|
Zonie63 -> RE: Why "socialism" is good for business (and people) (1/6/2014 10:39:39 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonine
When I read "Atlas Shrugged" I noticed that there are no children in it, no very old people, and nobody in the least bit sick. (There aren't even any doctors, except once when the plot absolutely demands it, and he's hustled away in two paragraphs.) Rand's "root, hog, or die" philosophy only works for the young and fit: so like most economic theorists, she rewrites reality to fit the theory.
There was once a large faction in conservatism that recognised that keeping everyone healthy, and raising educated civilised kids, was good for the country and good for business, and that it was smart business to leave jobs like that to the government so that money people could concentrate on making money. Nowadays, they'd be damned as socialists.
In my opinion, the more proper goal of a national government should be to maintain peace, order, and political stability. Socialism might be considered one such method of attaining that stability, although I tend to agree with the idea of a mixed system that seeks to maintain a harmonious balance between public and private ownership. Sometimes, I think the debate over economic systems gets too bogged down in abstract theories, and not enough attention is paid to practical, real world considerations.
Each country and political system has run its own course of development and progression to what it is now, based on their own perceptions, shared experiences, and histories. That might also have an effect on the characteristics and "personality" a given nation and its regime might take. An individual nation's success or failure, or whether their citizens enjoy a "good life" or a "bad life" might have very little to do with whatever system they have, but due to many other possible factors.
In the United States, we've actually found it necessary to rein in unbridled capitalism from time to time. Just as in Europe, the Industrial Revolution led to our society having to face new challenges which we hadn't previously faced. Perhaps overall, Europe has experienced far more turmoil in the past 200 years than we've seen here in the United States - although we've definitely had a good deal of internal turmoil ourselves. I think that our push to improve social services, working conditions, and standards of living in various Western countries seemed to bring about greater stability and was an effective hedge against the kind of extremism which arose in other countries, most notably Germany and Russia. When people are hungry, broke, and desperate, they'll follow any extremist nutcase they think will lead them out of the shit.
As a result, some governments have learned that it's of paramount importance to make sure that there aren't a lot of people who are hungry, broke, and desperate crowding the cities within their country. In the end, a comprehensive social service system seems cheaper than revolution or world war.
|
|
|
|
