The statisticians who heads up the cite however was around for and publishing data about the "mid-election" 2006/2007cycle, they were papers that helped convince him to do the website as I understand it. The majority of his papers were concerning the future election but he talked a lot about the recent 2007 election in 2007, analyzing the data and showing which trends were the key ones that led to those results as a way of showing why he felt his methods were more accurate than the others. But that was totally my bad for stating fivethirtyeight.com had been around before rather than saying Nate Silver aka Poblano. Totally my own fault.

Artaban said:

I disagree that socialism is a hotbed for dictatorships. You name modern examples of socialism that descended into dictatorships and I'll match you one for one with those that haven't. Of course if I can show that they did not start out as actual socialist countries but instead dictatorial regimes that used the cry of socialism as a beard to disguise their intentions.

One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.

Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. However, socialism asserts that the distribution should take place according to the amount of individuals' production efforts, while communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society, the communist ideal, is formed. Socialists, however, see capitalism as a possible part of the ideal state and believe that socialism can exist in a capitalist society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.

Finally, another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to concentrate that number into a smaller amount.

dormouse said:

So you're saying socialism results in dictatorships only half of the time. ~What a relief!

dormouse said:

I assert that such definitions are ridiculous and illogical. You cannot have a "deliberate and collective" management or control of the economy without a political apparatus. Socialism cannot avoid but be a political system, and socialists the world over have made no attempts at obfuscating such, whether we're talking about the Brits and the Labour party or the various Communist parties in Czechoslovakia, Russia, and China (BTW, I've compiled some quotes from each of those three that show their founders believed they were engaging in construction of a socialist society).

Market capitalism is free of the hubris inherent in thinking a small of group of people, no matter how brilliant, have the ability to manage something as complex as our economy, let alone the economic choices, preferences, and liberties of millions of citizens. The beauty of the markets is that by allowing millions of choices and freely expressed demand to guide the markets, an amazing synergy takes place that transcends the fruits of any effort at centralized, deliberate control (read the classic, "I, Pencil" to get a glimpse of what I mean).

dormouse said:

Again, nonsense. Market capitalism's very essence is that there is no one person or group in control or engaged in centralized planning. That's the whole point when the government has broken up monopolies and collusion . Capitalism and the central control of socialism are fundamentally at odds, and diametrically opposed to each other. That is not to say the government shouldn't provide some checks (the Courts), failsafes (FDIC), and regulation of the parties (FDA, Consumer Safety Products Commission) in the market, but it should not subsume industries, as it is currently doing. Labor unions, collective bargaining, muckraking journalism, and the preaching of churches helped early government to reign in the excesses of early laissez-faire capitalism, and if anything, those non-governmental institutions are more powerful than ever (rendering the current government involvement excessive).

"Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it." --Cecil Palmer

Um, no.

Labor unions and the collective bargaining process are weaker than they have been in almost a century. They are far from the check on the excesses of capital then they were in the past.

And I disagree that socialism requires a political apparatus in the sense that communism does. Clearly, there is a political aspect to socialism, as any reform on such a scale will need to be enacted through rule of law. But I see dormouse's differentiation, and i agree with him. socialism can work within a capitalist system to implement its reforms. It will no longer be a purely smithian style of capitalism, but it will be capitalism nontheless, with personal wealth and incentives to succeed and all the other good things. Some central planning can be used to fill the holes in society's net that a purely capitalist system misses.

Communism on the other hand, requires a literal revolution more times than not. It fundamentally breaks and does away with all the trappings of capitalism, and there can be no coexistence between the two systems philsophically.

Socialism and communism are entirely separate societal philsophies and are too often confused.

Stag Lord said:

Certainly an argument can be made that labor unions are weaker. However (and it's my fault for not mentioning them in my last argument), I think the unions have in some ways been superseded by the "class action lawsuit" and other legal measures that can be undertaken by grass roots organizations (similar to unions) and non-profits. To reference something we've discussed before on this board, legal challenges issued by small environmental groups have halted multi-billion dollar industry efforts (tell me again how many nuclear power plants we've built in the last thirty years?).

