digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

11 Reasons America is the New Top Socialist Economy

marketwatch.com — How free market ideology backfired, sabotaging capitalistic democracy.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jaypooner, on 07/22/2008, -18/+7so what does this genius suggest?
    • wishninja, on 07/22/2008, -12/+30You could support Ron Paul's campaign for liberty.
      • addicted68098, on 07/23/2008, -8/+2wtf?
      • rudeboyskunk, on 07/23/2008, -9/+6oh jesus ***** christ, america is NOT socialist. the working class is being trampled along with everyone else. i wish these stupid right-wing morons would learn the difference between fascist and socialist.

        BURIED.
      • kaopectate, on 07/23/2008, -8/+5im ***** tired of hearing ron paul. the man is not a solution to everything. ***** DIGG AND ***** RON PAUL.
    • dave11980, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11I think he suggest socialism. He keeps on talking about how free market economics failed and we got socialism but then goes on to suggest socialism. The problem I see with that philosophy is that free market economics weren't really tried. Socialism isn't something the economy decided to do, its something congress decided to do and thats what broke it. Everything he listed is something that the government has been meddling in. Even the current housing crisis was caused by the federal governments monetary policy.
    • Navigator7, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2There is only one problem in America: Liberalism.
      Get rid of this one and watch the rest of the problems slink away like vermin.
  • Fuxsit, on 07/22/2008, -12/+14we need an extraordinary leader, a visionary that will reintroduce hope and justice to the American people, a leader who wont lie to us, who won't pretend to cater to our needs, whilst bending over backward for the corporations. America needs someone with their own plan, their own vision, their own legitimate goals, so crazy it may just work, to help bring this country back to its feet.
    On top of that, America needs it citizens to stand and rise to the injustices that they have been receiving from their leaders, those people whom we placed in charge that have betrayed us. We must take back our country and show the world our true side. Im sick and tired of hearing about torture this and war that and x-dead here, this is not the America I know nor do I want to know. We all have to wake up and fix our own problems, a domino effect that will revolutionize the world
    /sigh...hopefully
    I hope Im not too off topic, the article just got me a little frustrated
    • thegreenspanput, on 07/22/2008, -6/+20"we need an extraordinary leader, a visionary..."

      nonsense, I say do away with the position of president altogether.
      • 10stackz, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1Agreed, I envision something like having elected separate groups of people such as a group for technology, environment, etc. then have one oversight group to check their findings and sources to make sure there is no manipulation then another oversight group to check there research then another group to check their research. That should keep them busy from passing stupid laws that only make us less safe. Then have America vote to pass the bills and the total of the vote has to be 80% or more for the bill to go through and be signed into law. And other things of course the Idea needs to be refined but this is just an outline.
      • Alegoo92, on 07/23/2008, -1/+710stackz... wouldnt it be great if people in power were perfectly happy with their compensation and power restrictions and only worked for the good of all people?
      • PopcornDave, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Never happen. The populace and the media need a figurehead to blame for everything. Spreading it out would drive them *****.
      • Grym11, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3@thegreenspanput,

        The only reason that the executive branch has gotten so out of control is because the legislative branch is completely broken. Congress is completely ineffectual and truly is the worst of all the three branches of government.

        People get so wrapped up in blaming Bush that they don't recognize just how he was able to accomplish this train wreck we're living through. Getting rid of the executive branch without some major reforms (e.g. term limits, real campaign finance reform, reducing gerrymandering, and enforcement/enhancement of ethics bylaws, for starters) would be disastrous and, believe it or not, worse than what we have now.
    • btschul, on 07/22/2008, -13/+6"we need an extraordinary leader, a visionary that will reintroduce hope and justice to the American people, a leader who wont lie to us, who won't pretend to cater to our needs, whilst bending over backward for the corporations. America needs someone with their own plan, their own vision, their own legitimate goals, so crazy it may just work, to help bring this country back to its feet."

      Wow. You just described Ron Paul.
      • Gerz1219, on 07/23/2008, -6/+4Here's how this election would be going if Ron Paul were the presumptive Republican nominee.

        Ron Paul: "I told you so!"
        American public: "You were right! The government is always evil and corrupt and incompetent and can never do anything right, ever!"
        Ron Paul: "Exactly what I've been saying all along."
        American public: "But we're kind of in an unnatural mess here. How exactly are you going to manage this crisis?"
        Ron Paul: "I'm going to do nothing."
        American public: "Huh?"
        Ron Paul: "All of these banks that overextended themselves need to fail in order to learn a valuable lesson. Our banking system needs to collapse in order to satisfy my self-fulfilling prophecy. All of your homes need to go into foreclosure for prices to stabilize. We need to deregulate the entire banking industry for some counterintuitive reason. This country needs to go into a depression first in order to climb out of it."

        Obama wins the first unanimous electoral college victory since Washington.
      • rlbond86, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1Somebody didn't read the article:

        "How FREE MARKET ideology backfired, sabotaging capitalistic democracy."
      • btschul, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I am not talking about the article, I am talking about this guy's comment. That's why I replied to his comment instead of starting a new thread.
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Too bad people who believe in the illusion of big government are too myopic to look at Ron Paul's vision of a free society where big banks aren't bailed out by the tax payer, health care isn't paid for by the tax payer, and the country doesn't borrow from other countries to pay for programs it can't afford.
    • ordig, on 07/22/2008, -11/+4Where's Mao when you need him?
    • KingGorilla, on 07/23/2008, -4/+3I believe in Harvey Dent
    • SpykerSpeed, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6What the hell? Quit idolizing politicians and take care of your own business.
    • futureisours, on 07/23/2008, -3/+5I thank you for having enough sense not to mention Obama as this leader as this is the hyperbole coming from the democratic party and the media. No, McKain isn't this leader either. I'm afraid things will get a lot worse before people come to their senses and bring someone in who is a real conservative.
    • bmystry, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Well that's great and all but as long as people can keep buying all the comforts we have now nobody is going to care. Nothing is going to change until things get really bad.
    • AlbinoRaven, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2We are already dead in the water. Look at the markets. Commodities and markets going down at the same time. It only means one thing. There is no more credit left thus no more margin calls.
  • skewl, on 07/22/2008, -6/+31Friedman's great conservative principles have been commandeered by myopic ideologues whose idea of leadership is balancing the demands of self-interest lobbyists with the need for campaign donations.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/22/2008, -1/+10Thanks for copying the 9th paragraph FTA (no really, it was an insightful paragraph)... some quotation marks and citation would be nice, though.
    • nick111, on 07/23/2008, -8/+4Conservative principles aren't great, conservative principles are merely a set of rationalisations for mean spiritedness and a failure to question authority.
    • rcook18, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Friedman knew exactly how his principles were being implemented and who were suffering the consequences. Too bad Friedman is dead, he could go on trial with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, James Baker, Henry Kissinger, John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, etc.
  • noheartfilin, on 07/22/2008, -8/+1no comments but this kinda interesting ?
  • MorganMghee, on 07/22/2008, -13/+55Nothing, someone just wanted to toss the word socialist around to scare people. They could have done a better job fitting it to the topic though. We are hardly socialist, and the closest most of those things come to being a cause is in the backlash against all those things that are listed.
    • XopherMV, on 07/23/2008, -9/+11The bailout of Bear Stearns was socialist. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is socialist. The bailout of Indymac's shareholders was socialist. The government is paying for all that. Private individuals took all the profits and we allowed them to socialize the risk. Same thing happens every time some company or industry is "too big to fail" and the government just "has" to bail them out. Next up are the airlines - again.

