The US is NOT a free market capitalist economy... its corporate-socialist...

[DanielX]

Proof?

Dairy Industry Crushed Innovator Who Bested Price Contorl System - The Washington Post

Its about how a businessman started selling milk at less than the government-mandated price, and Big Dairy teamed up with Big Government to crush him. I won't quote it, I'll take up enough space. Read the article yourself; there's also an editorial about it in today's Washington Times.

Some will say that it's evidence of the evils of big business (and that it may be) but in my opinion,  it shows the evils of government intervention in the economy, actively working to crush innovation. Had there been no government price-locks on milk, Big Dairy could have competed on an even playing field with this new guy. But no, instead of lobbying Congress to repeal this communist law, they choose to go along with it, to crush competition. BIG BUSINESS  AND BIG GOVERNMENT are often not enemies; often they pair up to crush the free market. 

This was bipartisan, too.  The big supporters of this travesty are John Kyl (R) and Harry Reid (D).

I'm not a liberal or socialist, I'm largely a believer in lasseiz-faire capitalism. THIS IS NOT IT. I have no problems with businesses who dominate an industry through their business savvy and innovation. I have no problem with Wal-Mart (except they buy their stuff from Communist countries). I don't like Microsoft (mainly because most of their software is buggy and insecure, and their licensing schemes are horrible), but I think many of the 'evil monopoly' arguments against them are bunk. THE PROBLEM HERE is that the businesses aren't attempting to maintain dominance using market methods (like out-competing smaller companies through lower prices, new innovations, or even backroom deals with other companies), but through active government intervention - which is nearly as harmful when done to the benefit of business than when its done to its detriment.

It also shows which industry has done this nation the most harm, in recent years.  Its not pharmaceuticals or chemicals. Its not insurance. Its not the military-industrial complex. Its not Big Oil. It isn't even lawyers or accountants, although they do come pretty darn close.  It's agriculture. And it has nothing to do with genetic engineering or scientific innovation, which does occur quite a bit in some corners. Its the fact that they demand - and get - billions of dollars in tariffs, price controls, subsidies, and active intervention to keep competition - domestic or foreign - out. Its why we focus on inefficient corn ethanol for fuel, and ignore superior alternatives like sugarcane or cannabis. Its a third of the reason why our foreign relations with Latin America are shot to hell (the other two-thirds are the misguided drug war and one thing that isn't our fault: socialist-fascist strongman politics). Its the reason everything uses 'high fructose corn syrup' as a sweetener and not real sugar. Its why wheat and corn are the cheapest things in stores - and they have a goodly amount of the blame for obesity, too. 

As the story says, government programs for dairy alone cost consumers $1.5 billion every year.

Both the right and left should be outraged. But in Congress, both right and left are supporting the screwing of consumers and honest businessmen alike.

Opebo is probably going to come here and blame capitalism, perhaps claiming that this travesty is capitalism. But this isn't capitalism, not at all. Its corproate socialism, also known as fascism. He'll claim they're the same thing, but they aren't. How can anyone who isn't terminally stupid claim that government interventions like this are 'lasseiz-faire'?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I love the abuse of the word "Socialist" in the thread title. Semi-Corporatist would be a better way phrasing it.. There was an interesting article in the Observer about the American Super Rich, claiming that levels of inequality in the US match those of Brazil - I don't know how true that is but it's not remotely linked to Socialism.

And yes, this is a disgrace and can't really be justified.

[DanielX]

I love the abuse of the word "Socialist" in the thread title. Semi-Corporatist would be a better way phrasing it.. There was an interesting article in the Observer about the American Super Rich, claiming that levels of inequality in the US match those of Brazil - I don't know how true that is but it's not remotely linked to Socialism.

And yes, this is a disgrace and can't really be justified.

Sorry, but its government intervention in the economy. That's "socialist" in my book. Corporate-socialist aka fascist? yes. But still socialist.

Then again, I consider George W. Bush to be a "moderate Christian Socialist" (which Al vehemently disagrees with); perhaps 'weird corporatist-populist hybrid' is better, but still... It isn't capitalist - capitalists in currrent US politics consist of most Libertarians and a small minority of Republicans (one which Bush, Boehner, Kyl, and Stevens do not belong to, but Paul does). 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I love the abuse of the word "Socialist" in the thread title. Semi-Corporatist would be a better way phrasing it.. There was an interesting article in the Observer about the American Super Rich, claiming that levels of inequality in the US match those of Brazil - I don't know how true that is but it's not remotely linked to Socialism.

And yes, this is a disgrace and can't really be justified.

Sorry, but its government intervention in the economy. That's "socialist" in my book. Corporate-socialist aka fascist? yes. But still socialist.

Then again, I consider George W. Bush to be a "moderate Christian Socialist" (which Al vehemently disagrees with); perhaps 'weird corporatist-populist hybrid' is better, but still... It isn't capitalist - capitalists in currrent US politics consist of most Libertarians and a small minority of Republicans (one which Bush, Boehner, Kyl, and Stevens do not belong to, but Paul does). 

I'm sorry I think I just had a spasm of laughter there...

Again, Socialism does not equal state intervention or Statist. There is nothing "Socialist" about Corporate rights - rather state capitalist\corporatist (not "fascist" - which was this in extremis), if there was then some of the 17th Century\18th Century European Monarchies like Louis XIV in France would have been the most Socialist in History....