I'd like to point out that dormouse's definitions still have given us no measurable criteria by which to judge the "soclalist" nature of a nation. And I still disagree as regards the political apparatus--can you show me a socialist European nation that doesn't have a "socialist party" deeply involved in government? Socialist political parties are all over Europe, and have been around since the mid/late 1800s. How can you then argue socialism isn't a political system (or doesn't require one)?

To another issue previously raised, when one examines many of the allegedly "socialist" programs post US Civil War, you see that in reality they entailed the government getting help from private industry, because it was wholly unable to achieve the "centrally planned" objective on its own. Case in point: US railroad system.

I'm going to quote H.W. Brands, (professor of history at Texas A & M, M.A. in liberal studies, M.S. in mathematics, Ph.D in history), from his outline for the "Portable Professor" course, Masters of Enterprise: How the Titans of Business Shaped the U.S. Economy.

"3. Previously, most railroads had been financed by public shares and some state government funds.

4. The solution was for the federal government to get involved, but there was no precedent.

E. The Civil War happened, however, and led to the building of the transcontinental railroad.

III. The Entrance of J.P. Morgan

A. The railroads were overbuilt at this point, and were verging on bankruptcy. ..

B. Wall Street turned to J.P. Morgan for assistance. He was already a major stakeholder in many of the railroads, and he was a respected financier."

Morgan, a private businessman, saved the railroads the government helped build, but bankrupted. Then, in the Panic of 1895 (which ironically served as a major motivation for the creation of the Federal Reserve), it was Morgan again who president Grover Cleveland called on to save the government's cohones. It was the private businessman, not some appointed government czar with little or no business experience (as is happening now) who was given control of the U.S. Treasury. Morgan established deals with European financiers that Brand says, "staunched the bleeding".

I can similarly point to major differences between what may appear to be socialism during WWII and what is being done today. During WWII, while government spending drove the economy, you had a few important things happening.

1) People we're being paid by the government, but the troops overseas and the rationing at home caused all that income to accumulate in savings accounts, so when the boys came back home and actually started spending it, by that time things had reverted back to private industry and free markets. People aren't saving or rationing to any significant degree (still less than 10% from the last study I saw), so we won't see the same economic recovery that took place post-WWII.

2) Government may have been spending rampantly, but that money was going to private corporations producing goods for the government, not to state run industries. That's one reason Howard Hughes got so wealthy, and was accused of being a "war profiteer".

I'd like to say this was fun, but not so much. We disagree on pretty much everything and your latest examples with political parties with socialist beliefs and the railroads is a perfect example of how you will not ever get what I'm saying.

I can say that I'm glad that the American people don't really see it your way, and that in my life time your ideal form of the United States won't exist. Don't let my exit from this conversation stop you from railing about the evils of socialism, and feel free to continue thinking that policies that are clearly the backbone of socialist nations, that we have used for over a century are in fact "social" programs, if that lets you sleep better.

I'll repeat myself...

"I'd like to point out that dormouse's definitions still have given us no measurable criteria by which to judge the "soclalist" nature of a nation. And I still disagree as regards the political apparatus--can you show me a socialist European nation that doesn't have a "socialist party" deeply involved in government? Socialist political parties are all over Europe, and have been around since the mid/late 1800s. How can you then argue socialism isn't a political system (or doesn't require one)? "

Can't answer the question, so you leave the discussion, dormouse? How very enlightened of you .

Maybe if I state it another way, some comrade out there might be able to answer...I challenge someone to give the name of a country considered socialist that got that way without socialists as the political power/party. Define why they're socialist (what is it they do that make them such).

