The Engine That Could

There's also something I don't think people have noted...which is that two trends have come into play that makes some aspects of socialism slightly more appealing in recent times.

1. A lot of our economy post-WWII was based around the idea of a burgeoning population - the baby boom - and the growth necessary to meet that population's needs. So we needed a heavy construction sector and heavy retail. But birthrates are falling, and they're not likely to continue going up - which means that, AS A SOCIETY, we're going to have less demand for our construction sector, period, and more of the demand will be maintenance on what we've already built. And we all have a whole lot of STUFF in our houses. In contrast to last century, the average American household, even a poor one, has so much stuff in it that we hardly know what to do with it all. So the drop in retail demand may represent a more permanent trend too. Even the auto industry is, I would argue, overbuilt - we like to HAVE new cars every few years, but we don't NEED them, and in tougher times it gets harder to justify buying a new car when you already have one that works.

2. The Internet is transforming or wiping out a lot of industries that worked on a pay model with one that works on a free model, and hasn't produced a lot of high-paying jobs to compensate for it. Newspapers and the music industry are the biggest casualties, and there will be others.

So lot of jobs are being lost, and I think it will not be easy to regain them, as the losses represent a more permanent shift in our priorities. The new economy of the 21st century is going to have a lot of job opportunities in the computing and technology sectors, abd in renewable energy...maybe in art and cultural fields or even sports as well, because we have more leisure time available than ever before, and when humans have leisure time we make art and culture and play sports. We have more of our material needs met as a society, but not a lot of job security - and I'm not sure we can adjust our priorities to get people retrained that quickly.

So we're going to need something to tide us over in the meantime, and like it or not, I don't see a lot of alternatives to some kind a government-provided social safety net. As much complaining as the GOP does about "wealth redistribution", if the consumers go broke, pretty soon the companies that rely on their business go broke too. One way or another, we have to find a way to keep at least a small amount of disposable income in people's hands, and the capitalist job market isn't doing it so well right now.

Socialism in general may take a stronger foothold in the 21st century. In the 20th century, what the world needed was tremendous growth, and capitalism does that well. But we've gotten to a point where resources are diminishing and growth is becoming less of a priority than stability - and that is socialism's forte, when done correctly.

Oh what does this article and analysis lack? Hmm... could it be that rather than seeing the outcome as strictly winning or losing, maybe the process and the journey are so much more important?

I think so. How cute to cast economics strictly in terms of growth, and "the race." That way even a child can understand it.

While the gap between rich and poor has widened in the US, the overall state of haves and have nots has also. Public entities are going bankrupt regularly. Education and health are left to weaker organizations, apparently not deserving of national support or attention. Civic responsibility has gone into the dumper. Greed. Public theft. Sloth. Environmental protection and fighting waste have not even been on the American agenda for a decade.

What about France's peace dividend, which it never squandered on another war? They also never had the social loss of thousands of people dead in a foreign war. France made bad decisions? France relies much less on foreign oil than the US has, and that has been true for quite some time. Their car companies are not bankrupt. What exactly is wrong with the euro model again? As of yesterday, are America's emissions regulations more stringent than France's? I do not think so. And by 2016 they will not be either.

If you really want to assess overall outcomes, you will see that the American model has achieved growth AT THE EXPENSE OF its future. The European model has achieved growth WHILE PREPARING for the future. The true story is that the US economy is looking like a spent sprinter vomiting on the sideline, while the Europeans prepared for a marathon and are running that race. There was a time when worshipping GDP numbers was the key to good outcomes. The world needs to get over that to address other social problems first.

Let me say, in contrast to a lot of the voices here, that I fully support America taking some cues from Europe's financial models. The relative stability and safety nets in a downturn are something we could really use right now.

I'm not suggesting we adopt European socialist-style government completely. However, I do think it would benefit us to drop some of our knee-jerk opposition to any policy that provides struggling people with money. If you have a MILD amount of unemployment benefits and social welfare - note that I am not espousing a "welfare state", but rather a small safety net - it really helps cushion the blows when capitalism overreaches itself with insane fractional reserve lending as it occasionally does. Retail would be doing a lot better right now if the consumer base of the country had a few extra dollars to spend every month. The problem with a lot of the people espousing pure capitalism is that their models almost always assume rational behavior on the part of the capitalists, which has been more or less shown by now not to always be true.

Then again, of course, we couldn't pay for it right now even if we wanted to...sadly.

This is about the most inane article I have read in years. Europe's socialist tenancies are strangling them. They are drowning in a morass of financial mess at the moment, and their growth prospects are substantially dimmer than those of the US. In addition, the socialized medical system that's touted by folks like Michael Moore is fraught with poor quality care and poor training. Europe is looking more like the land of those who can't. 60% income tax? Sure, sign me up if I live in England! I'm just amazed that someone could write such a horribly misinformed article as this one.

This is the most inane article I have read in years. Not only does actual data not support the assertions, but even a cursory look at Europe with an independent critical eye will reveal how much more deeply in the hole they are at this point than the US. Sure, they may have dampened the fall a bit, but their growth was severely dampened before the "crisis", and will be severely hampered after, as well. Extremely poor quality "socialized" health care, check. 60% income tax rate, check. High corporate tax rates driving companies out of the country, check. Lack of competitiveness vs. India, China, and other rising economies, check. Yeah, Europe's a real rising star...

He he... This is why I moved back to France, and very glad I did !