The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways, one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant struggle for survival and allow the social side of humanity to flurish.
As an example on a smaller scale: There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. Pure survival mode. Compare that for instance with companies like Google, that spoil everyone and even give you 20% time for free. So far they haven't collapsed. Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. That exactly is the human behaviour argument.
Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.
Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature?
>There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance.
And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very anti-social.
>Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply.
Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy.
>Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.
Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.
No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds.
You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.
The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.
Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits.
>You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance
Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment.
>but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.
Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism.
>The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor.
I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.
Socialism itself doesn't prevent you from hiring someone for $4 an hour. Current laws (which may be based on socialist principles) do that. You could argue that, in a future with a universal basic income, we wouldn't need a minimum wage, as people could survive on even no wage. Would this be more or less socialist than things as they are today?
>Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow.
Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not. Prove within reasonable heuristics? Depends on your definition of "reasonable". Our definitions are clearly different.
>Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by.
A failing but necessary industry is one ripe for being regulated by a socialist government. Perhaps it is not the socialist regulation that caused the failure, but the failure of the industry to meet public need which drives regulation. You may find this reversal (or un-reversal) of cause and effect ironic, but it really comes down to the classic correlation vs causation question. Without better research, we really cannot know.
For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes. Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.
I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. In my study of history the case which government lays out for their new intervention is based on twisted truths, exaggerations and most likely downright lies. This has been the case in anti-trust, social security, medicaid and many more instances.
The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands?
>For now, I am comfortable with the concept of a government advocating on my behalf for the purposes of improving aggregate outcomes.
Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates?
>Certainly, governments may fail or do poorly, but I do not think it is a pointless effort. It sounds like you disagree.
I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinions. I guess we fundamentally disagree on how historical events should be interpreted.
>The idea that an entire industry is failing to meet consumer demands is economically absurd. Why would competition not arise to match consumer demands?
Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices. This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf. Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.
>Are you one of the lucky 20% (perhaps less) of the population which your candidate of choice won the election? Did that candidate match all of your ideas, or was he or she the least-rotten of the bunch? Is that candidate really "advocating on [your] behalf" when they get into power? What of the other 80% of the population who were unhappy with the outcome of an election? How do you measure these "aggregate outcomes"? Is the $4 trillion (on the books) spending of the US government all necessary to accomplish these improved aggregates?
Do I agree with everything that the US government does? No. Would I rather be a US citizen than one of any other country? Yes. Do I think this country has the potential to move itself in the right direction? Yes.
>I'm not sure I would say "pointless". I may not agree with what is going on, but certainly some people are getting rich with the trillions of dollars being squandered. Some people are benefiting by regulations which strangle out their competition. Some people feel good about having their morals forced upon others. Some people like having positions of dominion and power which they exercise violence over others. Some people make a pretty penny from blowing up people in far off lands. I may think there's a better way, but I wouldn't say its pointless.
In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars? Obviously things could be improved. Yes, some regulation is bad, just look at the anti-competitive practices Comcast has lobbied for over the years (and make no mistake, those policies are only in place because of Comcast's lobbying). Regulation is not the same thing as socialism. Socialism can impose regulation to promote certain principles, sure, but that doesn't mean all regulation is created to further social goals.
As I said previously, I would love to hear the historical case you have in mind. Let's examine the facts and discuss further. Saying we disagree in the interpretation of historical events without even discussing any is a cop out and intellectually disingenuous.
>Industries don't exist to meet demands, they exist to create profit. Meeting an external demand can create profit, but so can unlawful or immoral business practices.
In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet customer demands.
>This is the very reason why people seek an organized entity (like a government) to negotiate on their behalf.
I know very few people who view the government as an organization which negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard anyone describe government in such a manner.
>Pristine economic theories work nicely in a bubble, but we don't live in one.
Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the standard of living and increase human cooperation.
>In what world is it good socialist policy to squander trillions of dollars?
I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.
We would only be discussing our subjective interpretations of facts. I don't think that's intellectually disingenuous. For example, how could you argue with a Holocaust-denier who believes that all records were forged? You could be pointing to the exact same things but interpreting them differently. I don't think we share a common ground, and there nothing I could say to you or you could say to me to change the way we emphasize or de-emphasize historical facts and their relation to one another.