      In a market economy, people are supposed to get something for their money. Why doesn't our government own all these companies now after we've given them tens of billions of dollars? Oh yeah, because we're a "capitalist" economy.
      • nick111, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7No, those things are corporatist.

        You're deliberately confusing corporations with people. Socialism doesn't apply to corporations. Socialism is about looking after the rights and needs of people.

        And America is the least socialist, most corporatist country in the west, and everything that is going wrong, is a simple consequence of this.

        This article is dumb-as-***** propaganda.
      • Grym11, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3@nick111

        I think the point that the article is making is true but the specifics are not. (For example cognitive dissonance is not what the author thinks it is, but his point remains generally true.) While, it's true that corporatism might best describe what we're seeing socialism is a term that the public is more familiar with and it's not far off from what's actually happening.

        We have a federal government that is giving hundreds of billions of dollars (one estimate suggests this may go up to a trillion dollars) to the financial class--no strings attached. Meanwhile, middle class, working people struggling to make due are told to move, change occupations, go to college (again, sometimes), or depend upon "faith-based," private charities because that's what the "free market" demands.

        It is a kind of socialism, a *****-up version where the government props-up capitol rather than labor and the worst of all systems, to be sure.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1nm
    • nicolasavru, on 07/23/2008, -0/+13Those bailouts are corporatist, not socialist. Let me fix it for you: Corporations took all the profit and socialized the risk.
    • roodammy44, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6I agree with nicolasavru - this is corporatism, not socialism.
      Although their actions are "socialising the risk", this was done specifically to help out companies and not people.
      All american financial policies I've seen are far more corporatist than socialist. I don't think americans know what the word really means.
      • thecatcantalk, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6"We have socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor." (Gore Vidal c. 2005)

        "They call it fascism, but I prefer to call it corporatism." (Benito Mussolini c. 1939)

        Actually, it's the history-textbook definition of fascism: a war-based military-expansionist economy, in which private business interests and public policy are identical and undifferentiated, and whose violent incursions into foreign nations are whitewashed with pseudo-Christian platitudes.

        The result: a sort of National Socialism. Which was deeply corporatist in Germany and Italy, just as it is here.

        Major difference: in Germany and Italy ca. 1930s, the working class was treated pretty well, e.g., 35-hour work weeks, paid vacations, good wages mandated by law, national health, foreigners expelled to force wages up (the U.S. gov't prefers to destroy wages by allowing a bloodless invasion of labor from Mexico).

        We do know what the word really means, thanks very much. It means we're f*cked.
    • AeonTorpor, on 07/23/2008, -2/+5Replace the word "socialist" with "fascist" and this article is much more accurate.
    • paradisetonight, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2we have a private central bank doing central planning, thats a socialist ideal but we have big business too, so its facism
    • sproket, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4I think the point is that the reaction to this mess will be more socialism as in government intervention.
  • smacksaw, on 07/22/2008, -15/+42I think this guy summed it up for people like me - free market libertarians who find themselves aligned with socialists and specifically Obama in this upcoming election. The way I see it, we have a common enemy, which are the very people he named in this article. Even Ron Paul called it a long time ago with his line about corporations being fine, but corporatism being bad. This is like a gaping wound that is suggested to be treated by making it bigger. The free market is not going to fix problems with the free market, especially the free market being gamed. Libertarians are actually on the same side of socialists at the moment because we BOTH want corporatism, graft, corruption, influence peddling, lobbying etc OUT. And sadly, that is not going to happen without political leadership, political will and both getting some laws passed.

    He spoke about cognitive dissonance. I don't suffer that acutely. Socialism is a tool for change, not a way of life. You always hear of popular/populist revolutions backed by socialism. But once you balance the scales, it's time to lessen socialism as it becomes the replacement for the same institutions you're trying to overthrow. If we flush out all of the corporate corruption and replace it with bureaucratic gov't/union/special interest corruption, we're no better off than we are before. I've always seen the free market like farming and socialism like harvesting. You can't farm and never harvest and eat. And you can't over-harvest and get fat on the crops without taking time to sow and not overuse your new cushy entitlement. We're in a drastic area of overdoing the free market to the point where it's nothing like what it's supposed to be in theory. So we back it off with socialism. Cognitive dissonance dictates that I'm not libertarian enough for libertarians and conservatives nor committed enough to institutional socialism, so I probably won't get much sympathy on either side, but people like me should be the demonstration that we can overcome our own truths to find the good about both sides and make a new, better, animal out of it. Progress.
    • RTFishUL, on 07/23/2008, -14/+8this could not be more wrong. the free market is what people want. There doesn't need to be political intervention. If people are upset enough with corporations, they'll stop buying from them, that's free market capitalism. The free market has always been "gamed". P.T. Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute." The only way that corporations are "gaming" the system is by taking advantage of suckers.
      • rudeboyskunk, on 07/23/2008, -4/+1i'm part of the people and i don't want the free market. i'm an anarchist and want a really really free market, with no money. everything is for free (because there is no money) and everybody can take what they want.
      • Stochio, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7I don't think you know what anarchy or money are.
      • BossKey, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7To illustrate RTFishUL's point, an example of the ideal, unregulated free market is Afghanistan. In Afghanistan today, poppies are far more lucrative than food, so the people have opted to maximize their profits: We will grow poppies. The government is not strong enough to counter, so it's a perfect lab for showing how the will of the people can truly triumph.

