have any objection to government spending in general; but I do have an objection to allowing it to spiral out of control. Governments should spend on what governments do best; and that self same government should allow the markets to get on with the rest. Governments are good when it comes to the military. It is also good at road building (at the local authority level), etc. But growth in government spending should always be kept in check, since when it becomes too great, it becomes onerous on the taxpayers. After all, governments do not have ANY money of their own, as I stated in my essay; they have only taxpayers' money. Hence, if government spending becomes too great, it becomes too onerous on the taxpayer; and taxes have to keep on going up to finance the ever-increasing government expenditure.
As for Reagan's "voodoo economics", I doubt that this will apply in the Obama years. He will have to increase taxes in order to fund the huge government spending on all his programmes.
2) Is it not true that the argument between Democrats and Republicans is not so much between Socialism vs. Capitalism as it is between the degree of Socialism?
I agree with that.
We are a Socialist government already.
I disagree with that statement.
the government pays for Education. The Government pays for welfare. The government pays for Medical Research. The government pays for healthcare (the truth is, anyone who has no money can get FREE HEALTHCARE in the U.S. It's only the middle class homeowners without health insurance, who can not get healthcare without paying for it.
Yes, and the government should pay for education because that is the only way that governments can insure that everyone gets an adequate education. If this weren't the case, the only people with an education would be those children whose parents could afford an education for them. It would not be in the interests of the government or the people for there to be mass ignorance and illiteracy. Just imagine such a society!
Yes, the government pays for welfare, too. But as I have already stated, that must be kept in check, and for the reasons given.
Sometimes, especially when the health of the nation is at stake, it becomes advantageous for all when the government pays for some research. Stem-cell research is a case in point; and in this matter, I agree with Obama.
As for there being free healthcare for all Americans who cannot afford it, I don't go along with that; otherwise, why would there be all the fuss about it?
It depends, of course, what you mean by 'free', I suppose. You are probably referring to charities picking up the tab. Well, I do not think that that is an acceptable modus operandi, because it is far too 'iffy' when a person gets old and sick. A person needs more guarantees that that.
As regards healthcare, a way needs to be found for all people to be eligible to basic healthcare. Nothing can be worse than to be ill and old and not be able to afford to go into hospital unless you can find some charity to help you out. Who wants to depend on charity?
I am not suggesting that the US introduce a national healthcare service. But I am suggesting that even with private medicine, a way could be found for all people to get the medical treatment that they need. Maybe the government needs to become the insurer of last resort for people below a certain income level. I don't know. But some way should be found. It is a national disgrace that America has about 40m people without healthcare provision.
3) If you are not a Socialist yourself, then why do you support the idea of the United States government taking over an industry which account for 16.3% of the total GDP?
I don't know what you are referring to here. Nothing from this essay, I believe. Are you referring to an earlier comment I made on healthcare provision, a comment I made on one of Epaminondas' threads? If so, I have answered it for you above.
And just to set the record straight, I am not in favour of a national health service per se. What I am in favour of is a healthcare system for all citizens, regardless of how that is achieved and financed.
I would not wish the British model on my American friends; though I have to say that at its best, it is very good. It has saved many a life.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the reply.
I don't have time to address all your points right now. However, I want to address this one first, because it goes to the heart of an almost monolithic misconception about America.
You said: As for there being free healthcare for all Americans who cannot afford it, I don't go along with that; otherwise, why would there be all the fuss about it? It depends, of course, what you mean by 'free', I suppose. You are probably referring to charities picking up the tab.
I say: NO, NO, NO!
Any American who does not have money can get free health care. All they have to do is go to an Emergency room, and the state pays for their care.
Illegal aliens exploit this all the time.
As I said, the people who have trouble are middle class homeowners who can not afford insurance. If you are in this position, and you need health care and can not pay for it, they will take your home.
So, poor people have free health care, and middle class people are left to fend for themselves.
Well, then, there is CLEARLY something WRONG with that system, isn't there?
Please address the other issues when you get time. I would be interested to read your thoughts.
Two further points, Pastorius:
There are many illnesses which cannot be classified as an emergency. So where does that leave these poor people? Further, there are some illnesses which are so acute that the people suffering from them cannot leave their beds. Such people cannot attend an emergency unit in a hospital.
Mark,
People can go to the Emergency room with a cold in the United States. Illegal immigrants do it all the time.
And, as for people who are too sick to get out of bed, as long as they have someone to dial 911 for them (the emergency line) an ambulance will come and take them to the emergency room.
Mark,
In my opinion, a good deal of the reason Reagan's trickle down economic program worked was because an enormous amount of money went into building up the military.
The government contracted with companies all over America who built missile systems, bombs, guns, etc.
And, that money flowed out into the economy and was spent on houses and cars, etc.
I'm not saying that was the whole reason Reagan's program worked.
What Reagan did was cut taxes, AND implement massive spending programs.
