America's aversion to socialism ?

[DoggerDan]

Heck - some may not even like gymnastics, but that's irrelevant to the government: the needs of the state are much more important than the freedoms and desires of the people.

Yikes! Perhaps that's why most Americans have an aversion to socialism. Admittedly, you were talking about China, which is communist politically. However, there's a lot of socialism mixed in there.

 

[russ_watters]

It is only in your mind that you think my claim is that there should be equality of outcome. I have never said that. So please do not continue to falsely represent my position.

What I have argued for is equality of opportunity - and how to measure this/achieve this in practice (rather than make rhetorical claims about it).

And then also asked the question that - given inequality of outcomes is to be expected, people being free to be different in their talents, efforts, interests - what in the long-run is an optimal level of social inequality?

Personally I feel that Scandinavian levels are better than US ones.

Nonsense. If I didn't already recognize this as common socialist ideology, driven doublethink, I'd think you were trolling us. Your ideology is quite clear (heck, you even outlined the contradiction right there in that post!):

1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it.
2. You believe that equality of opportunity will yield a more even distribution.
3. You believe that income inequality is therefore a measure of equality of opportunity.
4. You believe that negative liberty alone is not enough, and positive liberty in the form of socialistic wealth redistribution is necessary to achieve this.
5. You believe that positive liberty or forced wealth redistribution still qualifies as equality of opportunity.

#5 is simply factually wrong as a matter of definition and historical fact: It is written into the Constitution and the Supreme Court has been clear about it.
#2 is a misinterpretation of data, as there are other factors that affect social mobility than just freedom to move -- including socialistic wealth distribution itself.
#3 & #4 clearly contradict each other, but you believe both simultaneously without seeing the contradiction (doublethink).

When confronted with a clear explanation of these flaws, instead of addressing them point by point as presented, you reboot, retrench and lash out.

 

[russ_watters]

Yikes! Perhaps that's why most Americans have an aversion to socialism. Admittedly, you were talking about China, which is communist politically. However, there's a lot of socialism mixed in there.

Yes, the gymnast example is only tangentially related to economics, but it's not merely a coincidental mix: Communism is the political system of socialism, whereas democracy is the political system of capitalism. The odd/unusual mix is when you see capitalism with communism or socialism with democracy. And the problem of reconciling contradictory ideologies is the issue of the thread: In order to make such mixes, people mess with historical fact, logic and definitions. Some Americans don't like that, hence our "aversion to socialism".

"Freedom of opportunity" is not just about economics, it is about all personal freedoms that lead to happiness or self actualization.

 

[apeiron]

1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it.

Yes.

2. You believe that equality of opportunity will yield a more even distribution.

Not at all. On its own, it would be a driver of inequality of outcome as I said.

3. You believe that income inequality is therefore a measure of equality of opportunity.

No. I quite clearly cited stats on social mobility.

4. You believe that negative liberty alone is not enough, and positive liberty in the form of socialistic wealth redistribution is necessary to achieve this.

It may well be the case. And is definitely the case once an underclass has been allowed to become established.

5. You believe that positive liberty or forced wealth redistribution still qualifies as equality of opportunity.

It is definitely one of the ways. There may be other ways too of correcting a society which has developed an underclass (and of course, a matching over-class), both unnaturally entrenched.

 

[MarcoD]

Yes, the gymnast example is only tangentially related to economics, but it's not merely a coincidental mix: Communism is the political system of socialism, whereas democracy is the political system of capitalism. The odd/unusual mix is when you see capitalism with communism or socialism with democracy. And the problem of reconciling contradictory ideologies is the issue of the thread: In order to make such mixes, people mess with historical fact, logic and definitions. Some Americans don't like that, hence our "aversion to socialism".

"Freedom of opportunity" is not just about economics, it is about all personal freedoms that lead to happiness or self actualization.

Well, I don't live in the fifties anymore, life isn't that black and white. A social democracy is unusual? It's just taking the best of both worlds.

It's the US media which often conflate terms and reduces them to Morton's Forks. It's why the US will always end up with boom-bust cycles, IMO.

 

[JDoolin]

I'll add to this a bit - the union has no right to protest regarding bank bailouts and fair treatment of anyone - when millions of people are unemployed with no benefits.

