So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

because making sure that the poor are able to participate in the economy is good for the economy, and the additional demand creates jobs. also, making sure that basic needs are met for everyone means a more stable society, which is also good for business.

like anything else (including tax cuts,) you have to find the right balance, though. dropping the top rate from 91 percent to 70 did a lot of good. however, when you start talking about cutting already historically low rates, the returns are increasingly diminishing. likewise, we might be able to solve some problems by sending everyone to college debt free and guaranteeing debt free access to health care, but making the minimum wage forty grand just isn't going to do much except result in massive inflation and a huge hit to anyone with savings. same thing with regulation. same thing with our stupidly high corporate tax rate. you have to find the balance.

faithful_servant said:

As used, both "Democracy" and "Socialist" are grossly incorrect terms and I dislike them being used in such a manner. It allows the user to take a shortcut to being able to defend their position, since it allows the user to re-interpret the terms as they see fit. You set forth some parameters for discussion, but some of the primary ones are poorly used and done so in such a way as to allow you to define them "on the fly" to counter arguments against your point. This isn't semantics, it's wanting clear parameters for discussion. It's wanting all of us to be on the same page, using the same terms to mean the same thing, so that we can have an intelligent discussion, instead of one that gets to get redefined at will.

Click to expand...

Like I said, quibbling over semantics and nothing more.

America, the major nations of the former British Commonwealth, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, France, Germany (and the rest of most of Western Europe) all have certain things in common, one of which is that they are all representative democracies...and they are all part of what is termed the first world, where third-world level poverty is generally unknown.

You know what I am saying. Why is it that these nations, these representative democracies - or whatever label you want to put on them, they still share many governmental similarities - are still the most successful nations in human history when it comes to the strength of their economies, the stability of their governments, and the standard of living of their respective populations.

Why is that? Why are they - in the light of human history - so wildly successful, when ALL of them have had included as integral parts of their governments patently socialist programs that touch every corner of their societies?

Why?

Helix said:

because making sure that the poor are able to participate in the economy is good for the economy, and the additional demand creates jobs. also, making sure that basic needs are met for everyone means a more stable society, which is also good for business.

like anything else (including tax cuts,) you have to find the right balance, though. dropping the top rate from 91 percent to 70 did a lot of good. however, when you start talking about cutting already historically low rates, the returns are increasingly diminishing. likewise, we might be able to solve some problems by sending everyone to college debt free and guaranteeing debt free access to health care, but making the minimum wage forty grand just isn't going to do much except result in massive inflation and a huge hit to anyone with savings. same thing with regulation. same thing with our stupidly high corporate tax rate. you have to find the balance.

Click to expand...

I've said the same thing many times - the 'Goldilocks' solution. Neither too much, nor too little...moderation in everything. But the devil's in the details of finding exactly what that balance is, isn't it?

Bob Blaylock said:

The premise of the OP is quite obviously and observably false. America was the first and original first-world nation, and for a very long time, by far the greatest example of such, and we did not become so by pursuing destructive socialist/statist/collectivist polices, but by rejecting and rebelling against such policies. To the degree that America has declined away from its former status as the preeminent first-world-nation, this decline has been driven almost entirely by our foolish adoption of these sort of policies. The end result of such policies can most clearly be seen in the history of the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик and its ultimate collapse—not exactly the epitome of a thriving first-world nation.

Click to expand...

Methinks thou needest learn some history. We did indeed have the best of the best in the two decades after WWII...but before WWII, we were still in many ways playing catch-up to much of Western Europe, especially England.

Glen Contrarian said:

There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Click to expand...

Are these not a natural progression as a democracy grows, economy expands and a society matures?

Lakryte said:

Such economies were the best before the implementation of such programs, and remain so only in spite of them not because of them.

Click to expand...

Problem with that bit of rhetoric is the reality of the market, so to speak. The strongest and most capable thrive, and the weakest fall to the wayside. If nations with small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation were inherently better, then we would have seen at least some indication of it over the thousands of years of recorded human history.

But there is none. None at all.

So you can choose to believe what you want, or you can choose to believe what history plainly tells us. The choice is yours.

Of course socialized programs are a feature of modern, democratic nations. As elections made political power ultimately under the control of the people and created the consent of the governed, socialized economics makes economic power under the control of the people and creates consent of economic participants. Political and economic power are and always have been intimately intertwined and the modern idea where we pretend that they aren't is nonsense. Wealth has to be democratic the same as political office in order to create a truly free society. A political aristocracy and an economic aristocracy are the same thing, and we must protect against both to avoid oligarchy and kings.