Leninism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Liberalism...What is an ideology to do when it needs to distance itself from the actions of believers that've resulted in grave evil? Change it's name and attempt to convince the people it's different from "those guys". Is the difference just cosmetic, like having an issue of a comic with one of four different covers? Certainly some differences are significant (whether you achieve the goal by violent revolution or democratic election), but many are not. All the "isms" listed above share so very much in common, like branches from the same tree. Why should one expect their fruit to be different?

To go back a bit, to an earlier part of the discussion concerning the uncontrolled government spending.

dormouse said:

Public vs. Private Comparisons:

1) Education . There are 6.2 million teachers in the country (Census Bureau). The Catholic School system (of which I'm a part) is the second largest in the nation after the public system. Nonetheless, we have around 4 million students, so we're substantially smaller. It’s well known in the Catholic system that we can double our salaries overnight by taking a public school job (some friends have), in spite of Catholic schools often producing better academic results. So in this area of comparison, which accounts for millions of jobs, the Cato Institute’s claim is spot on. BTW, Census says public sector educational jobs will increase 12% between now and 2016 (what was that about how it’s “not that public sector jobs have ballooned”?).

2) Mail Delivery. The U.S. Postal Service employs 800,000 people--more than any other delivery service (UPS, by comparison, employs half that). In 2006 UPS was listed as "among the best places to launch a career", and had salaries between $50,000 and $54,999. See how that stacks up with the U.S. Postal Service wages , and note that even when we’re comparing the best the private sector has to offer with the public sector, private lags behind. Again, in spite of a qualitative difference in service that should suggest an inverse wage situation.

3) Construction/Infrastructure. My brother used to work as a project manager for Beazer Construction, one of the largest construction firms in CO (if not the largest). When he made the jump from private to public sector, not only did he increase his salary 30%, he increased his benefits (Aurora City Water Department treated employees and families to an expense paid week in Vegas--your tax dollars at work). Now that his MBA is completed, he’s looking at government jobs that pay 80K per year. When he lands one, he’ll be pulling in more in a year than my father (who has owned a small business for 20 years).

4) Law enforcement/security. I work a second job as a licensed security officer at pay of $9.40/hour. I know experienced security supervisors at private businesses that make less than 40K a year. Starting salary for FBI is $41,000+. Local police departments are advertising $48K starting salaries. I’m certainly not advocating lower pay for police--I’m more curious as to why the U.S. Postal service is universally making more than them.

These differences cannot be chalked up to a rise in “corporate greed”, because 52% of the GDP of our nation is produced by small businesses, not large corporations. The ranks of the “super-CEO crowd” represent a tiny minority of business owners in our nation, and are disproportionately reported by those members of media bent on fomenting “class struggle” or other agendas.

It isn't that I can't, it is that there is no point. You have absolutely no interest in hearing what I have to say. You are convinced of the wrongness of socialism, so anything productive you label a social program but not socialism. You do not have an open mind, you don't have any interest in an exchange of ideas but of trying to prove yourself right. I have no interest in that. Conversing with you is like yelling at the radio when Limbaugh is on except less lying.

So there is no reason for me to continue. I get nothing out of it. The board, like America is already vastly skewed against your POV so there isn't even the purpose of presenting information to others on this board that may be swayed by your framing and cherry-picked statistics.

If you want to take this as a victory, I'm fine with it. I've got some work to do with getting someone in NY elected. You can speak theory and philosphy all you want but I actually live this stuff. Maybe after the election I'll come back with some stories of how even relative "conservative" voters of an upstate county are more liberal than you and the GOP sees America.

dormouse said:

~Ladies and gentlemen, I give you dormouse, a person so singularly qualified he need not cite concrete facts to support his views; he far prefers appeals to his own anecdotal "experience" (unverifiable, and thus irrefutable). So deific is his intelligence and telepathy he can make broad pronouncements about the mindsets and true beliefs of millions on his own authority. I almost feel like Wayne and Garth: "We're not worthy, we're not worthy!"