[Colin]

I prefer the term "state capitalism", Gully, as corporatism actually, as a defined ideology, means that the government takes control of major organizations and brings all production under the auspices of large government controlled industries. State capitalism is more along the lines of what this is, a meshing of the powers of the state with the power of large corporate interests which feed off each others power. Large corporations like the current crop wouldn't be able to survive without government handouts and preferential treatment by those government officials. A large government wouldn't be supported by the business interests unless they give them the preferential treatment they want so both use each other and need each other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agriculture is without a doubt the least free aspect of our economy.  The same holds true with most societies.  The reason is obvious.  Unlike most goods or services, food is not a luxury, but a necessity.  As such governments seek both to control it as a lever of power and to assure its abundance to consumers so as to keep them content.  There's a reason the Roman Emperors didn't worry about only Circuses.

[DanielX]

I love the abuse of the word "Socialist" in the thread title. Semi-Corporatist would be a better way phrasing it.. There was an interesting article in the Observer about the American Super Rich, claiming that levels of inequality in the US match those of Brazil - I don't know how true that is but it's not remotely linked to Socialism.

And yes, this is a disgrace and can't really be justified.

Sorry, but its government intervention in the economy. That's "socialist" in my book. Corporate-socialist aka fascist? yes. But still socialist.

Then again, I consider George W. Bush to be a "moderate Christian Socialist" (which Al vehemently disagrees with); perhaps 'weird corporatist-populist hybrid' is better, but still... It isn't capitalist - capitalists in currrent US politics consist of most Libertarians and a small minority of Republicans (one which Bush, Boehner, Kyl, and Stevens do not belong to, but Paul does). 

I'm sorry I think I just had a spasm of laughter there...

Again, Socialism does not equal state intervention or Statist. There is nothing "Socialist" about Corporate rights - rather state capitalist\corporatist (not "fascist" - which was this in extremis), if there was then some of the 17th Century\18th Century European Monarchies like Louis XIV in France would have been the most Socialist in History....

As an economic system, yes socialism does equal state intervention in the economy, more or less. Just because many modern states are mostly democratic socialist or follow a 'mix' like social market economy, and others follow authoritarian socialist systems (like communism-in-practice, or original Italian-style corporate fascism), doesn't make them less socialist.

And yes, those European monarchies were kinda/sorta socialist, although it could more accurately be described as mercantilist (perhaps I should call Bush a 'moderate Christian mercantilist' ). Indeed, early liberals fought against this, in favor of free markets. It was French shopkeepers and economists who opposed government intervention in trade that coined the phrase "lasseiz-faire", in fact.

Okay, calling the current US system 'fascist' was a trifle extreme, but the influences are there and it is a large subset of the current economy and economic thought - especially in regards to agriculture.

"State capitalism" is kind of a contradiction in terms, although thats kind of a good explanation of whats going on... otherwise Colin, you hit the nail on the head in terms of businesses and government feeding off of each other.

[© tweed]

government intervention into the economy doesn't make a system socialist.  it's the goals of that intervention that matter.  corporatism isn't socialism because its goals are decidedly anti-egalitarian.

[2952-0-0]

It was French shopkeepers and economists who opposed government intervention in trade that coined the phrase "lasseiz-faire", in fact.

I think that was Adam Smith who coined that term to argue that the state should proactively ensure that mercantilism does not exist and trade could happen without monopolies. That term has been hijacked and abused by those who thought it meant the government should not intervene.

[Bacon King]

Socialism is government involvment in the economy to promote equality.. Stuff like this is a direct attempt to do the opposite and thus is not socialism- no matter what contorted definition you want to use.

It is pretty horrible though.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The US is nowhere near being socialist. Its corporatized and nowhere near being free market but NOT socialist. You want socialist go to Germany.

[DanielX]

It was French shopkeepers and economists who opposed government intervention in trade that coined the phrase "lasseiz-faire", in fact.

I think that was Adam Smith who coined that term to argue that the state should proactively ensure that mercantilism does not exist and trade could happen without monopolies. That term has been hijacked and abused by those who thought it meant the government should not intervene.

While Smith did popularize the term (at least in English), it was in use in France to mean opposition to this sort of meddling before him.

[MaC]

What scares me is that people on this thread are more likely to jump at the term "socialism" being misused than the term "capitalism".

Folks, you can put any name on a collectivist economy and at the end of the day it's a collectivist economy because competition is limited by the government, subsidies are given out, wealth is redistributed, and thus politicians' wallets get bigger, corruption rises and the people are all very much worse off as a result.  Call it mixed economy, call it socialism, call it authoritarianism,... stop getting caught up in labels.

[frihetsivrare]

I heard that Benito Mussolini once said that fascism should be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of government and big business.  Corporate welfare shows that the United States has a fascist economy, not capitalist.  Big business and government are essentially a team put together to scam the people with high prices and few choices.

[opebo]

Of course the 'free market' is just another form of State internvention.  And I'm not surprised that the US and Brazil have the same level of inequality - why wouldn't they?

[Colin]

I heard that Benito Mussolini once said that fascism should be called corporatism because it is the perfect merger of government and big business.  Corporate welfare shows that the United States has a fascist economy, not capitalist.  Big business and government are essentially a team put together to scam the people with high prices and few choices.

Well to be honest many have taken Mussolini's words without looking at the system that he put in place. The corporations that he was talking about were brought about by the state and made up of the leaders of the largest businesses in the industry before it was brought under state control. These cartels of business leaders ran these large vertically integrated corporations at the behest of the government. Mussolini took his idea for this system from his background in syndicalism before World War One, instead of the syndicalist goal of structured labour unions and the creation of large industrial unions under the head of a cartel of union bosses he applied the same belief to large corporations and all segments of society, a mixture of state-run unionism, state-run corporations using former large corporations under the auspices of the government, and the classification of all citizens into classes and into corporations.

This quote from Wikipedia probably states it best, as far as I can find it even though I don't like to quote Wikipedia at all:

You must be logged in to read this quote.