Why not socialism here?

[stryck]

Saw a meme today that said that socialists just want the stuff that their taxes pay for. They put their money in, they want their stuff out.

Except we don't pay enough taxes for the things that socialists want. And you can't get there just by soaking the rich. In countries that do successfully manage a generous safety net (and there aren't many

Comments

[persephone_kore]

I think even the socialists here don't actually trust the government, if they've lost a prominent election recently....

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>Saw a meme today that said that socialists just want the stuff that their taxes pay for. They put their money in, they want their stuff out.<<

Well, yes. If you don't get something for your taxes, it's just robbery. That's the problem we have now. The roads are falling apart, the levies break in floods, the schools suck, lots of people can't get health care, etc. It's a problem.

>>Except we don't pay enough taxes for the things that socialists want. And you can't get there just by soaking the rich. In countries that do successfully manage a generous safety net (and there aren't many that do it well), middle class taxes are much higher than they are in America. That's the bargain- pay a lot to the government, have the government take care of you.<<

If your taxes pay for your necessities, what you're left with is spending money. If you look at what's left in that light, it's a LOT. The Scandinavian countries in particular have done a brilliant job of this

Re: Thoughts

[stryck]

The Scandinavian countries aren't quite as socialist as people imagine, but they do have a fairly robust safety net. And they also have ruthless punishments and high compliance with those standards. Like many other things in life, it's a trade off. People want the goods without realizing what you have to give up to get them.

I fear government health care for the simple reason that once the government is paying for my care, they have a large incentive to make me do things to try to lower costs, like force me to lose weight even if that's not the most pressing issue in my life. Now, losing weight would be a good idea. Still, I don't like the idea of the government setting those goals, using some one-size-fits-all chart, and having the power to enforce those goals to boot.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The Scandinavian countries aren't quite as socialist as people imagine, but they do have a fairly robust safety net. And they also have ruthless punishments and high compliance with those standards. Like many other things in life, it's a trade off. People want the goods without realizing what you have to give up to get them.<<

It's close to my ideal in one regard: socialized needs, privatized wants.

>> I fear government health care for the simple reason that once the government is paying for my care, they have a large incentive to make me do things to try to lower costs, like force me to lose weight even if that's not the most pressing issue in my life. Now, losing weight would be a good idea. Still, I don't like the idea of the government setting those goals, using some one-size-fits-all chart, and having the power to enforce those goals to boot.... )

Re: Thoughts

[cat_sanctuary]

Or force us to eat whatever is currently being touted as the most healthy diet.

When I was growing up many people defined that diet as "based on whole wheat and cheese."

I'm a celiac. Nufsed. I never want to hear *any* body telling me what they imagine is "good for me."

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Really stable social democracies have fairly homogeneous cultures. They work because everybody involved agrees on the principles and are willing to enshrine them in law. America doesn't have that- Americans are, generally, rowdy sorts, and we are in the midst of a large culture war with multiple fronts that doesn't look to settle down any time soon. We can't agree on our priorities in even the most basic sense. And while there are some problems we can agree exist, we often don't agree on the solutions. In that situation, giving more power to the government - even the power to throw money at things, adds fuel to the fire, another thing to fight over.<<

Sadly so. One size does not fit all, and trying to force it just hurts lots of people.

>> And that's why large portions of our country don't trust the government. And without trust in who's managing the programs, socialist-style safety nets don't work. Trying to push them through when you haven't solved the basic problem of trust means you just make it worse.... )

Re: Thoughts

[stryck]

I think things are stressful, but not as bad as we might imagine. The average person has a better standard of living than our great-grandparents. It's the comparison with our parents that's causing trouble. It's hard when you realize that your standard of living is likely to slip compared to the recent past. It's hard to bear that with any kind of equanimity unless you have some other standard of 'success' to live by.

College is one of several bubbles causing considerable pain in our lives. I know I'm going to encourage my boys to trade schools rather than degrees unless something changes in the next seven years.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I think things are stressful, but not as bad as we might imagine. <<

I'm looking at a wide range of things. Some of them have been getting worse for decades or centuries. Climate change, we're long past fixing and running out of time when it could even be ameliorated. Insects, amphibians, and birds are collapsing all over the world, not a few species, but most of them. We've lost a third of birds and insects just in the last thirty years. The wildfire season is much worse, and this is the least bad it'll ever be again on a human timescale. That plays into human miseries in ways that drive increasing unrest.

>> The average person has a better standard of living than our great-grandparents. It's the comparison with our parents that's causing trouble. It's hard when you realize that your standard of living is likely to slip compared to the recent past.<<

Most people now have never seen a good economy, when one job was enough to support a household at a decent standard. It takes 2-5 jobs now

[prester_scott]

>Really stable social democracies have fairly homogeneous cultures.

They aren't just culturally homogeneous, they're also genetically homogeneous. Your family has likely lived on the same land for centuries. The people you pass on the streets of your town are your distant kin. You live in a nation with deep roots, shared history, shared values, and shared stakes for the future. THAT is what makes the kind of high-trust society that can successfully be "socialist".

America has none of that today. At some times and places it has, but never the entire Union nor even an entire State as one, which is kind of how it was designed. The old European social democratic countries no longer are like that. The only holdouts are places like Japan.

[stryck]

This is very much true, and a neglected fact when people try to import those political and social structures elsewhere.

[cat_sanctuary]

I think the socialists are stuck in the belief that if things (rent, college, food) cost more than people can afford, the only solution is Big Government dictating prices and issuing rations.

There's another way...much as Berea College was another way of desegregating schools, besides the way it was done in New Orleans. Some person with fortitude can choose to offer things at a lower price.

That person will of course be hated by a lot of people s/he causes to look as bad as they are. It's a gamble. Sam Walton made enough money not to care, but many of the few who've tried lowering prices did not.