Mark,
Question:
You said you agree with my statement that Republicans and Democrats are arguing over a degree of Socialism.
But, on the other hand, you say you disagree that we are already a Socialist government.
See, to me it is a gradient line. We do not have strict definitions of Capitalism vs. Socialism. However, it would seem to me that a good working American definition of Capitalism is:
A government whose job is to protect the people, execute the law, build roads, mediate interstate issues, educate the people (up to college- and then, in my opinion, people ought to pay to educate themselves, because I don't think it does any good to have idiots go to college), and, I think that's about it.
Socialism is, in my opinion, anything past that.
What would your definition be?
I think this is an important conversation to have because there is an awful lot of animosity between the two political parties here in the US, and I don't think there is that much difference between them (as far as how much they want to tax and spend). It really just comes down to what they want to spend money on.
People can go to the Emergency room with a cold in the United States. Illegal immigrants do it all the time.
And, as for people who are too sick to get out of bed, as long as they have someone to dial 911 for them (the emergency line) an ambulance will come and take them to the emergency room.
If this is so, then why does anyone need to take out private medical insurance?
When I have been to see a doctor in the States, the first thing I was asked for was my medical cover. I admit that it was not an emergency, but still.
I can assure you that the 'accident and emergency unit' at the local hospital in the UK wouldn't take too kindly to people coming in with cancer, or a cold. Those units are not there for such illnesses. Hence the term 'accident and emergency'.
In my opinion, a good deal of the reason Reagan's trickle down economic program worked was because an enormous amount of money went into building up the military.
The government contracted with companies all over America who built missile systems, bombs, guns, etc.
And, that money flowed out into the economy and was spent on houses and cars, etc.
I'm not saying that was the whole reason Reagan's program worked.
What Reagan did was cut taxes, AND implement massive spending programs.
You may well be right about this. I don't have the details in front of me. But I do know that Reaganomics stood for something else; though it didn't exclude military spending, of course.
Pastorius:
You said you agree with my statement that Republicans and Democrats are arguing over a degree of Socialism.
But, on the other hand, you say you disagree that we are already a Socialist government.
I disagree because there is no way that the US can be considered socialist. The means of production are largely in private ownership.
See, to me it is a gradient line. We do not have strict definitions of Capitalism vs. Socialism.
There are strict definitions, actually. In socialism, the means of production are owned by the state; in capitalism, as I have already stated, the means of production are privately-owned.
Now sometimes, the edges get blurred. Life isn't always so black and white. But the definitions of both are strict, actually.
However, it would seem to me that a good working American definition of Capitalism is:
A government whose job is to protect the people, execute the law, build roads, mediate interstate issues, educate the people (up to college- and then, in my opinion, people ought to pay to educate themselves, because I don't think it does any good to have idiots go to college), and, I think that's about it.
Socialism is, in my opinion, anything past that.
That's your definition. It is your personal take on things. They are not what an economist would generally accept as working definitions, however.
By the way, why do you find it acceptable for the government to provide education, whereas you don't find it acceptable for it to provide healthcare? (It's just a question; I am not advocating that it should.)
What would your definition be?
In broad, general terms, I would say the difference between them is as stated above. It has to do with how society is organized and who owns the means of production, etc. Are the means of production – land, labour, capital – state-owned, or are they privately owned?
I think this is an important conversation to have because there is an awful lot of animosity between the two political parties here in the US, and I don't think there is that much difference between them (as far as how much they want to tax and spend). It really just comes down to what they want to spend money on.
It is an important conversation to have. Indeed it is. It's a pity that there isn't a clear difference between the parties. If there were, the voters would have a better choice.
Mark,
According to the definitions you offer for the distinction between Captialism and Socialism, it would be true that America is not a Socialist nation.
However,as you say, the lines get blurred.
Here's the problem, the healthcare industry comprises 16% of our economy. Biotech is the wave of the future. It is going to change the way human beings live and behave in every aspect of their lives. Biotechnology will become so integral to life that it will be almost inseparable from Computing Technology.
And yet, many would have us nationalize healthcare?
16% of the GDP, put under the control of the government. The government decides how much they will pay for research and the products of research. No, that does not sound like a good idea to me.
Why do I think Education ought to be under the control of the government?
Because the alternative is a Tower of Babble.
If the Republican plan of "School Vouchers" were to be implemented, every Muslim, Wiccan, and anti-American idiot in our country could take their (approximate amount) $6000 and divert it to schools which not only lacked intellectual and scientific rigor, but which promoted the destruction of our society.
Pastorius:
According to the definitions you offer for the distinction between Captialism and Socialism, it would be true that America is not a Socialist nation.
Exactly.
However, as you say, the lines get blurred.
It's because we live in the real world, not in the world of theory.
Here's the problem, the healthcare industry comprises 16% of our economy. Biotech is the wave of the future. It is going to change the way human beings live and behave in every aspect of their lives.