        Well, OK, there are some food shortages in Afghanistan, from the lack of food, which is from the people not growing enough food, which is from poppy cultivation taking over so much former farmland...all right, there is actually a rather alarming food shortage going on because of farming poppies for drugs instead of farming food...and there is the issue of all that money funding the resurgent Taliban...uh...

        ...but that aside, it is a great and glorious victory for pure capitalism unhindered by government! The will of the people...uh, who haven't died of starvation....rules! With lots of heroin! And you know the best part? The USA oversaw the entire resurgence! USA! USA! USA!!!!
      • smacksaw, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4No, corporations are winning because they have changed the rules so that we can no longer vote with our dollar. They have changed the rules to overcome our free market abilities to make real changes. Which is why we must turn to legislation and politicians, fight them on their own turf.
      • paradigmx, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1there are several forms of Anarchy, at it's simplest, anarchy is the complete lack of any control structure. Under a true anarchy, corporations would still exist, however they would have no protection or funding outside of the public. Corporations like haliburton rely on massive government contracts and have very little involvement in consumer level services, a corporation like haliburton simply could not exist in a true anarchy, yet a corporation like walmart would continue to flourish due to the fact that they provide essentials for modern living to the public.

        Anarchy would not cause the disappearance of money, not directly anyway, it would privatize financial control and each bank would operate its own currency which would compete against other currencies for value. there are several benefits to a free market anarchy based economy, competition would drive prices way down, and quality way up in a way that our controlled economy never could. A corporation also could not hide behind laws and government controls in order to bend the rules. The MPAA and RIAA simply would, and could not exist unless their highest interest was the consumer instead of waging a war against the consumer in a court of law, as such court would not exist. The downside to a free marker anarchy, of course, would be the use and abuse of employees and anyone that doesn't take 5 minutes to think about their actions. An employee at a chemical factory could be payed next to nothing and work in some of the most dangerous situations imaginable without protection simply because there is not government organization to say they can't. If that employee really needs the job and can't find anything better, and no organsiation exists to provide Employment Insurance or welfare, then that employee is doomed to die in that factory. On top of that, Corporations would exist as private militaries, not bound by the law, only by what will make them money, Corporate warfare would not just exist on the stock market, but in the streets as well.

        Corporations would not exist as they do now, but they would still exist, and they would probably maintain even more control over the population due to a lack of governing powers to prevent the abuse of employees and the quality of materials used to create a product.

        Money has no choice but to exist, in it's simplest form, currency has existed since the dawn of mankind, whether it's trading goats for a house, gold for food, or paper money for a TV. Money is a blanket term meaning any item used in trade to aquire another item from another party. Currency always has, and always will exist, no matter how anarchist or socialist our society ever becomes.

        Anarchy is not a solution, it is just as bad as the situation we are currently in. Socialism is not a solution, it takes ownership out of the hands of individuals and places it in the corruptable hands of the government. Our current situation is not optimal either, but no system in the history of mankind has ever worked the way it was intended, and no system ever will. Human beings are a strange species, we are incapable of living in a large scale community, yet incapable of living without it.

        TL;DR - no economic or government system has ever existed that just works, and no such system can exist because human beings are incapable of living in a system without control, and too rebellious to live in a system with controls
      • dagnome1984, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3"Well, OK, there are some food shortages in Afghanistan, from the lack of food, which is from the people not growing enough food, which is from poppy cultivation taking over so much former farmland...all right, there is actually a rather alarming food shortage going on because of farming poppies for drugs instead of farming food...and there is the issue of all that money funding the resurgent Taliban...uh..."

        That is funny that you bring that up because it's a government induced problem. If drugs were not outlawed the world over by GOVERNMENTS, than there wouldn't be huge profit incentives that "force" farmers to grow poppy. No black market = No huge profit incentives for growing drugs that out compete profits gained from food production.
      • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0@paradigmxparadigmx
        "no economic or government system has ever existed that just works, and no such system can exist because human beings are incapable of living in a system without control, and too rebellious to live in a system with controls"

        pretty much, as freud said, civilization and its discontents. however probably the best working system was the tribal unit. it worked for millions of years.
    • NomortaL1, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2i like pizza
    • Math, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3People love latching onto these idealised systems for the way that they think that the world should work, but all these -isms, communism, libertarianism, socialism, free-markets, in their purest forms always fail because there are greedy and power-hungry people out there. They all sound great on paper and in an ideal world they would be great, but in the real world people getting hooked on these ideals always cause obscene amounts of damage.

      In reality, we need to have decent checks and balances, yet still leave enough freedom for a smoothly running economy.
    • ChildeRoland420, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4"We're in a drastic area of overdoing the free market to the point where it's nothing like what it's supposed to be in theory."

      That is simply not true. The problem with the market right now is that there is too much government meddling. We wouldn't be in this situation if the market was truly free.
    • ninepointfive, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5You're definitely not a libertarian if you are voting obama. Have you even been paying attention?
      • Kingmichael, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1I think a libertarian would be more likely to vote for Obama than McCain. Not that those are the only two options, but some people simply won't vote third party because of they see it as a "waste."
      • robertbc, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2How is voting for someone that you think is the right person whom ever that may be, a waste?
        A person that conceivably doesn't have a chance. Has less of one if you don't vote for the right person (in your opinion) for the job. I always vote with my conscience. I hope you do as well.
      • wojtyk, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0>> I think a libertarian would be more likely to vote for Obama than McCain

        I don't see why you believe that. Obama most certainly is a candidate of "bigger government" than McCain.
        McCain may want to go nuts on military spending, but Obama wants to go nuts on _everything_ else: healthcare, environment, the poor, housing bailouts, economic "stimuluses", etc etc etc
  • rkbabang, on 07/22/2008, -6/+84The "free market" is failing, because it isn't free. End of story. We don't need "real" leaders or "better" politicians, we need to rid ourselves of them.

    "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
    • thegreenspanput, on 07/22/2008, -2/+19amen
    • obliviousfool, on 07/22/2008, -2/+38We'll call it a free market, but we'll prop up the airlines, and the railroads, and the auto makers, and the lenders, and the farmers, and the telcoms, and the Enrons, and the Exxons... We'll trend toward universal health care, but we'll make sure to invite all the insurance companies. Etc. Etc.
      • slifty, on 07/23/2008, -5/+4Yeah, I really wish that public transportation didn't exist, curse the day that the government stepped in to save a useful service.

        Sure, it would be better to have the service run in a way that was managed in a way that didn't need help but some things are actually a greater good situation.