Glen Contrarian said:

I've said the same thing many times - the 'Goldilocks' solution. Neither too much, nor too little...moderation in everything. But the devil's in the details of finding exactly what that balance is, isn't it?

Click to expand...

it's very difficult to find that balance, and it's nearly impossible to implement it when the majority of the country is at least partially blinded by partisan loyalties. even if the ideal balance were to be presented on a gilded platter, the chances of getting it passed are almost nil.

nuance is a forgotten art in a pissed off hyperpartisan world.

Lakryte said:

None of your points stand. Those economies that are most economically free tend to be the wealthiest, and those that are least economically free tend to be the poorest.

Click to expand...

Really?

Have you ever lived in a third-world nation? I have, and let me tell you that they are VERY economically free! It's all about the money. If you can pay for it, you can get it, whatever "it" may be. But if you can't pay for it, too bad. This is true on the street, to the corporate boardroom, to the cop on the street, to the courts of justice. And as far as 'minimum wage' and health care access for the poor go...those are but dreams of the poor in such nations.

This doesn't mean that one can't live a good life in such "economically-free" nations, but only if one has money. The rest are struggling every single day just to eat.

Yes, such places are MUCH more 'economically-free' than America. You should go to these places and try it for a while, so that you can learn what 'economically free' really means.

Paschendale said:

Of course socialized programs are a feature of modern, democratic nations. As elections made political power ultimately under the control of the people and created the consent of the governed, socialized economics makes economic power under the control of the people and creates consent of economic participants. Political and economic power are and always have been intimately intertwined and the modern idea where we pretend that they aren't is nonsense. Wealth has to be democratic the same as political office in order to create a truly free society. A political aristocracy and an economic aristocracy are the same thing, and we must protect against both to avoid oligarchy and kings.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much normal, standard, wrong-wing “logic”—the way to protect against an abusive, overpowering government is to make government more overpowering and abusive.

Glen Contrarian said:

Problem with that bit of rhetoric is the reality of the market, so to speak. The strongest and most capable thrive, and the weakest fall to the wayside. If nations with small government, low effective taxes, and weak regulation were inherently better, then we would have seen at least some indication of it over the thousands of years of recorded human history.

But there is none. None at all.

So you can choose to believe what you want, or you can choose to believe what history plainly tells us. The choice is yours.

Click to expand...

I guess you are willfully choosing to ignore history. The largest economic expansion in human history, the Industrial Revolution, was the result of free markets--particularly the free market economy of the United States. Wealth increased across all classes, with the poor wealthier than ever before. Your argument "the weakest fall the the wayside" is just empty, hyperbolic rhetoric.

Glen Contrarian said:

Really?

Have you ever lived in a third-world nation? I have, and let me tell you that they are VERY economically free! It's all about the money. If you can pay for it, you can get it, whatever "it" may be. But if you can't pay for it, too bad. This is true on the street, to the corporate boardroom, to the cop on the street, to the courts of justice. And as far as 'minimum wage' and health care access for the poor go...those are but dreams of the poor in such nations.

This doesn't mean that one can't live a good life in such "economically-free" nations, but only if one has money. The rest are struggling every single day just to eat.

Yes, such places are MUCH more 'economically-free' than America. You should go to these places and try it for a while, so that you can learn what 'economically free' really means.

Click to expand...

You think most third world nations are economically free? What a joke. You don't even know what economic freedom is if you believe that nonsense. I suggest looking at some actual data, not your own fantasy beliefs. Most African nations are some of the least economically free nations on the planet.

Lakryte said:

I guess you are willfully choosing to ignore history. The largest economic expansion in human history, the Industrial Revolution, was the result of free markets--particularly the free market economy of the United States. Wealth increased across all classes, with the poor wealthier than ever before. Your argument "the weakest fall the the wayside" is just empty, hyperbolic rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Yeah, child labor, mine worked dying by the xxx company towns and shopping at the company store. You are being selective.

Bob Blaylock said:

Power corrupts. Giving government more power only leads to a more corrupt and destructive government.

Click to expand...

So explain why it is that all the most successful representative democracies ALL have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation.

joG said:

How do Luxembourg or Switzerland do as advanced societies?

Click to expand...