****
The union pensions were underfunded.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1981958,00.html
"General Motors Corp. may no longer be the world's biggest automaker, but it still operates the country's largest pension fund. The threat to its pension plans has always been an issue, butit took on a new urgency when GM disclosed April 7 that its plans were underfunded by more than $27 billion, with more than half of that being owed to U.S. workers and retirees. Across town, a post- bankrupt Chrysler faces its own pension shortfall. Moreover, a report last week from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) says the pension crisis in the auto industry could create an unprecedented crisis for the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., a government-sponsored organization to backstop company pensions."
***
Some details of negotiations in 2009.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104549771
"General Motors Corp. plans to give the United Auto Workers union 17.5 percent of its common stock, $6.5 billion of preferred shares and a $2.5 billion note to fund a trust that will take over retiree health care costs starting next year.

The funding for the trust was outlined in a summary of concessions that the company and union have agreed to as GM tries to restructure outside of bankruptcy. Plant-level union officials met in Detroit on Tuesday to get briefed on the agreement, and The Associated Press obtained a summary of the concessions.

The summary says most of GM's 61,000 hourly workers will get another buyout and early retirement offer, this one sweeter than the most recent one.

Production workers will be offered $20,000 plus a $25,000 car voucher for early retirement, while skilled trades workers will get $45,000 plus the car voucher.

Buyout packages include $115,000 and the car voucher for employees with 20 or more years of service. Those with less than 10 years would get $45,000 and the car voucher to leave the company."


*****
GM was provided a VERY LARGE TAX LOOPHOLE/credit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202.html

"General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion."

There's a lot of info there, but I don't see what the outrage is about. They take 2.5 billion dollars and divvy it up for a severence package for 61,000 unemployed workers. That comes out to be around $40,000 a head. And then 6.5 billion dollars to go into preferred shares for the retirement fund? Maybe I don't have all the details right, but it seems to me that the only sad thing here is that GM wasn't already taking care of its retired people and laid off people. I don't understand how you can fault the unions for fighting for these people and winning. That's what unions are for; to protect the employees from injustice from the management.

And I don't see how you can find any conflict of interest between the unions and the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. They both have the same goal which is a strong middle-class.

 

[WhoWee]

There's a lot of info there, but I don't see what the outrage is about. They take 2.5 billion dollars and divvy it up for a severence package for 61,000 unemployed workers. That comes out to be around $40,000 a head. And then 6.5 billion dollars to go into preferred shares for the retirement fund? Maybe I don't have all the details right, but it seems to me that the only sad thing here is that GM wasn't already taking care of its retired people and laid off people. I don't understand how you can fault the unions for fighting for these people and winning. That's what unions are for; to protect the employees from injustice from the management.

And I don't see how you can find any conflict of interest between the unions and the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. They both have the same goal which is a strong middle-class.

The unions have benefited from the type of bailouts they are now protesting. The GM bailout is closer to $50 Billion - if it wasn't for the unions - GM would have proceeded through a normal Chapter 11 reorganization where a federal bankruptcy judge would have decided their fates.

 

[DoggerDan]

Yes.

This was in response to Russ' comment, "1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it."

Every generation, millions of people from impoverished backgrounds, supposedly lacking opportunity, work hard and climb the ladder of success. Please note "climb" is an action verb, not a noun, as in "handout."

I know. I'm one of them.

Yet you would punish such hard work by taking money away from those who've worked very hard to achieve it and give it to those who didn't work anywhere near as hard, thereby rewarding their slothfulness. I don't want to hear the excuses about lack of opportunities, as I came from an impoverished background. I had NOTHING, or so I thought. But America remains the land of opportunity, and I soon realized I had something: myself and my work ethic. I worked hard, and studied hard, and went from nothing to something to success.

That's the way things work, both in the wild and civilization. The opportunity is there, but one must take it. Something given, and not earned, has no real value.

There may be other ways too of correcting a society which has developed an underclass (and of course, a matching over-class), both unnaturally entrenched.

If I can make it, our society needs no such "correcting." The only thing unnatural, here, is the notion that something's wrong or needs correcting. If you find yourself in a situation where you don't have what you want, you can correct it by doing something yourself to correct. Do what I did. Take a second job. Study nights. Work hard. Learn a trade and become the expert. Be reliable. Go the extra mile.