        Also, putting PT in the same boat as Enron? That is bull ***** and makes your entire argument look blindly biased.
      • XopherMV, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4Yes, our government will bail out all these companies and all these industries. And then when the government is chin-deep in debt and the economy has recovered, everyone will forget about all their help. Raise corporate taxes?! Raise taxes on the rich who own all these companies?! Are you insane?! Why would we ever do that?! What has the government ever done for anybody?!?!? All they ever do is waste money!!!
    • RTFishUL, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9New politics won't help. Politics is a hindrance in all forms.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4It's also violent, but that's not directly on topic.
    • CanTheSpam, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7The people in this thread get it.

      http://mises.org/story/2874
    • PopcornDave, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4You're absolutely right that it's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" but people's perception ( completely flawed as it is ) is that it's everybody else's representative that's the problem but not theirs. Theirs is bringing home the pork so they aren't going to get rid of them.

      It almost seems like the only way that the American public is going to be able to take back their country is if a huge sinkhole opens while congress is in full session and they all sink to the center of the earth.
  • jdetc, on 07/22/2008, -11/+4He gives all these reasons why America's economy is failing.

    Okay.

    Sure, people are aligning more with more left candidates like Obama, but with the number of politicians out there that are pro-corporation, pro-"free" market economy, how is one person going to change things? How does that make America a socialist economy?
    • yellowcakewalk, on 07/22/2008, -10/+5Please. Obama is anything but "left".
      • thegreenspanput, on 07/22/2008, -5/+9he's probably the most "left" presidential candidate of all time.
      • jdetc, on 07/22/2008, -0/+6You're right, yellowcakewalk. He's moderate really. Just playing up the "left" card. What I meant more was he's left compared to everyone else.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2You seen his voting record lately? He's predictably left.
      • Kingmichael, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4On the American political spectrum, Obama is definitely left. Overall, he's a little right of the center. However, a real socialist could never get elected in America.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2... like a box of chocolates apparently, same with most candidates.

        They say whatever to get elected, then they forget, compromise, "change their minds", or there's some excuse to go back on their word/principles. And of course you cannot typically vote for policy, only candidates...
  • thegreenspanput, on 07/22/2008, -0/+12"Bad news: Enron failed several years ago because of its off-balance-sheet accounting scam. The Fed's doing the same thing: Dumping Bear's $30 billion liabilities onto the taxpayer's "balance sheet." Next Treasury proposes adding $5.3 trillion more from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    Unfortunately clever accounting tricks by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke aren't going to fool foreign lenders analyzing America's creditworthiness. Worse-case scenario: U.S. Treasury bills with less than a triple-A rating."

    OK, valid point about the Fed not being in absolute control of the term structure of the gov't yield curve, but he is ironically missing the point: The Freddie & Fannie bailouts are PRECISELY benefitting the Chinese and Japanese, who own probably half of all FM bonds outstanding. The taxpayers are bailing out the Chinese & Japanese central banks.
    • funk49, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2True and they own our asses in the form of holding debt. If we don't bail them out, they dump what they haven't lost. I truly believe this happened to shore up the erosion of faith in the system.

      I still don't think it was right and we shouldn't be shouldering the risk for anyone else.
  • angusm, on 07/22/2008, -5/+58To call the US 'socialist' is rather like calling the Democratic Party 'left-wing'. Only someone who has no experience of either socialism or left-wing politics could make such an error.

    By and large, the US favors corporate socialism, where safety nets and benefits are provided readily to corporations and the wealthy, and only grudgingly to the poor. The actions that the writer calls attention to in his article may have involved state interference in the market, but their goal was to protect corporate profits.
    • lendrick, on 07/23/2008, -10/+4In socialism, government owns all business, which means that business and government are essentially one entity.

      In laissez-faire capitalism, business owns the government, which means, again, that they are essentially one entity.

      Any true conservative understands that these things are totally different from one another.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5"In laissez-faire capitalism, business owns the government, which means, again, that they are essentially one entity."
        WHAT???
        http://is.gd/114m ; laissez-faire -
        doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
        Businesses generally want the government to interfere in such a way that they gain an advantage.
        You're describing mercantilism, corporatism, corporate-capitalism, NOT laissez-faire capitalism

      • Owwmykneecap, on 07/23/2008, -2/+10In socialism, government owns all business, which means that business and government are essentially one entity.

        No they don't, that isn't socialism....
      • nicolasavru, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Government owning all business in communism, not necessarily socialism. Depending on the specific implementation of socialism, the government could control all business, or only the means of production, or only specific industries, etc.
      • smacksaw, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Err...ok, I'll just let some stuff go from your post and get to my question based upon your semi-point there.

        What do you call it when you can no longer determine who owns who, gov't or corporations when they're as intertwined as they are now?
    • hersa, on 07/23/2008, -1/+0i agree with angusm...
  • guillebravo6, on 07/22/2008, -13/+4Conservatives can't hear Obama without seeing that turban, I'd have to agree with this. We are lucky he has strong backings.
  • sultanica, on 07/22/2008, -2/+16#12. The government is in bed with corporate industries. Screw the peons, money talks.
    • Peko, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2The article pretty well said what you just said.

      "Friedman's great conservative principles have been commandeered by myopic ideologues whose idea of leadership is balancing the demands of self-interest lobbyists with the need for campaign donations. Unfortunately, a new "change" president won't be enough; there are 537 elected officials in Washington controlled by 42,000 special interest lobbyists."

      That was from #2.

      But I'm good with repeating it.
  • InvisibleInk, on 07/22/2008, -1/+11No more bail outs. No exceptions. I don't want my tax dollors socializing the failures of megacorporations and international investors. I don't want an inflation tax on my dollars, either.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were creations of the Federal government. Fannie was spun off and became too powerful; too many eggs in one basket. Freddie was created to compete with Fannie. Let them die a natural death rather than resucitate their corpses at the taxpayers' expense.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5That's how a revolution gets started. Look at the meltdown in Russia after Perestroika was put in place to move away from a centrally-planned economy. You end up with a free for all, with millions of people trampled under the stampede of those looking to assure their own wealth and status. Those without credit would be out on the street holding torches and pitchforks before you can say 'socialist bail-out'. Once the potential victims are so numerous that they form a significant portion of the economy and voting population, no one is going to dare go anywhere near that type of reform.