So what you've finally admitted to us ("I actually live this stuff" and "I've got some work to do getting someone in NY elected") is that from the outset of this discussion you in fact have a lot of self-interest involved. Nice of you to finally come clean on your status as a paid political propagandist. You object to a story showing irresponsibly increasing government wages because you are in fact in bed with government. You object to the argument for a limited government and fiscal responsibility because your whole job is expanding/justifying government.

Well Mr. Mouse, you aren't the only one who's "actually lived this stuff", and as much as I prefer providing facts others can independently research and verify, you're forcing me to counter your reliance on "personal experience" with my own. I was a psychology/political science double major at Vanderbilty University. I've worked in Washington, D.C., and on election campaigns too. I've seen firsthand the inefficiency and inadequacy of government-run healthcare because I worked (in high school) and volunteered (during/after college) at a state-run nursing home {Truman Restorative Center, St. Louis, MO] My weekly volunteerism stopped after they closed the place due to scandal and bankruptcy, and I was ultimately glad to see Truman closed. They butchered, abused, and likely helped kill some friends of mine there.

Here's the difference between us: There came a point in time I stopped drinking the Kool-Aid and started examining the ideologies and positions being pushed.

I have come to my positions after a long and thorough examination of evidence, and as GK Chesterton once put it, a perpetually open mind is a mind that holds nothing; "An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut." (Illustrated London News. October 10, 1908)...The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

You erroneously paint my informed, reasoned, and factually supported opinion as close-mindedness, and dismiss me because I'm "in the minority". I'm willing to change my mind, but I'm a skeptic by nature, and the preponderance of evidence must support a position before I will adopt it as belief. ~Pardon me for applying scientific principles and verifiability to life.

You've utterly failed to marshal a preponderance of evidence, while the evidence I've provided cuts across all manner of boundaries and criteria (coming from government sources, conservatives, liberals, self-avowed socialists, and those who've lived under socialism).

As for your persistent, telepathic claims about the mindsets of the majority of Americans...If you had any true grasp of philosophical theory (or Constitutional Law, for that matter), you'd realize the foolishness of basing truth on an appeal to majority opinion. At one time the majority of Americans believed in slavery, and by your way of thinking, apparently should still (if the "goodness" of something is based merely on majority opinion). You hold up the "bandwagon effect"--a recognized psychological error (and one that led in no small way to our current financial mess)--as support for socialist tendencies. Didn't your mother warn you against jumping off a cliff just because everyone else is doing it?

I enjoy this board because liberals do tend to congregate here, and some of them are intelligent and sensible (Stag, Rings). I should think that any liberals who valued the presidency of JFK and remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco would understand the error and danger of "groupthink", and value having a dissenting voice. It's why many organizations, including the Israeli government, won't make a decision if there is unanimous agreement on a course of action. They actually make it a responsibility for someone to present a contrarian or dissenting view first.

lol.

You still have clearly missed the point. You just swapped flavors of kool-aid, but you still have drunk very deeply. I am not pro-socialism as anyone can see from what I have written. As I said earlier (apparently you weren't listening) I actually prefer the mixed form with tweaks that we have had for 200 years. I do not think any single economic model in its purest ideological form is even remotely viable. Can you hold up a shining example of pure capitalism that has succeeded? Economic psychology explains why, pretty decisively, with your background you should have come across this. Do you just disregard it completely because it disagrees with your established belief system or do you discredit the field of study?

I actually double majored myself, Political science and Philosophy, and am now studying psychology. I haven't worked for the govenrment in any form since my discharge from the USMC. My work in the field of politics comes from a very different angle than you think, I advise, mostly independents, but I've done my share of work for liberals and a handful of conservatives. I've never voted a ballot down any party line.

