Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Jo498]

I thought Sanders was slightly more leftist than that. But of course, e.g. in Germany "moderate conservatives" and "moderate social democrats" are almost undistinguishable and many policies (healthcare, welfare etc.) that are deemed "socialist" by US commentators from libertarian or conservative stances have not been in doubt even among otherwise rightwing conservative politicians for decades.

[knight66]

Surely a distinction needs to be made between the welfare type of objectives Sanders promotes; which are indeed middle of the road in Europe, and his suggested methods of funding. The funding suggestions are extremeist left wing ideas that would by default involve a number of services being pulled into public ownership. The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.

Mike

Ha!


_{http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35739042?ocid=socialflow_twitter}

[Florestan]

In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning.

True, but this fact should not obscure that socialism does have a meaning The basic, the main, the first and foremost tenet of socialism is the abolition of privately owned and run businesses, factories and banks and their replacement with socially / publicly /collectively owned and run ones (this, in theory only, because in practice it invariably results in their being owned and run by the State, ie, the rulling class, ie the top echelon of the Party and their acolytes). That is socialism, no more, no less --- and that´s why I am not a Socialist and neither is Sanders, probably.

As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.

Speaking in strictly Romanian political context and terminology, I identify myself as a Liberal, ie a supporter of that branch of liberalism which developed in Romania since the 1848 Revolution* (so I guess that historically and technically I am man of the Left). You are correct, though: without being  Roman Catholic I do subscribe to those tenets and policies of the Catholic social philosophy which converge with the said liberalism, and there are many, because Romanian liberalism has never embraced atheism and the social practice encouraged and promoted by the Eastern Orthodox Church are not markedly different from the Roman Catholic ones, although it lacks a clearly defined political philosophy and a party ideologically grounded on it. In terms of general European politics, that would make me a Christian Democrat, that is a man of the Right. So much for political labels and categories.

* (its political incarnation is the National Liberal Party, the oldest active European liberal party, established 1875. A full member of the Liberal International, in the EU Parliament it sides within European People´s Party).

As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.

That is my impression, too, although I would use "heavily" instead of "slightly"--- and another point worth stressing is that social-democracy is different from socialism.

Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).

Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s.

See above: the post-war European prosperity was brought about by a pragmatical agreement between liberals, christian democrats and social-democrats, none of which were socialists.

EDIT 1: typos corrected.

EDIT 2: Hayek himself was much less "crazy" than Hayekians. As a self-styled Romanian liberal, I generally subscribe to Hayek´s Why I Am Not A Conservative.

[Florestan]

Surely a distinction needs to be made between the welfare type of objectives Sanders promotes; which are indeed middle of the road in Europe, and his suggested methods of funding. The funding suggestions are extremeist left wing ideas that would by default involve a number of services being pulled into public ownership. The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.

Hear, hear!

[Todd]

Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.

This is a fairly standard outlook among some left-leaning people.  Policies X, Y, and Z were used during the early post-war and Cold War era.  Certain outcomes were perceived as superior – and let's assume they were – therefore, they should be followed again to achieve the same outcomes.  This ignores some fundamental differences in the world today as compared to the halcyon days of the past, be they demographic (ie, aging societies with transfer payment regimes imposing ever greater economic burdens on taxpayers), financial (eg, Bretton Woods is long dead), or cultural (eg, just why do married couples have better economic outcomes than non-married couples?).  The impact of top marginal rates, in particular, at least as it pertains to the US, are severely misinterpreted, as well.  Because something worked in the past, when conditions were different, does not mean that it will work as well, or at all, today.  Of course, it doesn't mean it won't work at all, but to ignore the significant differences in conditions is intellectually sloppy.