I hope not! Sounds like a nightmare to me. All that genetic engineering, etc.
Biotechnology will become so integral to life that it will be almost inseparable from Computing Technology.
As I said, it sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.
And yet, many would have us nationalize healthcare?
Yes, that idea does seem to be an increasingly popular idea in the States.
I have mixed feelings about a national healthcare system: I see the good side and the bad side.
I have lived in countries with both private systems and public. There is no comparison in the standard of care in a good private system. Of course, people are free in the UK to take out private insurance, too. Just because we have an NHS, it doesn't mean that private healthcare is outlawed. Actually, a lot of people have private health insurance.
The problem that arises with it is this, though: If you are involved in a car accident, or if you have to go into hospital as an emergency, the ambulance will still take you to the nearest NHS hospital, whether you are privately-insured or not. Though I do believe that it is possible to transfer to a private hospital once the patient has been stabilized.
16% of the GDP, put under the control of the government. The government decides how much they will pay for research and the products of research. No, that does not sound like a good idea to me.
In many ways, it isn't.
By the way, I believe that an alternative to a public healthcare service could be found, keeping the private system, but modifying it in such a way to enable the poor to be treated.
Why do I think Education ought to be under the control of the government?
No, you misunderstood me, Pastorius. What I meant was why do you think it is right and acceptable for the government to provide education, whereas for the government to provide healthcare is anathema to you. That's what I meant.
Because the alternative is a Tower of Babble.
This would indeed be the case.
If the Republican plan of "School Vouchers" were to be implemented, every Muslim, Wiccan, and anti-American idiot in our country could take their (approximate amount) $6000 and divert it to schools which not only lacked intellectual and scientific rigor, but which promoted the destruction of our society.
School vouchers are an idea dreamt up by Milton Friedman. This is one of his ideas which I think is kooky. What is needed is investment in education and schools, so as to ensure that all children have access to a good education.
Did you know that in Switzerland state education is so good that private schools aren't popular at all? All the best teachers want to teach in the state system, because that's where they can earn more, and because that's where the money for superior resources lies. The UK and the US could follow the example of Switzerland.
Mark,
You said: By the way, I believe that an alternative to a public healthcare service could be found, keeping the private system, but modifying it in such a way to enable the poor to be treated.
I say: I agree. It seems to me we ought to, as a nation, agree upon an idea of a low-level healthcare which we will provide to everyone. Perhaps, a level of healthcare consistent with what was available 15 years ago would be appropriate, or maybe 20 years ago. No new drugs, only generics, etc.
And then, Doctors who don't want the headaches of private practice can oversee staffs of Physicians Assistants in the administration of such healthcare for the poor.
I would be behind that because I think it is just, AND it would actually save a lot of money from the current system of healthcare by fake Emergency.
Pastorius:
Mark,
You said: By the way, I believe that an alternative to a public healthcare service could be found, keeping the private system, but modifying it in such a way to enable the poor to be treated.
I say: I agree. It seems to me we ought to, as a nation, agree upon an idea of a low-level healthcare which we will provide to everyone. Perhaps, a level of healthcare consistent with what was available 15 years ago would be appropriate, or maybe 20 years ago. No new drugs, only generics, etc.
That's an interesting approach! But I don't think it is one that will run. I also don't think that it would be very compassionate, either. I mean, how can anyone justify giving inferior healthcare to someone simply because he/she is poor? That would be a political hot potato.
Surely, a better way would be for the government of the day to act as insurer of last resort to people without adequate means. Even the poor would then pay on a pro rata basis according to their means. But the system would have to be well-policed.
I know that in the Swiss system a person could choose between three levels of private insurance. Something like first class, second class, and third class. But, when someone opts for third class insurance, it refers to the level of comfort he will receive in hospital. The medical treatment is the same for all. For someone who is down and out, the government will pick up the tab. Nobody is left on the street without adequate healthcare.
If such a system can work for the Swiss, I don't see why it couldn't work for the Americans. That way, you keep your beloved private medical system, and yet the poor get their healthcare too.
There could even be an added premium built in whereby the rich pay a little extra for healthcare as a form of small subsidy – a subsidy which will make it possible for even the poorest not to suffer without the treatment they need.
What America will have to guard against is doing what the British have done. The British set up the National Health Service, but it has been turned into an International Health Service because people come here from all over the world when they need treatment, and they get it for free. The British taxpayer picks up the bill.
Mark,
You said: how can anyone justify giving inferior healthcare to someone simply because he/she is poor?
I say: New innovations are expensive, and they keep getting more expensive. We can not expect a system to provide a $10 million treatment to a person who does not contribute. I seriously doubt my Blue Cross policy would pay for the most expensive latest innovation in Cancer treatment, if I were sick.
If my insurance would deny it to me, then why should the government pay for it for someone who doesn't contribute to the economic improvement of our society?
Valid point, Pastorius.
Post a Comment