That's the way to correct it.

Stealing from those who've done what I've done isn't a correction, it's theft. It's unnatural.

On the other hand, when someone finds themselves in the "haves" category and wants to give back some of their success, that generosity is natural. Not a thing wrong with it at all. There's everything wrong with stealing from those who are successful in some sort of misguided attempt to "level the playing field."

Our country is full of people who've come from impoverished backgrounds and in one generation have made (another action verb) a good life for themselves and their families.

Socialism was a dismal failure in the U.S.S.R. for one simple reason: It doesn't work! Never has. Never will.

These ideas stem from fairy tales like Robin Hood. It's class warfare. One who knows this from his own impoverished background is Herman Cain, and has spoke about this class warfare nonsense on multiple occasions.

 

[TheCool]

There's everything wrong with stealing from those who are successful in some sort of misguided attempt to "level the playing field."

Like it or not, "stealing from those who are successful" is necessary. When wealth becomes too unevely distributed, societies fall apart. Quite simple.

 

[apeiron]

This was in response to Russ' comment, "1. You believe that the US has too high of an income/wealth inequality and should strive to reduce it."

Yes, like Russ, you are also confusing social inequality and social mobility.

Socialism was a dismal failure in the U.S.S.R. for one simple reason: It doesn't work! Never has. Never will.

And clearly I've been talking about the principles of social democracy.

 

[MarcoD]

Socialism was a dismal failure in the U.S.S.R. for one simple reason: It doesn't work! Never has. Never will.

These ideas stem from fairy tales like Robin Hood. It's class warfare. One who knows this from his own impoverished background is Herman Cain, and has spoke about this class warfare nonsense on multiple occasions.

I suggest a healthy doses of ten years living in Sweden?

 

[WhoWee]

I suggest a healthy doses of ten years living in Sweden?

Out of curiosity, I pulled some stats on Sweden.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html

They have less than 10 million total population and don't appear to have much diversity.

"Ethnic groups:

indigenous population: Swedes with Finnish and Sami minorities; foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Turks

Religions:

Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%"

I found the size of their workforce interesting - nearly 50% of the population.

"Labor force:

4.961 million (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 76"


Thus far I haven't been able to find any programs that provide incentives for hiring based on ethnic or racial diversity, felons, veterans, handicapped, immigrants (legal or illegal) single mothers, or teens - can anyone help with a link?

What I have found are indications that employment - not welfare - is encouraged.my bold
http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Work/Move-to-Sweden/
"Move to Sweden
Once you have a job and a work permit secured, it’s time to plan your move to Sweden. We give you some tips on how to find housing, how to register children for daycare and school, what to expect in terms of living costs, what you should and should not bring, and other information to make your move go more smoothly."

"Once you have a job and a work permit secured" - can anyone explain how this works? If unemployment is high due to recession - will they slow the issuance of work permits or immigration?

 

[MarcoD]

It's a welfare state. About half of GDP is government spending. That also explains their low unemployment figures, a large part of the population must have a part-time (government) job.

Youth unemployment is high though.

But if you're from the US, I think you can rely on the 'informal' behavior of the system. There shouldn't be a problem.

 

[JDoolin]

The unions have benefited from the type of bailouts they are now protesting. The GM bailout is closer to $50 Billion - if it wasn't for the unions - GM would have proceeded through a normal Chapter 11 reorganization where a federal bankruptcy judge would have decided their fates.

Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest of bailouts in general. It's a protest of the extreme uber-rich walking away with the money when the working people get nothing.

I don't see how the 2.5 billion dollars plus the 6.5 billion dollars in preferred stock equals the 50 billion dollar bailout.

Yes, the unions benefited from the bailout on the order of 9 billion dollars divvied up between at least 61,000 people. But I don't think that's what the wall street protests are about. I think the wall street protestors are more about wherever that other 41 billion dollars went.

 

[WhoWee]

Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest of bailouts in general. It's a protest of the extreme uber-rich walking away with the money when the working people get nothing.

I don't see how the 2.5 billion dollars plus the 6.5 billion dollars in preferred stock equals the 50 billion dollar bailout.