As to definitions of the word Socialism, there have always been different definitions.  Bolshevism represents an extreme, and then there is a variety of less extreme versions, including something purportedly more palatable called Democratic Socialism.  Bernie Sanders has been very clear that he is a Democratic Socialist, and his policy proposals support that.  First and foremost, he openly supports creating a government monopsony in health care, thereby socializing the demand side of about a sixth of US GDP.  He supports publicly funded college education, taking to its logical conclusion free education that was not the standard in the past and was so famously called for in the Communist Manifesto.  He wants to impose a 64% top rate on capital gains and 0.5% transaction tax, which will ostensibly reduce financial speculation, though that much is not certain, but it will impose greater government involvement in one of the largest sectors of the economy.  And he wants to introduce greater government confiscatory powers when wealthy (?) people die, reducing inheritance.  Now, people can argue about the attractiveness of these and other proposals, but these go much further than merely imposing a few more regulations, as Democratic candidates usually propose, and in some instances represent actual Socialism. 

It is also true, as has been pointed out by multiple posters, that the US is different from European nations, and it is more to the right, and that the policies Sanders proposes are moderate or standard fare in other countries.  That's a good thing.  The US isn't Europe, nor should it strive to be like Europe. 

[Todd]

Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382.  Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him.  What a choice.  It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.

[drogulus]

     

The funding would also gum up the works of the economy, which only an extremist or an idiot would attempt.

Mike

     To some extent high taxes could gum up an economy via transitional price shocks, even when the spend rate keeps the circuit topped up, but if history is a guide not as much as one might think. I'm not enthused about the Nordic model. I understand big government/low deficits, small government/big deficits pretty well, the Nordic uses a smaller buffer. As for models working. they do, it's required. Nordic countries don't get poor faster than U.S. style, either way of provisioning a money economy works to the extent it's managed for that purpose. Manage it to not work, that works, too.

     Remember when people thought Sweden would get poor from too much demand from government spending? Or was it high taxes, was that supposed to be the cause? Or, was it the size of the government sector that would consign them to poverty? Not everyone knew how bigger government sectors make cyclical management easier with enhanced countercyclicality ("flywheel effect"). Many insist on not knowing this even now, and I guess that can't be helped.

     Anyway, all that's gone, not forgotten, just put on hold until  "fiat money" collapses. People just luuv their weak ideas and super strong beliefs.

     I understand, I totally do.   A few years back I began looking into post-Keynesian economics, partially to understand how bad models produce colossal repeated uncorrected errors. What allows this, what permits this, why's it tolerated and encouraged by the bad followership going over the cliff with bad leaders?

     I worked my way to MMT and to my surprise it consisted largely of an explanation of the consequences of well established operational facts, which being facts and uncontroversial enough to be widely accepted by the various schools, left me with conclusions to ponder. I assure everyone that this wasn't exactly a smooth ride. There were a few "it can't be true!" moments, not the kind of reaction you have to gold fetishism, recognition of garden variety foolishness easy to dismiss. I had to do some work, mostly fun stuff but not all of it.

     The best thing I can do is recommend interested parties look into it and keep a mind open enough to follow through. Well, don't keep it, you'll have to give it back.

[knight66]

Drogulus, I think his CGT hike proposals would gum up the works as, should this Alice in Wonderland with Knives idea be put into action: elements of the economy would stagnate as capital disposals sit in permafrost due to confiscatory tax rates and the normal reinvestments would colapse. That is one way in which he would damage the economy for the duration of his administration.

Mike

[knight66]

Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382.  Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him.  What a choice.  It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.

OK, a $20 dollar book token is on its way to you young man, well done.

Mike

[Karl Henning]

Back to the point of the thread: with his wins last night, Cruz now has 300 delegates to Trump's 382.  Perhaps Cruz can stop Trump if Republicans rally around him.  What a choice.  It's like being forced to choose between genital warts and rectal warts.

Unfortunately, quite an apt simile.

[drogulus]

Drogulus, I think his CGT hike proposals would gum up the works as, should this Alice in Wonderland with Knives idea be put into action: elements of the economy would stagnate as capital disposals sit in permafrost due to confiscatory tax rates and the normal reinvestments would colapse. That is one way in which he would damage the economy for the duration of his administration.