Are they not representative democracies?

And as far as Luxembourg goes, it's not really much more than a city-state...which means that, like other city-states, it has very little rural area to defend, or to which they must provide and maintain infrastructure such as roads, power, water, et cetera...which means that they do not need as much of a tax base with which to support their nation.

And I suspect you'll find that's why most red states receive more in federal funding than they pay out in taxes, while most blue states pay out more in federal taxes they receive: most red states are rural, and as such require more funding per person for infrastructure when compared to the amount of federal taxes they pay out.

Lakryte said:

You think most third world nations are economically free? What a joke. You don't even know what economic freedom is if you believe that nonsense. I suggest looking at some actual data, not your own fantasy beliefs. Most African nations are some of the least economically free nations on the planet.

Click to expand...

I believe I asked you if you've ever LIVED in a third-world nation. Have you? Have you lived somewhere that you can set up a business - almost ANY business - without any license at all (or if a license is needed, just pay off the licensor)? Have you lived somewhere that income taxes aren't collected because there's no reliable identification database in order to tell who did and did not pay taxes? Do you own a home now in such a place (like I do) where there's little or no building codes (and inspectors are very easy to pay off), and you can build pretty much what you want, where you want? No environmental restrictions, either?

Have you ever lived in a place where there's no enforced minimum wage, no mandates for employers to cover unemployment insurance or health insurance, no mandates for employers to meet safety or environmental standards? Have you ever lived in a place where there's no restriction against having a monopoly?

Dude, you want real economic freedom, if you have money and you want to do whatever the heck you want to do with YOUR money, a third-world nation's the place to be.

What you're probably referring to is the CORRUPTION...and let me tell you, guy, if you think America's corrupt, you've got ZERO clue as to what it's like in third-world nations where public servants (cops, teachers, whatever) are paid peanuts, and have to take bribes in order to feed their own families. When our brothers immigrated here from the Philippines, one of the most interesting lessons they had to learn was that no, you can't just bribe your way out of a traffic ticket in America!

Lakryte said:

I guess you are willfully choosing to ignore history. The largest economic expansion in human history, the Industrial Revolution, was the result of free markets--particularly the free market economy of the United States. Wealth increased across all classes, with the poor wealthier than ever before. Your argument "the weakest fall the the wayside" is just empty, hyperbolic rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The Industrial Revolution was not the result of free markets. Free markets did help it spread, sure, but what MADE the Industrial Revolution was the advent of steam power and all its associated technologies like railroads and steamships. Learn your history, guy. And while you're at it, learn how the common workers lived during the Industrial Revolution and ask yourself if that's really freedom....

Again, if big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation were SO terrible for a nation's economy, then instead of first-world democracies becoming the nations with the strongest economies and highest standards of living, we would be third-world nations.

Helix said:

it's very difficult to find that balance, and it's nearly impossible to implement it when the majority of the country is at least partially blinded by partisan loyalties. even if the ideal balance were to be presented on a gilded platter, the chances of getting it passed are almost nil.

nuance is a forgotten art in a pissed off hyperpartisan world.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth!

Glen Contrarian said:

Like I said, quibbling over semantics and nothing more.

America, the major nations of the former British Commonwealth, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, France, Germany (and the rest of most of Western Europe) all have certain things in common, one of which is that they are all representative democracies...and they are all part of what is termed the first world, where third-world level poverty is generally unknown.

You know what I am saying. Why is it that these nations, these representative democracies - or whatever label you want to put on them, they still share many governmental similarities - are still the most successful nations in human history when it comes to the strength of their economies, the stability of their governments, and the standard of living of their respective populations.

Why is that? Why are they - in the light of human history - so wildly successful, when ALL of them have had included as integral parts of their governments patently socialist programs that touch every corner of their societies?

Why?

Click to expand...

Quibbling over semantics, for example, is whether the constitutional founders were 'liberal' as 'liberal' is defined in modern day America. The spin on such discussion can, well, make your head spin.

It is NOT unreasonable to at least loosely define the terms 'democracy', 'socialist' etc., however, in a discussion of whether such governments promote first world or third world economies.

But whatever the definitions, I think Walter Williams PhD economist pretty well boils it down to the following:


So which countries have stronger property rights coupled with human rights protections? It isn't socialism.

JANFU said:

Are these not a natural progression as a democracy grows, economy expands and a society matures?

Click to expand...