Yes, the unions benefited from the bailout on the order of 9 billion dollars divvied up between at least 61,000 people. But I don't think that's what the wall street protests are about. I think the wall street protestors are more about wherever that other 41 billion dollars went.

Did any of the other people in the march receive bailouts of their pension funds, an increase in health benefits, a wage increase (at the expense lower wages for new workers), and a $35Billion tax credit to guarantee success? The unions do not belong in that crowd. How many jobs have unions created in the Rust Belt since the 1970's - or did the manufacturing base run to non-union states?

 

[DoggerDan]

Like it or not, "stealing from those who are successful" is necessary. When wealth becomes too unevely distributed, societies fall apart. Quite simple.

Really? Wealth has always been unevenly distributed. Sometimes societies fall apart. More often they don't. Most often unevenly distributed wealth is cited as the principle cause when in fact, it's rarely the actual, underlying cause. I could give you dozens of examples of solid, stable countries with unevenly distributed wealth, along with dozens of examples of countries of near-equal wealth that were doomed before they began.

That's not to say unevenly distributed wealth is good. What I'm saying is that it's become a quick and dirty scapegoat to the rapidly-rising problem of covetousness.

I live in a small, one-bedroom, one-bath apartment, towards which I've worked my entire life! Yet I still find myself having to re-enter the workforce past 50 just to make ends meet.

That's fine! I'm glad to do so. I'm too young to retire anyway!

The main problem is people think we're all born to be rich! No. That's a falsehood. I live in a nice, clean, and sufficiently spacious one-bedroom apartment. I am not in want for food, clothing, shelter, medical care or basic entertainment funds, but that's because I worked my butt off to get here. I would like my children to go to college, though, and would like to replace my mode of transportation, my living accommodations, but most importantly fund my children's educational needs, the bare basics, with something better, like college. Thus, I choose to re-enter the workforce.

My father used to say:

"I could live or die as I am, sublime,
But will never do so on another's dime."

I find the entire idea of wealth redistribution as being far more about the will and will-nots, than the haves and have-nots.

 

[DoggerDan]

Like it or not, "stealing from those who are successful" is necessary. When wealth becomes too unevely distributed, societies fall apart. Quite simple.

What? No they don't. Where are you getting this unsupported drivel?

 

[DoggerDan]

Yes, like Russ, you are also confusing social inequality and social mobility.

You, like I don't know who, are confusing me with someone and some other country in which I would never have been upwardly mobile, socially speaking.

And clearly I've been talking about the principles of social democracy.

Oh, quite. Please do explain. At length.

 

[DoggerDan]

I suggest a healthy doses of ten years living in Sweden?

No thanks. I know folks who live in Sweden, along with many other Atlantic/EU/Med/Baltic folks.

 

[Zarqon]

No thanks. I know folks who live in Sweden, along with many other Atlantic/EU/Med/Baltic folks.

DoggerDan, can you please stop making these unfounded aggressive posts in all the threads here. I've tried to engage in a discussion with you earlier, but it was clear that you did not read my reply at all, but simple re-stated your unfounded claim. If you want to contribute to the discussion here, please bring either a clear argument or statistics/sources. I know people from sweden too (seeing that I was born there), and they are perfectly happy there, in fact many swedish people are convinced it's the best country on earth, so obviously it can't be that bad?


On topic:
I see the point raised a lot that the social democratic model of the nordic countries wouldn't work in the US because the US population is a much less homogeneous group, and I find myself wondering why? I mean, I agree that any model at all would probably be harder to implement because of that, but why does it make social ideas wrong? I mean capitalistic ideas are also harder to implement there for the same reason! In fact, it seems to me that socialistic ideas and strong government control are even more needed in an inhomogeneous environment.

For example, if the establishment consists of only one cultural part of the society (let's say white middle aged men), then it can be much harder for people with a completely different cultural background to enter the establishment. Regardless of talent and will to work hard, they still won't get hired. This is only a natural reaction, most people like to hire people they trust, and it's simply much easier to trust another person if you know that his culture is similar to your own. However, an outside regulator, like the government, can recognize these things and act like an equalizer by providing a good social security and laws against discrimination.