      The safer way to reform the economy while minimizing political fallout would be to break it down into geographic compartments and reform those gradually, a.k.a. shift regulatory power back to state governments, with coordination between states at the national level. It might be a good idea to prevent consolidation by making these financial groups answerable to supervised state regulatory bodies, so that it could be possible to reform their operations without shocking the entire country at once. It would also afford us the opportunity to try out different regulatory approaches, and see what sticks before we get ourselves stuck with a weak compromise solution at the national level for another decade or five.
  • wishninja, on 07/22/2008, -6/+15Ron Paul might be out but he has started the Campaign for Liberty. The group advocates reigning in the fed's power and maintaining a free market.
    • ordig, on 07/22/2008, -5/+5No really? thanks for telling me, I've never heard of RP before.
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1... and sadly I wonder if it will matter.
    • rlbond86, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2The article is subtitled "How free market ideology backfired, sabotaging capitalistic democracy," and some of Ron Paul's ideas are listed as the problem.
    • thecoolestguy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Big government cannot solve society's problems. You can't save the banks, with tax payer's money, and expect the economy to recover. That simply shifts the burden from the big banks to the average tax payer, and that has unintended negative consequences for the economy.

      Taxation and all these big government schemes waste most of the money they collect. The free market is far more efficient than 500 scheming congressmen in Washington deciding how to spend $3 trillion of the nation's money.

      America became the industrial super-power of the world in the 19th century, when it had no income tax, the sparsest regulations in the world, and a strong judiciary that upheld common law. Freedom works. America in the 19th century, and Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai today, proved it.

  • bincoder, on 07/22/2008, -11/+13The problem with socialism is Hitler got absolute power by the use of the words
    National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    Absolute rule by socialism or democracy is still a dictatorship unless individual liberty is 99.9% of the law. The masses can easily be fooled into a mob mentality thing and they will not think or act for themselves nor will they allow anyone else to think or make their own decisions if they have any say so in the matter. Much like the whole 'green' movement, causing more damage by burning ethanol than just burning gasoline would do. Being good little socialists though, they always turn to whats popular and stylish ignoring science in favor of opinion.
    BTW, that law that makes a corporation have every right that an individual has must go. A business should be happy that they can do business at all without being excecuted by the government. There is no need to keep priming the pump for their benefit or anyone elses.
    Hitler once said its all 'for the children' and now people still invoke that phrase to get whatever anti freedom idea they want made into law without question.

    • WiseWeasel, on 07/22/2008, -4/+1So if the masses can easily be fooled, and the leaders can't be trusted with the power we've given them, then who will solve long-term non-obvious problems? The most effective way to mitigate this would seem to be to localize power so that people are better represented, allowing them to keep politicians who obviously don't work in their interests in check, and to increase transparency and openness to contribution in long-term national and global policymaking, in order to achieve greater consensus that everyone's needs are being addressed, to give people more of a stake in national policy decisions (or at least that perception), and to educate people of the considerations that go into a particular piece of policy legislation.

      If there was an effort to achieve public consensus that legislation is in the best interests of the public, something that is not being done in the current media environment, then that would do a lot to allay the fears that people have of being governed by special interests. The best way to achieve that would be to have an official forum for public discussion with policymakers able to effectively deal with instant two-way exchange of information from a group as large as the internet-using public. This type of initiative is critical as more people become accustomed to online interaction in their daily lives, making our government seem increasingly remote and irrelevant by comparison as they fail to communicate with the level of immediacy and depth we've come to expect, and which special interests will only be too happy to engage in.
    • Drogoganor, on 07/23/2008, -1/+9Hey *****, the Third Reich was corporatist and nationalist and violently opposed communism.
  • ordig, on 07/22/2008, -2/+11Here's a random question:
    Anybody ever wonder what would happen if we just forced all business to be employee owned, or non-profit? What do you think the social and economic impact of that would be? Would it totally ***** our economy? I'm really just curious what people think.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/22/2008, -1/+13If a business doesn't profit, then it doesn't expand, and it just plain doesn't work. Once you remove a business's incentive to profit, it stagnates, and it doesn't serve its customers as well in the long-term as one that's forced to reinvent itself and outdo its competitors. Without competition between businesses, consumers are stuck with relatively poor services and value. Without a drive for profitability, businesses also become increasingly inefficient, employing more and more people to surf Digg all day, and that raises the cost of the products and services you buy for no added value. That's why dealing with government bureaucracy can be such trouble and feel like extortion at times.

      Making businesses private instead of public would severely limit the rate at which businesses can grow and displace their competitors, and so would decrease competition between companies and decrease the options available to consumers. It would make it practically impossible for someone to displace an entrenched player, as it would be impossible to raise enough capital. Ultimately, it would lead to stagnant monopolies and poor value to consumers.

      Both of those solutions would cause much more harm than the problem they're trying to solve. If you want to displace the current system, then you must find one that serves people better than the current one, making a society more prosperous as a whole. As different economies compete with each other in a globalized marketplace, the most effective system at building up general quality of life wins, and there is little room for any policy that would hinder this competition.
      • voodoosteve84, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Non-profit companies do profit and expand -- see Southwest Research Institute.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2So if they profit, how exactly are they "non-profit"? Sounds like they're non-profit in name only, for tax purposes, not actually non-profit.
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6"what would happen if we just forced..."
      This never leads to good.
      • smacksaw, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Yup, nothing good came from say...child labour laws.
      • blast_flame, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4@smacksaw
        Not really no...
        Do you really think we would still have child labour today without they laws? It was already on the way out, government just jumped in front of the parade to look important.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1@smacksaw

        Oh! I never thought of that. /s
        Yes, we need to prevent child labor because sometimes they can be exploited in a bad way. Sometimes employers will wedge children between the gears merely for their own enjoyment. Other times, the children will gain autonomy and be able to run away from their parents. This is unacceptable, even if their parents are abusive. Children should not have such freedoms. In some instances child labor would keeps children from being prostitutes, and that's no fun. /s

        Of all the harm done by sanctimonious assholes using force for some 'greater good', this is such a notable exception for all the harm it prevents that I should write. "This never leads to good, EXCEPT in the defense of children in which case there are no unintended consequences ... ever." Even so since the ends always justify the means, it's okay. /s

        Sure there will always be exceptions, if you want to cook up the best force scenario ever...
        If I was on a dessert Island and dying of a disease and a sadistic ***** had a million doses of a cure, but wanted us to sleep with him to get one dose and there were no boats, no communications, not a single luxury ... blah blah blah

        Don't use force.
        Don't look to use force.
        This never leads to good, unless blah blah blah blah blah and even when it does there are often better ways and unintended consequences which may actually be worse than the original consequences. http://is.gd/AX4
  • neelb420, on 07/22/2008, -11/+3The best way to fix this problem is to utilise free enterprise. Save money and start a business. I invented a website to try to help with this problem its at http://www.green-jello.com Its in its very early stages so please dont be too critical of it..
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2Man, Green Jello was the worst band EVAR!
    • skyshock1, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Just a head's up... if they site ever gets popular, you'll have to change the name. Jell-O is a trademark name, and that's why Green Jello was sued to change their name to Green Jelly.
    • jamangold, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1You put your website up for the world to see, yet you don't anyone to be critical of it? Sorry, you can't have it both ways, pal.

