Quote of the Day: "Everyone knows"

"If you hear that 'everyone' supports a policy, whether it’s a war of choice or fiscal austerity, you should ask whether 'everyone' has been defined to exclude anyone expressing a different opinion."

- Paul Krugman, "Marches of folly", New York Times, 2013-03-17

Capitalism and socialism - let's get our definitions straight

A survey polled people on how they felt about capitalism and socialism - positive or negative.  But did the pollsters give a definition of these two terms or ask respondents to give their own definitions?  I think not.

See "Is Rush Limbaugh's Country Gone?", Thomas B. Edsall, New York Times, 2012-11-19.

Capitalism is gathering  resources to do something, whether it's to start a neighborhood grocery or to start an airline.  Capitalism is not the buying and selling of stocks and schemes based on the stock; that is finance.  Finance can raise capital, but the secondary markets of that capital are not capitalism.

Socialism is the government providing all the resources to do something and controlling how those resources are used.  I don't think there is a country in the world where that happens for all projects.  Even China has private capital ventures.  Social welfare is the government providing various safety nets or investments that help people with needs that "capitalism" doesn't provide to everyone.  Most developed countries have capitalist economies supported by social welfare programs.

Think of LM Ericsson in Sweden, Nokia in Finland, Siemens in Germany, and FIAT in Italy.  These large capitalist companies aren't going away.  Well, maybe Nokia will go away but that's because of technology, not government interference.

And many of these social welfare programs depend on a large number of private organizations, large and small.  Germany has hundreds of insurance companies underpinning its health care.  England has thousands of physicians in private practice who provide government listed services.

What I find ironic is that proponents of "capitalism" don't understand how "socialism" makes "capitalism" work better.  If there weren't government-provided roads, sewers, schools, and yes, regulation there would be chaos.  Chaos is something capitalists do not need or want.  If there wasn't government-sponsored research, many new ideas would never even reached the capitalists who would implement them into products.  If there is a good public health care system, then corporations don't have to fund them directly at great inefficiency.  Wasn't it G. Richard Wagoner of General Motors who said that he wasn't an auto executive but a health care executive?  See "U.S. Firms Losing Health Care Battle, GM Chairman Says", Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, 2005-02-11.

Be careful how you define things.  If you define things incorrectly or too narrowly, you may miss out on many opportunities for a better society.

Socialism or needed regulation, they ain't the same thing

It seems every where one turns, there are cries that Obama is a socialist, that the country is becoming socialist, and on and on ad nauseum.

One, do many of these people even know what socialism is?  In short, it often means state ownership of the means of production.  Is any major party candidate calling for government takeover of all companies?  I haven't heard of any.  Is it co-operatives?  Could be, but they are operated by their members, not the government.  For a more complex discussion of socialism, see the Wikipedia entry on socialism.

Two, are those orchestrating the cries of socialism those who want no government regulation unless it is to their benefit.  Is it polluters who cry socialism when they are called to task?  Is it those who cut corners on safety of workers or consumers?  Is it those who would cheat customers or not provide customers with sufficient information?

Considering the sources of the orchestration, I would say its those who want to operate without any government regulation at all.  They don't want to pay taxes for all the public goods they depend on, including an educated work force and an infra-structure of highways, water, and sewer.

In short, they want to privatize profit but socialize losses or costs.

Ironically, Adam Smith, the guru of so-called free-marketers, and many of the writers of the U.S. Constitution called for regulation in varying degrees.

Humpty Dumpty and Free Markets

The Coffee Party on Facebook had a link to a CNN interview of Christine O'Donnell by Soledad O'Brien.  O'Donnell claims the Obama has made Marxist remarks.  O'Brien did call her on using the term Marxist but didn't really follow through.  Many respondents to the Coffee Party page were disappointed that O'Brien didn't press for specifics.

One commenter mentioned that the Wealth of Nations wasn't published when the Declaration of Indendence was written, and so the signers couldn't include Adam Smith's thoughts.

I added the following to the comments:

Words! Words!  As Humpty Dumpty said in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass": 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Worse than the misuse of the words "Marxism" and "Socialism" is the misuse of the word "Free Market".

The classical definition of a free market is:

1. Many buyers and sellers
2. Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market at any time.
3. Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a satisfactory transaction.
4. All the costs are covered in the transaction, that is, no externalities.

Interestingly, it is "free marketers" who don't want true free markets.

We have more and more consolidations into larger and larger corporations.

Are you free to leave the health care market when your child is sick?

GMO producers and others don't want buyers to know what's in their products.

Who is covering the costs of pollution and nuclear waste?

Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was first published in 1776.  Maybe the signers of the Declaration of Independence hadn't received copies yet, but I'm sure that many of the signers of the Constitution had read it by 1787.

Those who love to quote the "invisible hand" should read the other 500+ pages, including "When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes
otherwise when in favour of the masters."

"Socialism" and "free markets", an observation

The ideologues of "socialism" think that taking away the benefits of the few will benefit the many.

The ideologues of "free markets" think the benefits of the few will benefit the many.

In either case, only the ideologues benefit and the many get the crumbs.

π is an Obama liberal plot to socialize America

Mathematicians tell us that π is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.  Well, π is the Greek letter for "p" and is pronounced "pie".  See, already we have an attempt by the Obama administration to Europeanize America.  We all know how badly the Greeks are managing their economy.

Instead of using a foreign letter to describe a supposedly scientific idea, we should simply call it pie.

Mathematicians tell us that pie is an irrational number; a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction and whose numeric representation never ends.  Since we all know that liberals are irrational, we can readily see that pie is a liberal plot.  We also know that everything has to come to an end sometime; the Bible tells us so.  We also know that mathematicians are indoctrinated at liberal universities.

The Bible also tells us that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is three.  See 2 Chronicles 4:2.  Claiming pie is this ratio is a liberal attempt to discredit the Bible.

The Indiana General Assembly rationalized pie in 1897, but a liberal mathematics professor intervened when bill #246 reached the Senate and killed it.  These liberal plots to discredit the ability of the people's representatives to properly define truth have continued.  First was the attempt to discredit the Creation and now the liberal attempt to discredit climate stability.  Next thing you know the liberals will claim the world is round instead of flat.

Stand up for American pie!

What does the acronym IKEA mean?

Jim Heffernan wrote a blog entry about problems assembling a table he bought at IKEA in the Twin Cities and plans to take it back.

He then wrote another entry on what the acronym IKEA means: I Kan't Envision Assembly!

This hit my curiosity nerve I went to the Swedish version of ikea.com but found nothing. I typed "Vad betyder IKEA" into Google ("What does IKEA mean") and got several hits. The most promising one was "IKEA specialarbete", apparently an unattributed school paper done in 1995.

IKEA stands for Ingvar Kamprad Elmtaryd Agunnaryd. Ingvar Kamprad was the founder; he was born on the farm Elmtaryd in the village of Agunnaryd in Småland.

As a teenager he started out buying matchboxes for 1.5 öre and selling them for 5 öre, an öre being the smallest Swedish coin. He wanted to be as rich as Ivar Krueger, the match king. He moved up through various small items including seed packets, pens, and clocks. He was doing so well selling pens that ke decided he had better be incorporated and registered IKEA. His father had to sign for the incorporation because Ingvar was only 17!! This was in 1943.

In 1953 he bought a carpentry shop and converted it to a furniture store and by 1958 he had a warehouse.

The writer calls this a Swedish version of "The American Dream". In 1995 IKEA was worth four to five times the value of the Wallenberg fortune, the Wallenbergs being considered one of the richest families in Sweden. The IKEA fortune was created in only a generation.

IKEA franchises now span the globe; see http://www.ikea.com/ for a list of locations.

What's this about socialist Sweden?

BTW we and our adult children still have furniture that we bought in Sweden in the early 1970s.

One man's positive take on public health care

Richard Allen Smith, an Afghan war vet, gives his thanks for the "evil, godless socialist health care" that he has received since he was three years old. Among other things he was treated by Canadian doctors in Afghanistan and was given medication that was deemed unsafe for Americans.

For his full story, see "My Life with Public Health Care".

Assumptions and presumptions about President Obama's speech to schoolchildren

I coulda tole ya so! If Obama plans to give a major speech, there will be thousands who "know" that he is going to promote some "evil ideology" in it. Now "everybody knows" he is going to promote "socialism" to "vulnerable" school children.

Never mind that he plans to encourage students in their education. Given the above, we certainly need many more educated citizens.

However, no matter how innocuous or how important a Presidential speech is, is it fair to presume that large numbers of schools are going to change their schedules, turn on their radios and TVs in every classroom at the same time and listen to a speech by the President of the United States.

Wouldn't it be far better to desseminate it on YouTube? If word gets out among kids that it is a great speech, it will be viral. There will probably be far more kids watching it with undivided attention than were told by their teachers to listen.

A different take on political parties in the U.S.

I've been hoping for a new political party in the middle. Bill Maher says that we have one; it's called the Democratic Party. He's calling for a true leftist party. See "Democrats Have Moved to the Right and the Right Has Moved into a Mental Hospital".