As to my not 'citing evidence'... there is little point when the root of this argument is not one which can be expressed by numbers. What is socialism is not a question which can be defined by numbers. You've already shown that your definition of what socialism is and what socialist programs are, does not correspond with the defintions I'm familiar with, nor do they correspond to those socialist theorists and political philosphers. What is the point of discussing something with someone who is already convinced of the rightness of their position and isn't interested in genuine discourse, growth, and greater understanding. I could dig up and reanimate de Rouvroy himself and have him explain how wrong you are and I question whether you still would understand what socialism is. It appears to be a hobgoblin to you. The new conservative equivelent of the red scare. In short until we can actually agree on what we are talking about numbers are meaningless. I can throw around statistics (and they are out there in abundance) that supports my statements, but again, if we don't even agree on what socialism is no numbers on either side actually say anything meaningful.

But don't let that stop you from trying to brow beat people to having the debate you want to have on your terms using your definitions. I'm just not going to play your framing game.

Dormouse: More spin and inaccurate characterizations of my position. I'm not a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, as you'd like to believe. I ultimately believe in limited government, personal responsibility, that private charity is more effective than public beauracratic welfare, that government is not the primary party responsible for a person's health, prosperity, happiness (the individual is themself), and that free markets and competition bring about the greatest economic prosperity and liberty. Free markets are not the same as unregulated markets.

Government antitrust acts are good things--they promote one of the core beliefs of capitalism (that competition is good and creates innovation while driving down prices). But it's not government's job to run businesses created by splitting monopolies. Transparency is also a good thing, though the internet makes it so easy for workers to implement themselves one wonders how much government need do to promote it further.

I also believe in the Catholic social principles of subsidiarity and collegiality.

The principle of subsidiarity basically holds that a larger social group should not do what a smaller group can do for itself. The proper route of any intervention is to move up the chain of social associations, not to leap and try and solve every problem with the hammer of federal intervention (essentially what we've done).

One of my problems with those objecting to the socialist label is that they're practicing a deceptive form of politics. Their modus operandi can be summed up with the words, "if you can't convince them (of the truth of your position), confuse them". That's precisely what's going in with the denials that we're heading down the socialist path. Look at Herr dormouse. LiquidIce proposed that socialism was state control of capital. Dormouse objected, saying socialism was nationalization of industries regardless of their actual value. I countered with the testimony of experts (not my own) showing we have nationalized industry/banking, with little regard for value.

Then Dormouse changed his definition of socialism completely, saying it wasn't based on state control, and that it wasn't even properly political. I objected, citing it's political nature in the European countries propped up as earlier examples. Now Dormouse eschews statistics and quantifiable measures completely. He says he can throw around statistics (something like the third time he's made this claim), but fails to do so. I'd give him the advice I give my high school students when they're writing a paper; don't tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

If you don't believe my arguments that we're socialists or nearly so, at least listen to what the socialists are saying themselves:

"The distinctive feature of much of this public discussion of socialism—with some exceptions—is that most admirers and detractors generally share a common (and hollowed out) idea of what socialism is: namely, state intervention in the economy.9 There is good reason for this conclusion: for more than a century socialist parties throughout Europe became parties of government and thus the highest profile expressions of socialist politics. In the U.S., Norman Thomas, the presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in the 1930s and 1940s, argued, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day, America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. ”10

This excerpt is from Eric Ruder's article "What is Socialism?". He is one of the editors of the journal "International Socialist Review" (Ruder is also a longtime contributor to the publication "Socialist Worker".

You may recognize Norman Thomas' name--he's also the guy Sonia Sotomayor chose to quote in her Princeton yearbook spread.

That Chesterton quote is one of my favorite lines form one of my afvorite authors. Thanks for citing it Artaban. Reminds me i need to go re-read "The Man Who Was Thursday" again.

i still find dormouse's definition of socialism more persuasive.

If we can agree that corporate and business assets are a reasonable proxy for the "means of production", this chart may be of interest:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

The US government now holds one fifth of one percent (0.002%) of corporate and business assets in the US, and those are largely businesses that would have collapsed altogether without bailouts. So don't panic. There was an economic case for keeping these entities afloat that had nothing to do with turning the US into a socialist country. There is also strong case *against* the economics of debt-funded bailouts, but the catcalls about socialism are kind of left field in the circumstances & not that helpful. Particularly where they drown out commentary that addresses the real problem.