      Besides, what are you worried about? Your site doesn't have any notable function or purpose, so what is there to criticize?
  • neelb420, on 07/22/2008, -3/+2Oh and if the government really wants to help the economy, it should do a 180 on the businesses it gives money to. Increase SBA loan approvals by 500% and give them an assload of money. Let's rake in some of that Euro cash ;)
    • rationalbeats, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1That would be great actually, but won't ever happen.
  • Abomonog, on 07/23/2008, -7/+20The problem is that America is not a socialist economy. If it were there would be no mention of 47 million uninsured because they would not require insurance.

    I don't know what our economy could be called but "socialist" is not it.

    More like....Elitist.

    • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -5/+2the idea is that in socialism there is an elite group that controls the economy. if an elite group of business people control the government to their advantage, then effectively, we have a socialist government.

      socialism isnt always for the benefit of everyone, as history has shown.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2"socialism isnt always for the benefit of everyone,"
        It's supposed to be, it never is. It's just another oligarchy, somewhat like we have now, only worse.
      • theviceroy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1The American economy is solidly corporatist, in which a few major oligarchs are subsidized and propped up by the state. Its also the type of economy that most often accompanies fascist totalitarian governments.

        fascism =/= socialism.
      • Abomonog, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2In a socialist economy there are two classes: the ruling class and everyone else. The ruling class is supposed to provide free human services to everyone else. "Everyone else" gets everything they need free in exchange for their labors and gets paid a small stipend so they can afford some luxury items.

        Admittedly there is no such thing as a true socialist economy but places like France where much of the services are socialist based do come pretty close.

        The problem with socialism is not the concept, it's that the implementation always gets corrupted by greedy and inhumane leaders.
      • apetrie, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure why people fail to grasp that balance is key.

        ""socialism isnt always for the benefit of everyone,"
        It's supposed to be, it never is. It's just another oligarchy, somewhat like we have now, only worse."

        Never except in the bunch of countries where the standard of living, economies, health of the population etc. are the highest you mean? Incorporating socialism into your governmental system is not an all or nothing situation. It amazes me that people will pretend something "never" works and that their system is clearly the best even though the proof is in the pudding so to speak. The western countries where the people are the best off are the ones where socialism is being used logically. Is it absolutely perfect anywhere? Of course not.. it never would be under any system.. things change, the balance is tipped then corrected, and so on.
    • waspbr, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3I agree, the article should have been called 11 reasons why america is the least socialist country.

      however , I reckon that the author wanted to show that the situation has reached a turning point where new (socialist) solutions are needed.
      • Abomonog, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1An interesting angle and a good possibility.
  • DuffyDirect, on 07/23/2008, -3/+16free market economy did not fail -- we have a mixed economy not a market economy
  • SpencerMc, on 07/23/2008, -16/+11Libertarian masturbation.
    • onetimer, on 07/23/2008, -8/+9See: Any novel by Ayn Rand...
      • dagnome1984, on 07/23/2008, -4/+2Ayn Rand was an objectivist not a Libertarian.
  • rationalbeats, on 07/23/2008, -0/+21I can't believe this in on the front page of Digg. I read this last night on market watch while I was doing some other reading as to why all my investments are losing money.

    Socialism is for only the institutional players on Wall Street though. Wall Street has found a way to privatize profits and socializes losses, and all the rest of us lackeys just loose either way.

    The system sucks.

    The unfortunate part is Obama will not fix the problem, and the next bubble will be in renewable energy, and when that pops in 12 years, The next president will bail out that "indispensable" industry with trillions of US tax payer money.

    ***** man.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/23/2008, -4/+12Capitalism + Democracy = You can buy up all of congress so you can make sure they waste their time on ***** over the country rather than serving it.
  • overground55, on 07/23/2008, -6/+1/inb4 al gore to the rescue
  • makbryan2, on 07/23/2008, -7/+2I stopped reading when this guy bitched: "So what happened? Are you guys nuts? Hey, I'm talking to all you blind Beltway politicians (in both parties) ... plus the Old Boys Club running Wall Street (into the ground) ... plus all you fat-cat CEOs (with megamillion parachutes)... "
    • Drogoganor, on 07/23/2008, -1/+7Yes, how dare anyone criticize the elite.

      A little obsequious, don't you think?
    • charm803, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Ironically, had you read past it, you would have not proven his point, but you did.

      "Cognitive dissonance simply means most brains cannot see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their old ideologies. Whether you're a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, you only hear what you already know is "true." All else is tuned out."

      Sounds like YOU.
  • Seann7656, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8Good article. Although I don't like how he keeps blaming conservatives. Both parties have had their equal stake in this.
    • Peko, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2I believe he is blaming the "conservative" financial ideology (or the posers, if you catch his drift), not the republican party.

      Try to expand your political understanding. The american Republican party brands themselves "socially conservative" just as much as "financially conservative". So if you're "right wing" you might just hate gay marriages even if you have no particular stance on financial planning.

      But I definitely agree that both parties have a huge stake in this.
    • apetrie, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Conservative does not equal Republican. Liberal does not equal Democrat. These are facts no matter how much ***** propaganda is used to get you to believe the contrary.

      The Republican party, as explained in this article are NOT conservatives. However, as long as conservative voters think they are, then they will keep pretending that they are and that they are for good old American hard work and saving and Christian values and blah blah blah that really does not have a single thing to do with their policies and plans.

      There is no liberal party in the U.S. THERE JUST ISN'T. You can call Democrats "libs" until you are blue in the face and it still won't make it true.

      The terms conservative and liberal have real meanings that are widely available for people to read and learn and yet still they are constantly redefined by the American media especially. I wish that political ideologies and systems were taught to us all (Americans and otherwise) a lot earlier in life, or at all in some cases, so that people had a real understanding of how things do work, could work, and have worked in the past. I guess that would make the population harder to dupe though, so I suppose I don't even need to wonder why it isn't the case.
  • highlyhigh, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3only 11? i think thats being conservative.
  • blackmesa, on 07/23/2008, -6/+6A pure free market is just as unattainable (and as bad an idea) as a purely state-controlled economy.