>In a free (and freeish) market, businesses cannot survive without meeting customers' demands. It's possible a business owner could have a myriad of motivations, but the fact remains they must at least be meeting customer demands. But this goes back to the comment above. Please provide an example of an industry that was at least relatively laissez faire and failed to meet customer demands.
What is a "free" market? I think this is the important question. My core belief is that actors in an economy will act according to game theory. Is a free market one with no rules? If so, what is to stop someone from lying, cheating, or stealing? Is a free market a system with a few basic principles? If so, who serves as judge to determine if rules were broken? How do you ensure this judge acts in the best interest of the market rather than their own best interest? What is the punishment for breaking rules? In my view, businesses do have a drive to create value. However, businesses also have a drive to make a cheap buck where they can at someone else's expense. I think having a government act on behalf of consumers is necessary to keep rent-seeking motives in check and let value-creation stay at the forefront. I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act with my best interests at heart.
>I know very few people who view the government as an organization which negotiates on their behalf. In fact I can safely say I have never before heard anyone describe government in such a manner.
Ideally, I do think that is what a government should be. I'm very happy that my government has orchestrated clean water, built power lines, roads, and bridges, and ensured basic standards for food quality. In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon birth. The ultimate morality of being forced into purchasing that share is debatable, but pragmatically, at least for now, I'm happy with it.
>Unfortunately socialism doesn't even work in the bubble (it has been debunked thoroughly by economists such as F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard among others), let alone the real world. Thankfully capitalism has an excellent track record and we know empirically of its efficacy to improve the standard of living and increase human cooperation.
I think you carry a lot of baggage when you use the term socialism. I'm not talking full-scale USSR planned economies. The US has been dabbling in socialist policies since the Great Depression. That track record you attribute to capitalism I attribute to socialism (or I guess social capitalism). I'm not advocating for full government control of the economy. I do think the government can be an actor in an economy for net benefit, and I think certain powers should be ensured.
>I have no idea what "good socialist policy" is as it seems like an oxymoron to me, but I think it's only fair that those who had their money forcefully taken from them determine whether the money is being squandered.
Let's call it social capitalism, then. You seem to have a problem with the word socialism itself.
While clearly defining a free market is an important discussion, I think it out of the scope of this discussion. The direction for the thread was to explore your claim that government regulation in a market is initially introduced to mend a "failing industry". The only way to verify such a claim would be to explore some historical case. As you refuse to identify such a case, defining the term "free market" is a diversion.
>In essence, the government is a sort of corporation of which I received a single share upon birth.
>I simply do not believe that large, powerful, independent businesses will act with my best interests at heart.
Seems contradictory, don't you think? I find it ironic that you believe private businesses would do you personal harm, but you have no similar concerns for government. It is government not businesses who are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century alone. It is government not businesses which hold a monopoly on violence and perform their every act, even the ones you deem noble, through the threat of violence.
This is simply untrue. You cannot blame the concept of government for what people in governments do. I can be against what a private industry does without being against the concept of industries altogether.
>I find it ironic that you believe private businesses would do you personal harm, but you have no similar concerns for government.
I said no such thing. I said that I have more of a say in what happens in my government than in a private business.
(there are even several countries with 3-4 weeks of vacation for everyone and similar annual per person productivity to the US...)
"Yet" is the operative word there.
Often socialism is applied, at least at first, in a very limited fashion, but then expand as the natural consequences come to fruition. For example, examine the minimum wage law. The natural consequence of the minimum wage law is the least productive individuals lose their jobs. Most often those individuals are youth and minorities, with the affect especially evident among young minorities. Reacting to this natural consequence, legislatures then want to enact social programs to provide for those who are unemployed. These social programs are funded through higher taxes, typically upon the most wealthy. The wealthy are incentivized to be free from the higher taxes and get around them through a myriad of creative ways. A cycle develops where social programs continue to expand, taxes continue to rise and the wealthy flee. This is very evident in France, currently. When the wealthy flee, the taxes fall onto the middle class. There is incentive for immigrants to come into the country. And so on and so forth.
The failures of socialism are most evident where the interventions are taking place. Healthcare is a sector where a lot of the interventions are taking place and the affects are glaring. You can see this in Western Europe with sub-prime healthcare. The problems in the socialist governments in Western Europe will be exasperated by the refugee crisis.
A socialist government and a planned economy are only different by a few degrees. Bad laws beget more bad laws and the problems will grow. How long until the parasite overpowers the host? Who knows.