 

[MarcoD]

I see the point raised a lot that the social democratic model of the nordic countries wouldn't work in the US because the US population is a much less homogeneous group, and I find myself wondering why? I mean, I agree that any model at all would probably be harder to implement because of that, but why does it make social ideas wrong? I mean capitalistic ideas are also harder to implement there for the same reason! In fact, it seems to me that socialistic ideas and strong government control are even more needed in an inhomogeneous environment.

I have made the point that a social democracy might not work in the US, but that stems more from the fact that the US has a different cultural background. In European terms, it's a pretty harsh capitalistic society still being under development where a lot of people are ingrained with a certain mental model of 'how stuff should work,' and still lots of space to move around in.

Every society considers itself to be heterogenous, and in fact, in lots of places in (northern) Europe you can claim that society is a lot more heterogenous than the US.

 

[mheslep]

...
Every society considers itself to be heterogenous, and in fact, in lots of places in (northern) Europe you can claim that society is a lot more heterogenous than the US.

You could claim that and you'd be wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

For example, if the establishment consists of only one cultural part of the society (let's say white middle aged men), then it can be much harder for people with a completely different cultural background to enter the establishment. Regardless of talent and will to work hard, they still won't get hired. This is only a natural reaction, most people like to hire people they trust, and it's simply much easier to trust another person if you know that his culture is similar to your own. However, an outside regulator, like the government, can recognize these things and act like an equalizer by providing a good social security and laws against discrimination.

Laws against discrimination and social security are entirely different things and social security has nothing whatsoever to do with discriminatory hiring practices. Enforcing fair hiring practices fits great with the concepts of freedom and capitalism.

 

[mheslep]

One can argue logically that enforcing adult employment laws are necessary for a particular concept of society (I don't), but not that it enhances freedom. Telling someone who and when they can hire and how much they must be paid necessarily detracts from the freedom of many, and not just employers.

 

[mheslep]

...

For example, if the establishment consists of only one cultural part of the society (let's say white middle aged men), then it can be much harder for people with a completely different cultural background to enter the establishment. Regardless of talent and will to work hard, they still won't get hired. This is only a natural reaction, most people like to hire people they trust, and it's simply much easier to trust another person if you know that his culture is similar to your own. However, an outside regulator, like the government, can recognize these things and act like an equalizer by providing a good social security and laws against discrimination.

As a small employer, I see several assumptions above that contradicts my experience, but the most glaring problem is the assumption that somehow the 'outside regulator' will act in the best interest of all perspective employees or customers. History provides instructive examples, most notably the bigoted Jim Crow laws enforced by government.

From economist T. Sowell:

"Some might find it puzzling that during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today." Moreover, the duration of unemployment among blacks was shorter than among whites between 1890 and 1900, whereas unemployment has become both higher and longer-lasting among blacks than among whites in more recent times.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/04/27/race_and_economics/page/full/

 

[DoggerDan]

I know people from sweden too (seeing that I was born there), and they are perfectly happy there...

If they're from there, then how can they be there?

The folks I know from Sweden and throughout Europe moved away from there for a reason.

As my my "aggressive posts," they're not aggressive at all. If you feel they are, that's you're opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to mischaracterize my posts.

 

[MarcoD]

If they're from there, then how can they be there?

The folks I know from Sweden and throughout Europe moved away from there for a reason.

As my my "aggressive posts," they're not aggressive at all. If you feel they are, that's you're opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to mischaracterize my posts.

I know some people from the US living very happily in the Netherlands. It's a queer thing really, people tend to stay in the country they like most, and then sulk about it a bit too. That people returned and liked it better is no argument, you need to ask those who stayed.

 

[DoggerDan]

I know some people from the US living very happily in the Netherlands.

Well, I know a guy from the US living in Belgium. That's close, anyway.

It's a queer thing really, people tend to stay in the country they like most, and then sulk about it a bit too.

Sulk? As in talking bad about they country they like most? I know I talk bad about some of the things going on in the U.S. I do it, however, because I love this country, and see those influences as either contrary to our principles as a nation, or damaging to our country.

That people returned and liked it better is no argument, you need to ask those who stayed.

Well, I've been around. I like it here.