Mike

     Yes, but this doesn't happen or countries couldn't simultaneously stay rich for generations with such widely varying tax rates. So, let's think of other reasons, ones that explain how bumblebees fly, not how they don't.

[drogulus]

     What was the top CGT back when the economy was getting richer faster, and what's it now? Tell me you know where the optimal CG tax lies, and I promise not to believe you.

     I've seen some work on the consequences of optimal CG taxes. I can't say I've processed it much, not to (heh!) my satisfaction, but the figure quoted was ~28%. But like I say, I haven't processed the methodology, so I don't know if this is a Laffer cost/benefit number or something more one-sided. I'll try and keep somebody's open mind.

[knight66]

His suggestion is to have it at double that 'optimum' number. It will never happen of course, he would not get it through the senate. But it is also relevant to look at it in comparison to other G20 countries and such a hike would be completely out of line. So would put the US at a considerable disadvantage.

Mike

[Christo]

In most of these debates, "socialism" is a word without a meaning. As far as I understand e.g. policies following Catholic social philosophy as favored by the current pope (and probably also supported by Florestan, although he is not Roman Catholic) would be described as "socialist" by libertarians and conservatives in the US.

As far as I understand Sanders's positions he is what would be called a slightly left leaning "social democrat" in most European countries. That is, of course no "system change" or hanging aristocrats from lantern posts, but a slight tempering of the worst ravages of capitalism by welfare, strong unions etc.

Except for Hayekian crazies nobody believes that such policies lead to "serfdom" (or to Moscow as centrist conservative parties put it in election campaign slogans in 1960s Germany, despite favoring social policies and tax rates that would be considered fringe leftist today, it was merely trying to smear the social democrats by association with soviet communism).

Historically, the opposite seems true. The "socialist" policies with strong unions, high marginal tax rates etc. led to wealth and comparably equal, free and safe societies in the Western nations between the 1950s and 80s. Whereas the recurrence of neoliberalism and naked capitalism in the last 30 years has in many countries led to a new underclass, to a completely detached top 1%, to one financial crises on the heels of another, to the rise of rightwing (or sometimes leftwing as in Greece) populist parties, to Trump, you name it.

Completely agree with your analysis.

[Madiel]

The US isn't Europe, nor should it strive to be like Europe.

Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.

[drogulus]

His suggestion is to have it at double that 'optimum' number. It will never happen of course, he would not get it through the senate. But it is also relevant to look at it in comparison to other G20 countries and such a hike would be completely out of line. So would put the US at a considerable disadvantage.

Mike

     You should care a little more about why it is that "out of line" matters so little. The wide variation of tax rates between countries of approximate equal and very high per capita GDPs, IOW the most advanced countries, cause me to think that whatever optimal is, the curve must be shallow so that a higher or lower rate does the job pretty well. But then tax rates will be less important than distribution, where the tax falls. You can't mess around with distribution the way you can with rates. What ever rates say, far more tax must fall on savings than spending to run an optimal production/consumption cycle.

[Sammy]

Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.

Leaving aside whatever indicators you refer to, the U.S. has its own history, culture and traditions (as do other countries).  Using a European template to address American issues won't cut it.

[Todd]

Heavens, no. You wouldn't want to catch up with all those left-leaning places that beat you on the majority of social indicators.

Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas.  Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.

[Madiel]

Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas.  Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.

Not recommendable in my view. And Trump already seems to have got the idea.

[André]

Perhaps the US can strive to catch up with sophisticates from around the world in some areas.  Maybe a Trump administration could take some immigration policy pointers from Australia.

That kind of ad is directed at the local 'market' (those who vote), not to any would-be future australians. What are the chances such a poster will reach the shores of Lattaqieh or the various turkish/syrian/lybian launching places ? And finally, what makes one think they will be read by potential refugees, 5% of which (if that) understand English?

An ad in Arabic, posted in the right places will make me believe in the meaning of 'fair warning'.