I'll be swayed if the government starts nationalising healthy businesses, or refuses to let its current holdings go in the appropriate time. Niether seems likely from where I"m sitting, but it never hurts to stay vigilant, I guess...

LiquidIce said:

I have to take issue with that stat. What, exactly, are they defining as Corporate & business assets? It almost sounds like, by definition, they are excluding most things that the government is tampering with/sticking their mits in. The fed & state governments employ how many people? I'm completely going by memory, but I think it's like 1/6 of all jobs - surely the states & feds own assets that go along with all those employees (otherwise government is 1000's of times more bloated than I thought, and I think it's very bloated).

Really, that stat has to only be including GM, & the financial institutions who have accepted TARP funds. Not to mention that a strong case can made that the government, though they don't 'hold'/own assets of utitlities/etc. has strong control over them, as they are basically monopolies.

Now, despite the fact I'm obviously not a fan of that particular stat - I'm not on board with the whole socialism thing. However, the government is grabbing more & more power/becoming more fascist all the time ( & both parties seem to be all in favor of the power grab). That joke of an energy bill (which I don't think will do squat for the environment) is nothing more but another power grab by Congress.

These boards are slowing down - I'm surprised there's not a separate topic on that monstrosity.

Well the stat is about socialism so government employment is a bit irrelevant to what it's measuring. Unless you view government employment as socialism - in which case we should probably just agree to disagree since its just a minor definitional point.

I agree with your overall message & would only add that calls of "socialism" come across as hysterial as well as inaccurate & can obscure a legimitate point about the growing size & reach of government.

Finally, I just read my previous post again & wish to correct an obvious mistake. One fifth of one per cent is 0.2%; 0.002 is the proportion relative to one. Oopsie. Lucky I don't work at the tax office.

LiquidIce said:

I get you - I guess I kind of strayed from the point/was trying to say that if that stat is true & Socialism is only about owning means or production, we're basically saying that the Government/all those employees don't produce anything. I meant to say that no matter how skeptical you are of government (& how hard those who work for gov are actually working) - and I am very skeptical - surely they are producing something (even if services instead of goods/manufacturing). and therefore must own something/assets that are used to produce those services. And that's where I question the number. I'm not really equating the employment with socialism directly.

But yeah, sounds like we're pretty much on the same page big picture, just arguing small details/support stats.

LiquidIce said:

LiquidIce, you concede the legitimacy of concern over the growth of government. I assert that you reach a point where such growth does equate to socialism. Can you explain why you don't?

LOB cites 1 in 6 jobs being government jobs the last time he looked. Given current unemployment, and the number of private industries that've folded, even if the government job sector remained at its old level, that proportion would be higher (now slightly more than 1 in 5 jobs according to figures I dredged up in an earlier post). And still government expands. One source says Obama has added 78,000 gov't jobs since he entered office. There've been articles and advertisements concerning how the FBI wants to hire 3,000 new agents or analysts. I almost applied for one of those jobs. Starting FBI pay straight out of the Academy is $41,000+.

One plan for the Census calls for the hiring of 750,000 analysts to go door-to-door, take demographic data, and log your house and assets with their GPS coordinates. Obama's recent initiative to close "tax loopholes" called for the hiring of 800 additional IRS accountants. When I looked up their pay on the gov't job website, it ranged from 70K into the 100ks. But there's one massive demographic we still haven't considered...U.S. prison industries.

There are literally thousands of websites documenting U.S. Prison industries, and several well-known news sources have done minor stories on them. I first encountered them while working for the family business, when I discovered we were (for one customer) competing directly against a prison industry. Now consider the many ways this undermines free market capitalism and private industry.

1. Prisoners producing some of the estimated 150 different goods coming out of prison shops don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Estimates are that they make 20-30% of the private wage equivalent--or about a max of $1.15/hour.

