reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
I am going to try to address your post roughly paragraph by paragraph to better organize the discussion:
I consider all forms of conservatism to spring from the same source: Fear. The "pure" conservatism of Edmund Burke, or the perverted neoconservatism
of Bush and Co. - it is all based on fear, on trying to protect the status quo, property, tradition, etc.
I do not believe the CRA is to blame for the current economic situation. Any measure that tries to get banks to invest in the community is good in
principle, so long as all parties cooperate.
My focus is on British history, but yes, I am aware of this, and I think it was a terrible mistake. It gave corporations far too much flexibility and
Regulations are the only protections people have against the excesses inevitable in a corporate capitalist system. If the corporations were able to
responsibly self-regulate, they would not have a problem, but profit motives are corrupting. Deregulation is clearly a large part of the current
People complain about the tax system, yes, and it does have problems. But the idea of taxation in general is necessary in a monetary economy. People
complaining about taxes in general are who I was talking about.
I doubt even Adam Smith could have foreseen this current situation, and he was arguing from an 18th/19th century perspective at any rate. He was
commenting on what he saw as the emerging trends in the growth of the industrial economy. But that was one phase in history - it is over now.
Capitalism was itself an evolutionary step, and one which are outgrowing. Smith and his intellectual contemporaries had a rather dim view of humanity,
in that they felt humans were motivated out of self-interest primarily, and yet they felt these same humans responsible enough to run a working
economy. There is a disconnect there.
Others in this thread have named great benefits associated with progressive economic policies. What direction do you see the world economy going in?
Who is leading, and what are its effects? Which is causing the supposed problems, the world economy or the individual countries?
I think your "facts of life" are rather pessimistic. Progressivism is optimistic in nature. Why should we accept that some will be rich and some
will be poor? It need not be that way, and one way to change it is socialist policies. You seem to hold a dim view of humanity's capacity to overcome
I still don't see how capitalism works and progressive socialism does not.
Marxism is separate from socialism or the flavor of socialism practiced in European countries. He was one socialist thinker among many. Critics of
Marx often point out that human nature does not allow for socialism/communism, but I would argue that that is an assumption based on a paradigm that
can change as humanity evolves beyond selfishness.
Again, deregulation is what we have had, as I think most economists would tell you. Capitalism, I maintain, is designed to fail. Here is what happens:
A multitude of companies form and compete against each other. Some are driven out of business, and the strong survive. They become stronger and
stronger until nobody can compete with them. They merge with other companies that specialize in different products until eventually there is one
corporation which owns everything. That is...unless there are strong regulations or a different economic model. Nothing will stop them otherwise,
which is why a very small number of corporations run the show.
Europe is still doing better than we are, and at the same time has been damaged by our recession. Quality of life is still better.
Ultimately, we are all one, so the community does matter.