If that were the case than such would work for all democracies...but there's many democracies that are third-world nations. The example I love to use is the Philippines - it's very much a democracy, a representative democracy modeled in almost all respects after our own. But the government is not nearly so comprehensive or intrusive as our own, taxes on individuals are almost unenforceable, and regulation there is a joke. In other words, according to conservative economic dogma, they should be kicking economic ass and taking names.

But they're not.

Glen Contrarian said:

If that were the case than such would work for all democracies...but there's many democracies that are third-world nations. The example I love to use is the Philippines - it's very much a democracy, a representative democracy modeled in almost all respects after our own. But the government is not nearly so comprehensive or intrusive as our own, taxes on individuals are almost unenforceable, and regulation there is a joke. In other words, according to conservative economic dogma, they should be kicking economic ass and taking names.

But they're not.

Click to expand...

Legal system, not mature, corruption rampant, they have yet to mature.

AlbqOwl said:

Quibbling over semantics, for example, is whether the constitutional founders were 'liberal' as 'liberal' is defined in modern day America. The spin on such discussion can, well, make your head spin.

It is NOT unreasonable to at least loosely define the terms 'democracy', 'socialist' etc., however, in a discussion of whether such governments promote first world or third world economies.

But whatever the definitions, I think Walter Williams PhD economist pretty well boils it down to the following:

. . .We do not fully know what makes some societies more affluent than others; however, we can make some guesses based on correlations. Rank countries according to their economic systems. Conceptually, we could arrange them from those more capitalistic (having a large market sector and private property rights) to the more socialistic (with extensive state intervention, planning and weak private property rights). Then consult Amnesty International's ranking of countries according to human rights abuses going from those with the greatest human rights protections to those with the least. Then get World Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest to lowest per capita income.

Having compiled those three lists, one would observe a very strong, though imperfect correlation: Those countries with greater economic liberty and private property rights tend also to have stronger protections of human rights. And as an important side benefit of that greater economic liberty and human rights protections, their people are wealthier. We need to persuade our fellow man around the globe that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity. . . .
Self-Inflicted Poverty by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent​

So which countries have stronger property rights coupled with human rights protections? It isn't socialism.

Click to expand...

Hm...how do you define "economic liberty"? And last I checked, America DOES have extensive state intervention, and our private property rights are not as strong as you might think (eminent domain, RICO act, HOA's). I can tell you from personal experience that I can do a heck of a lot more with my house over in the Philippines than I can with any home in a subdivision here!

In other words, gotta watch the definitions - it's so easy to claim that we've got economic liberty...but whose definition of economic liberty are we using? The conservative "I-can-do-what-I-want-it's-MY-money!!!!" definition? Or the liberal "We-must-level-the-economic-playing-field" definition?

JANFU said:

Yeah, child labor, mine worked dying by the xxx company towns and shopping at the company store. You are being selective.

Click to expand...

And as the economy developed, child labor became less and less common--even before child labor laws were passed. The fact remains that free markets resulted in the largest economic expansion in human history, and if not for free markets we would be living in poverty today.

JANFU said:

Legal system, not mature, corruption rampant, they have yet to mature.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

When people are paid peanuts, they find other ways to supplement their income. When public servants are paid peanuts, they take bribes to feed their families. As time goes on, some of those advance in the organization - and since they had to take bribes all through their careers just to feed their families, why should they stop taking bribes now that they're high-ranking officers? And now that they're high-ranking officers taking bribes, such becomes the norm with all the businesses and corporations who have to deal with them.

If you don't want a corrupt nation, it MUST start with paying good middle-class wages to the public servants. You can't even begin to address corruption without that one point. But what must a nation have in order to pay those public servants? MORE taxes.

And high taxes are the price of admission to living in a first-world nation.

Glen Contrarian said:

Wrong. The Industrial Revolution was not the result of free markets. Free markets did help it spread, sure, but what MADE the Industrial Revolution was the advent of steam power and all its associated technologies like railroads and steamships. Learn your history, guy. And while you're at it, learn how the common workers lived during the Industrial Revolution and ask yourself if that's really freedom....

Again, if big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation were SO terrible for a nation's economy, then instead of first-world democracies becoming the nations with the strongest economies and highest standards of living, we would be third-world nations.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Steam power would have been useless if free markets did not develop it and put it to productive use. Common workers saw their standards of living improve over the 19th century. Your attempt at rewriting history has failed.