2. Those prisoners aren't allowed to organize in unions or engage in collective bargaining.

3. The industry doesn't have to pay into unemployment funds, into workmen's compensation, (perhaps--I'm not sure on this one) maybe even not into insurance.

4. Medical care is already covered by the standard prison system, so unlike us, they don't pay 50% of the cost of employee healthcare.

5. They have a nearly limitless supply of labor; prisoners are eager to get out of a cell and break the monotony of prison life, so they don't have to compete with other industries (and therefore provide attractive and fair incentives) to win employees.

6. They don't have to be profitable, though they often are for their "CEOs"--at the expense of the prisoners.

Consider also the potential for corruption. Could wardens and those directing the prison industry since the 1950s have a vested interest in keeping an available labor force? Could it be a factor (albeit minor) behind maintaining America's incarceration rate (highest in the developed world)? If a private company did any of these things that government prison industries have been doing for decades, every liberal on this board would be screaming bloody murder. But it's government, and these are only prisoners, so it gets a pass (or is barely mentioned in the media).

LOB also mentioned the recent "Clean Energy"/"Cap and Trade" bill (ACES). Did you know one of the provisions in that bill calls for new inspections of any home going up for sale? Yep, if you don't have energy efficient lighting, windows, insulation, and approved energy star water heaters and furnaces, you won't be allowed to sell your home until you make the required "upgrades". Don't you think that's going to hurt the housing market, or create obstacles for those low income homeowners who most need to sell a home? How many additional government inspectors do you think will need to be hired to inspect each of the 5.4 million (2008) to 7.4 million (2005) homes sold annually?

One more thing. If you have an iPod Touch or iPhone, I'd strongly urge you to download 2 free applications: "US National Debt" and "Capital Calls".

"US National Debt" keeps track of the national debt, and breaks it down into your personal share (currently at $37,000+). It is also updated with news stories concerning government bills and initiatives that are increasing that debt.

The second app, "Capital Calls", is even more fascinating. In addition to giving you the contact information for all our elected officials, you can also examine their campaign contributors (along with amounts contributed), as well as the officials net worth. It's one reason I've advanced the idea that politicians/government workers are the new aristocracy, leeching capital from our system. Clair McCaskill (Dem-MO) is worth between $22-45 million dollars. Her top campaign contributor (Emily's List) has given her over $523,000.

The more power concentrated in government, the more private money is wasted trying to manipulate government to serve private industry. That's one reason Duke Energy (a utility I was considering buying stock in) spent $1.6 million dollars on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009. That's obscene, wasteful, and often represents big corporations attempts to squeeze out small businesses by manipulating regulations and standards.

Stag Lord, have you abandoned your long held adherence to a balanced government budget, and fiscal responsibility? If I had to judge based on your responses in this thread, I'd be worried for you...

Artaban said:

Concede it? Ha! I opposed bloated government spending long before the Bush-voting side staged its road-to-Damascus conversion & started holding tea parties.

(~)

Socialism isn't a generic term for growing government. It's a narrow term referring to something very specific. I said already that when governments start large-scale nationalising in healthy industries I'll be concerned. There have always, and will always, be interference in the market & shifts in government employment, but nationalising of industries for ideological reasons is the tipping point for socialism for me.

Refer previous graph for visual aid.

No - but drastic times, drastic measures and all thta. Sittinga s clsoe as I do to teh mortgage and Wall Street collapses - I was quite sure we had to spend quickly ot get the economy running again. And i have long been calmoring for infrastrucure projects, new green builds and nuclear power (though i am bitterly disappointed we aren't getting that. i am also convicned obama will pay this debt down in a few years - and if i don't see progress on that fornt by 2012, he isn't guaranteed my vote.

~Is Canada still considered to be effectively communist?

Hell no, Stephen Harper is THE MAN!

LordofBrewtown said:

It depends who you ask. Some people down here criticize him as being "too American". Seriously.

I still take issue with his proroguing of Parliment.