 

[MarcoD]

Well, I know a guy from the US living in Belgium. That's close, anyway.

Greece and Turkey are close too, so are Iran and Iraq, and North- and South-Korea. To the most of the Netherlands, that was an insult.

 

[russ_watters]

One can argue logically that enforcing adult employment laws are necessary for a particular concept of society (I don't), but not that it enhances freedom. Telling someone who and when they can hire and how much they must be paid necessarily detracts from the freedom of many, and not just employers.

I didn't mention pay and you're overstating the objection: anti-discrimination laws do not equate to the government telling a company who to hire.

You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction: employers aren't allowed the freedom to practice racism because in interactions between people, awarding that right to one person allows them to infringe on the rights of another.

 

[DoggerDan]

Greece and Turkey are close too, so are Iran and Iraq, and North- and South-Korea. To the most of the Netherlands, that was an insult.

Close geographically in no way implies any closeness in terms of ideology.

Nice try.

 

[MarcoD]

Nice try.

There was no try, you under appreciated the vast cultural differences between countries in Europe.

For most countries in Europe, if you cross the border, the differences are immediately apparent. For example, if I drive into Belgium, I have the feeling I ended up in Italy. The roads are worse, there are no bike lanes anymore, traffic signs feel like a mess, the houses suddenly come in all mixed shapes, major roads often run through small villages directly. It's a complete different country.

Similarly, if you come from Belgium, I imagine the Netherlands feels like a 'creepy' place run by mysophobists.

Similarly, Britain is a fairy-tale country full of hedges and lovely pubs and suburbs reminiscent of the industrial revolution, and France has long stretches of nature filled with 'petite' villages which eat everything the countryside can provide.

There are large cultural differences, and also some ideological differences. It's what most people like about Europe, you can't equalize those cultures on being geographically close.

(It's the same thing with the OWS movement. The slogan 'We are the 99%' means something in the US. In the Netherlands, it's a mostly meaningless statement.)

 

[WhoWee]

(It's the same thing with the OWS movement. The slogan 'We are the 99%' means something in the US. In the Netherlands, it's a mostly meaningless statement.)

It seems the media would like you to think the 99% thing is working. What is has done is spawned a new theme.
http://the53.tumblr.com/

The 53% group - as in we are the 53% that pay federal income taxes to support the 47% that enjoy redistribution.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't mention pay

The phrase was 'hiring decisions' in which pay is certainly one factor. The minimum wage for instance means that for many entry level people and youth with no skills that the hiring decision is "no I'm not hiring", especially in down times like the present.

...and you're overstating the objection: anti-discrimination laws do not equate to the government telling a company who to hire.

Not who down to the individual, but certainly 'who' at the ethnic group level. If we loosely say the society consists of larger ethnic group A and smaller one B, US law requires employers to higher from B.

...You are looking at the issue from the wrong direction: employers aren't allowed the freedom to practice racism because in interactions between people, awarding that right to one person allows them to infringe on the rights of another.

On the part of the employees what fundamental right is infringed? Employers routinely discriminate, with a small 'd', i.e. the power to distinguish, on all kinds of issues not specifically related to the job requirements: candidate is too arrogant, lacks self confidence, too intro/extro-verted for the existing group, worked for that-Company-with-the-culture-we-deplore, etc.

 

[Zarqon]

As a small employer, I see several assumptions above that contradicts my experience, but the most glaring problem is the assumption that somehow the 'outside regulator' will act in the best interest of all perspective employees or customers.

Yeah, it's a good point. You do have to trust the government, and maybe that's one of the key issues in the US for not liking social ideas.

From the discussions here, it seems to me that people in the US would rather trust people with money than the government. Maybe the thought is that people who have worked hard to get rich should have a natural desire to get even richer and so will invest all their money again so that there is a flow. However, growing up in a different type of country, I would rather place my trust in the government. From my perspective, the government is like a non-profit organization that can look beyond personal gain and make decisions aimed at improving the society as a whole, whereas corporations need to make a profit, and would thus not care too much about how it affects people as long as they can get away with it (why private health insurance sounds bad).

I would rather distribute more power to the government, which of course means that the government needs to get and distribute more money, a.k.a. more taxes and better social security/senior citizen payments.