Why are socialist programs do unpopular today?
In Europe we are fairly well integrated, so we are less inclined to believe that other people getting benefit, or welfare, don't deserve it. We see the social security system as something like a national insurance scheme, which we all pay into and hope we never have to draw on. It's just for in case things go wrong. This is why I believe there will never be a libertarian society, because even most conservatives want a back up system in case they fall onto hard times and can't afford to pay the insurance anymore.
The aristocracy sell welfare all wrong - because they don't need it - and through their media they make it look like just a free handout to the 'undeserving poor' rather than a national insurance scheme which we all pay into to help us if something goes wrong. KV.
Is socialism bad? From the sweeping success of many existing social programs (dealing with a wide range of concerns including retirement, healthcare, food, housing, energy, education, childcare, farming, and others), the answer, apparently, is no for most Americans. But why are new social programs unpopular today?
A major, yet hidden, answer lies in social trust in America. New social programs such as Obamacare compete for tax revenue. Taxes are common-pool resources, and their use must be fair. If trust is low in a society, people will be inclined to suspect others’ motives and avoid being cheated by freeloaders. So, any social program paid with tax dollars won’t be popular. That’s how, for instance, a fictional story told by Ronald Reagan about a Chicago welfare queen could turn many Americans against the welfare system in the 1980s.
A major, yet hidden, answer lies in social trust in America. New social programs such as Obamacare compete for tax revenue. Taxes are common-pool resources, and their use must be fair. If trust is low in a society, people will be inclined to suspect others’ motives and avoid being cheated by freeloaders. So, any social program paid with tax dollars won’t be popular. That’s how, for instance, a fictional story told by Ronald Reagan about a Chicago welfare queen could turn many Americans against the welfare system in the 1980s.
Fighting corruption can promote social trust and reduce the influence of lobbying from special interests. A rising level of trust will help progressive taxation, which can harness economic inequality, which in turn can promote trust. So fighting corruption, controlling economic inequality, and raising social trust can feed one another, leading to a much healthier democracy, stronger economy, and happier society, as the Nordic countries have shown us.
As our democracy becomes more and more tangled in money, fighting soft corruption is hugely popular. For instance, 85% of Americans desire an overhaul of the current campaign finance system. Obviously, our nation is overdue for a new Teddy Roosevelt who can reaffirm his vow that “we hold it to be prime duty of the people to free our government from the control of money.” Sanders would have gathered much more support had he run his campaign on fighting political corruption rather than on the stigmatized and misunderstood socialist platform.
Economics
3 comments:
.
-- OFF TOPIC –
Corporate media outlets never waste an opportunity to spread neoliberal lies.
For example, I just read a BBC article about a fire yesterday that destroyed Brazil’s National Museum, which was one of the largest anthropology and natural history collections in all of the Americas. Twenty million items were lost, including the oldest human remains ever found in the Americas (12,000 years old).
Museum officials blamed the fire on funding cuts by Brazil’s government. Because of these cuts, ten of the thirty exhibition halls had already been closed, and fire hydrants closest to the museum were not working. (Firefighters had to get water from a nearby lake.)
So where are the BBC lies?
“The museum was managed by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and the federal government has been struggling with huge budget imbalances in recent years. The deficit was about 8% of GDP in 2017, only slightly down from a record 10% two years earlier.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45398084
There it is: the lie that the Brazilian government’s “budget imbalances” are a problem, even though the government can create infinite reals out of thin air.
In mid-2016, neoliberal politicians staged a coup that deposed President Dilma Rousseff, and which installed arch-neoliberal Michael Temer, who then had permanent austerity written into Brazil’s constitution. Temer also ordered former president Lula da Silva imprisoned for 12 years so Lula could not run against neoliberals in next month’s presidential elections.
Brazil has severe economic problems, but the cause is not “budget imbalances.” The cause is a huge trade deficit that began in 2009 when the commodities boom had already peaked and was in decline. Each month the trade deficit sucks an average of USD $1.224 billion in wealth out of Brazil. This, plus neoliberal austerity, is why Brazilians are suffering.
Crime is exploding. Brazil’s tourist spots have become dystopias. Interest rates on all forms of private loans are the highest in the world. Reason: almost all loans in Brazil are given by the nation’s Brazil’s five largest banks, who charge an average of 53% on loans. For credit cards the annual rate is 270 percent for unpaid balances.
The Big Five banks form a criminal cartel called Febraban, whose monopoly lets the banks charge whatever they want, while providing shi*ty service.
The neoliberal answer to this neoliberal nightmare is more neoliberalism and more bank tyranny.
++++++++++++++++++++
Incidentally Lula da Silva (who is anti-neoliberal) was leading in the polls for next month’s presidential election, and he planned to run for office while in prison. Therefore on 31 Aug 2018 neoliberals had Brazil's top electoral court disqualify Lula.
“How America Hates Socialism without Knowing Why”
This entire article expects readers to believe the lie that federal taxes pay for federal social programs (e.g. retirement pensions).
Example: “New social programs such as Obamacare compete for tax revenue.”
Wrong. This is like claiming that sports scoreboards compete for points, or that classroom chalkboards compete for words and numbers.
Federal governments (that have monetary sovereignty) create money out of thin air for federal social programs. Federal tax revenue is effectively destroyed upon receipt.
The deep state that rules the West has destroyed Brazil. Paul Singer is part of that ruling class. Their media is able to convince people to hate anything that might help them including socialism.
Post a Comment