Our government imposes excessive taxes and regulations on businesses.
Simply put our government makes it difficult or usually foolish to hire workers to make things. It's better to do it overseas. Ironically the government usually does this to 'protect' workers, but the media never considers the result of the 'protection' is that the jobs no longer exist. Our government imposing excessive taxes and regulations explains why it's not profitable to hire people to manufacture things.Continuing back up the chain we arrive at the final result: Financial Crisis.
I don't think most people look at things like this so they don't understand the reasons for our current situation, and they have no idea what the solution is. When it comes to our current crises they just 'react' they get upset about giving money to bankers, or maybe they get scared enough that they are willing to give money to the bankers. Either way most people are simply reactive in nature and that solves nothing. We need as a culture to reward substantive dialogue. Instead, I believe substantive thinking has come unfortunately to be often punished in our culture. Pure symbolism and social talk is a waste of time but it's the level most people find themselves on most of the time, deviating from it is breaking the collective rules of behavior we seem to have either decided on or arrived at.
Now I am a person that likes to generalize get abstract a bit. I have kept it simple to this point. But I want to explain the financial crisis from the viewpoint of a larger theory. Sort of like relativity compared to Newtonian Mechanics. My big generalization for what is going on is called 'socialism'. Everyone acts like they know what it means but it would be foolish to assume the average voter could give you a good definition of it. The average voter understands words like "change" the democratic slogan, but even then they misapply the principle because the democrats don't represent change but just more of the same thing the republicans gave us: socialism. But before I get distracted again lets define socialism:
Socialism is a form of collectivism where the government controls what would otherwise be private property ostensibly for the good of society and usually for the purpose of promoting equality.
That's my definition anyway you can check the dictionary to see if I'm close.
I am going to present a single argument against socialism. I have many but I have one that suffices and is really simple. I call it the 'empirical' argument. Empirical because it is based on a single undeniable universal observation:
All nations that went the socialist route and to the extent they did suffer financial crisis.
There are also other observations. For example, inequality is not eliminated in socialist systems but always dramatically increased. The reason, of course, is when you're in financial crisis every penny really counts and for the have-nots socialism is a real tough situation. I have traveled a few socialist societies. In Laos, for example, the hotel clerks at a relatively nice hotel make about $45 a month. I think there is a bit of arrogance almost bordering on racism in America when we assume we can go the same socialist route without the same thing happening to us. We can't.
Most voters don't recognize America as socialist. They don't want to admit we are a socialist nation and members of the left usually say something like: 'The best theory is a mix of capitalism and socialism.' When you consider that the endpoint is less than $45 a month I don't think anyone wants to experience pure socialism. Even the Lao people enjoy some free market reforms or they wouldn't make nearly such a high wage.
Imagine a continuum where on one side you have freedom and on the other pure socialism. When one considers the sheer magnitude of US government spending we are a good way towards socialism in the continuum. I would argue regulations also have to be factored in, and due to our relative prosperity the left has managed to impose more regulations on business than occurs in many more purely socialist societies. In fact we may have more burdensome regulations than has ever occurred in any society for all history. In a way it's quite an astounding liberal achievement. But when you factor in regulations and place us in the continuum we are nowhere near the freedom side and getting closer and closer to the socialist side. So following the empirical argument we should be suffering and we are
No comments:
Post a Comment