    Most economic and political systems are wildly naive. In fact, I cannot think of a single one that can't be manipulated until broken.
    With truly free markets, you'd probably find monopolisation of resources and trade was a major crippling factor, and you'd probably see runaway inflation at some point until the system collapses.
    • zaphar, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3Runaway inflation? You do understand that the government is causing that right now (thank you stimulus checks). Your second paragraph is a better description of the current market, not a free-market.
      • blackmesa, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2I think that's a bit too simple; Inflation isn't just caused by stimulus cheques, rather it's the result of the interplay between supply & demand and the money supply. Inflation is the result of an economy, not a government.

        Now, the reason I say inflation would be difficult to control in a pure free-market is because the government would be unable to manipulate interest rates and would have no influence over employment. Both of those are instrumental in controlling inflation. Of course, I'm being overly simple too, but I'm correct when I say inflation could be a problem in a truly free market.

        And if you think monopolies are bad now, try removing market controls such as those which regulate anti-competitive behaviour, price fixing, many consumer protections and so on.

        Those are only a fraction of the possible problem areas in a pure free market. You always need some degree of regulation.
    • quandrum, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Truly free markets are impossible. They assume that everyone acts rational and in their best interest all the time.

      Buyers remorse and the lottery are just two examples of when real people fail this test.

      Capitalism makes neat economic models thought.
  • 1randomguyO8, on 07/23/2008, -4/+5The United States has an economy?
  • repick3, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Wheres #6?
    • Peko, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1It got ***** up by the page break.

      "6. Banking system in meltdown, minting penny stocks

      The Friedman conservatives apparently understand Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction." Yet, our free-market ideologues can't seem to accept that America is now on the "destructive" downside leg of the cycle, in the economy, markets, trade, politics and, yes, sadly, even with their conservative ideology.
      You don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader to figure out that our leaders are clueless about the reality of our crumbling banking system, with many banks trading as penny stocks, while the Fed still panders to conservative pre-election politics rather than getting serious about inflation. "

  • SpykerSpeed, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8This guy is confused as to whether he believes in free markets or not. He's trying to have it both ways.
  • skyshock1, on 07/23/2008, -1/+13Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system.

    Can someone please explain to me which basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively by our government?
  • Ribbys, on 07/23/2008, -4/+7IMO the american market is more an extreme capitialism. Too much lobbying by business interests makes for poor government at the expense of the people the government is supposed to serve.
    • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -2/+4its not extreme capitalism if businesses are being subsidized and bailed out all the time
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Capitalism is free exchange of value for value.
      What we have is better described as a mixed-economy, corporatism, mercantilism, or corporate-capitalism.
  • charm803, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4"Cognitive dissonance simply means most brains cannot see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their old ideologies. Whether you're a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, you only hear what you already know is "true." All else is tuned out."

    That should sum up us diggers right there!
  • Skooma714, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9Simple. Capitalism lend to prosperity. The government is a parasite and since the host was doing extremely well so did it.
    • Drogoganor, on 07/23/2008, -1/+4"The government is a parasite"

      The corporations leeching off the taxpayer's money are the parasites.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4These ideas are not mutually exclusive.
    • Skooma714, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1A corporation is a legal fiction created by the government.
  • CCUboogernjit, on 07/23/2008, -8/+0This is what I believe America needs, America need an extraordinary leader, a visionary that will reintroduce hope and justice to the American people,

    America needs a leader who wont lie to us, who won't pretend to cater to our needs, whilst bending over backward for the corporations.

    America needs someone with their own plan, their own vision, their own legitimate goals, so crazy it may just work, to help bring this country back to its feet.


    On top of all of this America needs it citizens to stand and rise to the injustices that they have been receiving from their leaders.

    We must take back our country and show the world our true side. We all have to wake up and fix our own problems, a domino effect that will revolutionize the world.

    Yep thats what America should do.

    /end rant
  • CCUboogernjit, on 07/23/2008, -6/+0This is what I believe America needs, America need an extraordinary leader, a visionary that will reintroduce hope and justice to the American people,

    America needs a leader who wont lie to us, who won't pretend to cater to our needs, whilst bending over backward for the corporations.

    America needs someone with their own plan, their own vision, their own legitimate goals, so crazy it may just work, to help bring this country back to its feet.


    On top of all of this America needs it citizens to stand and rise to the injustices that they have been receiving from their leaders.

    We must take back our country and show the world our true side. We all have to wake up and fix our own problems, a domino effect that will revolutionize the world.

    Yep thats what America should do.

    /end rant
  • CCUboogernjit, on 07/23/2008, -8/+0This is what I believe America needs, America need an extraordinary leader, a visionary that will reintroduce hope and justice to the American people,

    America needs a leader who wont lie to us, who won't pretend to cater to our needs, whilst bending over backward for the corporations.

    America needs someone with their own plan, their own vision, their own legitimate goals, so crazy it may just work, to help bring this country back to its feet.


    On top of all of this America needs it citizens to stand and rise to the injustices that they have been receiving from their leaders.

    We must take back our country and show the world our true side. We all have to wake up and fix our own problems, a domino effect that will revolutionize the world.

    Yep thats what America should do.

    /end rant
    • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0leaders have always been the problem.
  • CanTheSpam, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8If you haven't yet, go wikipedia the Austrian Theory on Business Cycles. It is the most important macroeconomic principle. It eloquently explains why recessions happen, why banks et al make bad business choices (i.e. finance subprime loans), and the threat of Keynesian Economics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cyc ...

    If you know this, then it will make the average news article on economics sound like the wild goose chase that it is.
  • jerbaker, on 07/23/2008, -5/+9I'm not sure if the author understands what socialism means. What we are living in is the natural consequences of an unregulated market - the furthest thing you can get from socialism.It's ironic that the author uses the term "congnitive dissonance," because that is exactly what's happening to him. His mind cannot deal with the evidence of the failures of all his sacred cows, so instead it must be the failures of some other "bad" system. Call me when there aren't any more private energy companies, that's when it's socialism people.
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3"What we are living in is the natural consequences of an unregulated market"
      This is so wrong it's almost not funny, but it's still is -- *point & laughs*
      • lordmike, on 07/23/2008, -3/+1Explain... your statement makes no sense..
      • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5the market is heavily manipulated and regulated actually, for the benefit of the elite usually.
      • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2What we have here is what happens when you force people or groups of people to do things which wouldn't ordinarily make sense ... i.e. regulation. Such actions have unintended consequences...
        The majority of economic problems produced in this economy are the RESULT of regulation, not the lack of it.

        I think your own cognitive dissonance interferes with your perception of this, as I believe at some point you've decided to endorse and adhere to the exact opposite point of view. You see this as a problem of too much health/freedom/free exchange and not enough poison/force/command-control.
      • theviceroy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+3The problem is that we are deregulating the wrong things - like the financial sector, and we're regulating the wrong things as well - like corn subsidies.

        A free market can not be completely unregulated, as this would lead to market failure. A centrally planned economy is also a bad idea because it limits freedom and also leads to market failure (especially if you have retarded ideologues doing the planning).

        But our current economic woes -- the credit crunch, the housing bust, predatory lending fallout -- they are all due to a lack of government regulation controlling unscrupulous business practices.
    • davethebard, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2We have a redistributive welfare state that taxes an unbelievably disproportionate amount from the "wealthy," to give to "victims" of "unfair market outcomes." Unfortunately, many of those outcomes are based on socialist regulations and interventions in the first place. We also have a market based upon subsidies and government rewarding ideas and practices that do not work in a free market, nor any market for that matter, and thus fail in the end.

      How are we not socialist??
  • kbsuperstar, on 07/23/2008, -2/+14Buried for not having a ***** clue what socialism and capitalism are
  • organik, on 07/23/2008, -5/+8All Reagan's fault.
    • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -2/+2this ***** has been going on for much longer than reagan. its always been about the accumulation of wealth and power
  • osabek, on 07/23/2008, -3/+2This article sums up everything I've been thinking about the economy over the past several months, excellent job!
  • Rethread, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Budweiser bought out by Belgium, Levis no longer fabricated anywhere in the U.S., and good luck finding anything made in the U.S. in Walmart besides opinions and Bic lighters. Maybe Maglights.

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out when a country doesn't own anything or provide for itself, that it's been sold out from under the people. Good luck with that, Mr. Next President.
  • WTFppl, on 07/23/2008, -4/+4This has been all planned out, this is how they[elites] are going to get rid of the middle class and private business.

    Fascism [Wiki]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    "This Machine Kills Fascist"
  • burketo, on 07/23/2008, -4/+8what a load of bull. Put your mind at rest americans, there is no socialism in american politics. You guys love throwing the S word at eachother!

    "Ideologues preach savings, but still push spending"
    Well that would be capitalism then wouldn't it you dingbat. there is a big differance between conservative-liberal and Capitalist-Socialist!

    i read this article and all i saw was a load of buzzwords, alarmism and other hot air.
    • wunksta, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2you have no idea whats going on in america do you?
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2" 'Ideologues preach savings, but still push spending'
      Well that would be capitalism then wouldn't it"

      Not really, perhaps. Capitalism doesn't care what you do with your money specifically. It does not preach to save or spend. It allows for the free exchange of value for value. I believe you're confusing capitalism with something else. People like to do that, usually to justify their own little dictatorial idea.

      • waspbr, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1not quite, controlling savings and spendings through monetary and fiscal policies is the way a government would have to control inflation and unemployment in a a neo-classical view of the economy. In essence every capitalist based government does it.
      • burketo, on 07/23/2008, -1/+1"I believe you're confusing capitalism with something else"

        Actually no. A capitalist economy is built on people spending their earnings in the free market. Capitalism fails if consumerism fails. A socialist economy is built on the government taxing all your otherwise disposable income and spending it for you as it sees fit. Or even better by just not giving it to you in the first place but then we are starting to get into comunism and that is a whole differant kettle of fish.

        "you have no idea whats going on in america do you?"

        Well i thought i had a fair idea mainly from digg and the ludicrous "SOCIALIST"claims thrown at Obama. Enlighten me so as to who the socialists are who are invading your nation and in what way are they socialist (i assume they aren't calling themselves socialist)
  • gcsmit6, on 07/23/2008, -4/+6http://rally.campaignforliberty.com/

  • WTFppl, on 07/23/2008, -5/+3But most of you are not aware of the re-emerging Neo-Fascist.
    This society will be a plague to human kind as long as the mind feels a need for "more"[greed](period)
    • userperson, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Greed is desire ... desire or greed in itself is fine.
      Desire without morals, logical restraint, or with some overarching 'greater' cause is a problem. At such points the ends start justifying whatever means.
    • davidmesaaz, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Get a clue what fascism is he nationalized industries. Had rigid secular societies and strong workers unions.
  • Peko, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8Norway called, said America should suck it, learn what "top socialist economy" means.
  • Willravel, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7America needs to start a dialogue which features opening an encyclopedia and looking up socialism. I cannot tell you how often people have called Hitler a socialist, or who consider socialism and fascism synonymous. Maybe it stems from the aforementioned poor education! What a horrible coincidence that would be.
    • waydee, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3It's just the red scare alive and well in backwards America. They have trouble differentiating between modern democratic mixed economies as we find in Europe and their old Russian enemy so they just class it as some sort of evil psuedo-commie menace and call it "socialism".


    • thecoolestguy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Hitler WAS a socialist. His party was called the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. Hitler's socialism is of the nationalistic variety, like that seen in Venezuela and Israel today. His opponents were marxist socialists, which in contrast to national socialists, sought to break down ethnic and national identity and create a global socialist order.
      • Willravel, on 07/23/2008, -1/+2Socialism requires worker ownership and production control. The Nazi party was socialist in name only, instead featuring private individuals owning means of production. Privatization is capitalism, not socialism. Nazi Germany was a combination of governmental and economic systems that can best be described as fascist capitalism, but even that's not 100% accurate. Individualism, racism, eugenics, merit, competition, religion... none of these ideas present in Nazi Germany are compatible with socialism. I'm afraid you've been misinformed.
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Private individuals owned the means of production in name only. In reality, the state, controlled by the Nazi leadership, controlled the means of production. State ownership and control is socialism, not capitalism.

        ---Individualism, racism, eugenics, merit, competition, religion... none of these ideas present in Nazi Germany are compatible with socialism.----

        Maybe not according to your disingenuous definition of socialism, but according to the real definition of socialism, which honest people use, racism and eugenics can very easily be aims of a socialist government. There are different strands of socialism, and what unites them is government control.

        And one more point, it really shows the height of your malicious deceit when you try to claim Nazi Germany encouraged individualism. Nazi Germany stamped out individualism and Hitler specifically pointed out how individual liberty stood diametrically opposed to his idea of an all powerful state, in 'Mein Kampf'.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1McCarthyism wasn't long ago for some of us either. Fear of the Domino effect of Communism gave us the Vietnam War and a big chunk of national debt, plus many other enduring hardships.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.