Posted by
Richmond Patriot on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:25:45 PM
IT'S interesting to read of
something like this in the NY Times:
PARIS — A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of Socialism’s slow collapse.
Even in the midst of one of the greatest challenges to capitalism in 75 years, involving a breakdown of the financial system due to “irrational exuberance,” greed and the weakness of regulatory systems, European Socialist parties and their left-wing cousins have not found a compelling response, let alone taken advantage of the right’s failures.
German voters clobbered the Social Democratic Party on Sunday, giving it only 23 percent of the vote, its worst performance since World War II.
Voters also punished left-leaning candidates in the summer’s European Parliament elections and trounced French Socialists in 2007. Where the left holds power, as in Spain and Britain, it is under attack. Where it is out, as in France, Italy and now Germany, it is divided and listless.
That said, and though the article is very enlightening, I don't think either the Europeans or the Times really gets at the underlying nemesis: a large centralized government as the primary solution for most anything. You can see this in such comments as:
Europe’s center-right parties have embraced many ideas of the left: generous welfare benefits, nationalized health care, sharp restrictions on carbon emissions, the ceding of some sovereignty to the European Union. But they have won votes by promising to deliver more efficiently than the left, while working to lower taxes, improve financial regulation, and grapple with aging populations.
Europe’s conservatives, says Michel Winock, a historian at the Paris Institut d’Études Politiques, “have adapted themselves to modernity.” When Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Germany’s Angela Merkel condemn the excesses of the “Anglo-Saxon model” of capitalism while praising the protective power of the state, they are using Socialist ideas that have become mainstream, he said.
Another recent piece at the Daily Bell (one of my favorite reads) analyzes a piece at the Telegraph regarding the situation on the Iberian peninsula:
Spain is sliding into a full-blown economic depression with unemployment approaching levels not seen since the Second Republic of the 1930s and little chance of recovery until well into the next decade, according to a clutch of reports over recent days. The Madrid research group RR de Acuña & Asociados said the collapse of Spain's building industry will cause the economy to contract for the next three years, with a peak to trough loss of over 11% of GDP. ...
Free-Market Analysis: We think that the problems with Spain do presage problems going on elsewhere in the world. We think, eventually, they will visit the United States as well. When we write "eventually" what we mean is that things will get considerably worse. We believe this because the Western world is doing exactly the opposite of what it should do to resolve what is basically a paper money and leveraged-capital crisis.
Socialists still control politics in Spain, a contrast to the
situation in France and Germany. As for the rest of the Western world,
socialism-light is still socialism. In the U.S., this is what
Republicans tried unsuccessfully over the span of the last decade - and
something for which people today still do not trust them. How can
they? But what are their choices in our institutionalized 2 party
system of governance? Even this phrase: "2 party system" is accepted
as if it is written in the Constitution. Given that no one, save for
perhaps Ron Paul, really does more than give lip service to that
document, it is a defacto premise that there are ever to be but 2
parties in the States.
In Europe, this is not so quite as much. While there are typically
2 large parties - a "center-left" and "center-right", they often must
form coalition governments with other smaller parties. None of these
major parties seems willing, however, to ally itself with the left-most
and right-most, lest being pilloried.
I say that the moves to the right and left are half-hearted because
of this inculcated embrace of socialism as proper for governance. The
quote above calls it "modernity", as if all things modern are good.
I have at times referred to myself as a paleoconservative - a
tongue-in-cheek reference to the many who label true conservatives as
Neanderthal or otherwise backward. Again, I ask, are all things new
good?
Do the majority in the States want a large centralized government,
which handles most functions of their lives, from the important to the
trivial? If it is explained to people effectively, I believe most do
not. There is a large contingent who already has a strong "leave me
alone" affectation. But if, after a proper dialogue in the once free
marketplace of ideas, there is a popular sentiment that yes, they do
want this form of government, then those who do not will have a few
important choices to make. I leave them to you to speculate.
I say sort-of left, as I really wonder if the people will allow
politicians to take us hard left. They have successfully done so thus
far only because of peoples' ignorance and the strongly-held belief
that there are those in power (moreso those who have recently come to
power) who know better than do the people how to handle the primary
issues of our day.
As the people inevitably learn more and trust politicians less, what
then? I fear another "center-right" party victory - a big government
Republican party which reveres conservatism in lip service yet votes
socialistic. John McCain is emblematic of this party.
Even Reagan, who is held by many as the greatest conservative of the
past many generations, could not contain the expansion of the Federal
government, nor its tentacles into people's lives. And again I ask
why, with a Republican President, House, and Senate, we can belive it
would be otherwise?
I am very much pessimistic about any scaling back of the
government. It may not grow larger, but this will only be because the
economy cannot sustain it. It will not, however, be meaningfully
contracted. There is little that can be done incrementally, I
believe. There was a time this could have been successful, perhaps
10-20 years ago, but that time has past. We have a national debt
(today) almost our GDP. This does not count personal debts and does
not count unfunded mandates (Medicare and Social Security benefits,
primarily). All told, those have been estimated recently as up to $100
trillion. That is a hundred million million. If 1/3 of the residents
of the U.S. were millionaires and gave $1 million of their assets to
the Federal government, that would wipe the slate clean. Does this
seem likely? There are about 1/10 of this number classified as
"millionaires", but this figure is dubious, given the liberty with
which that is calculated. This is usually "net worth" ("assets" -
always in flux minus liabilities - typically static) and not actual
cash on hand.
It is wholly unlikely the socialists will achieve this through
taxation, as it would have had to have been done once we'd expanded the
economy enough to create 100 million millionaires. Those days are long
gone. My reasoning: I doubt through experience that 1/3 of the
population has either the entreprenurial drive nor the self-control to
achieve such personal wealth, even if capitalism were largely
unfettered. Add to this the assault on small businesses, the principal
employer in the U.S. Add to this still the devaluing of the dollar.
Inflation *is* coming in a strong way - at least 10%, if not 20% or
more, in the near years ahead. A millionaire today, is, in the days
when the dollar was still tied to gold, perhaps 5% what it was then.
Said another way, $1 million in 1970 is a $20 million today. If
inflation reaches 20%, in one year, $1 million will buy $800,000 of
goods and services. The next, $640,000 and $512,000 the next. You can
see what an impact this will have - the reverse of what statists need
to maintain the current scope of government.
My personal solution: create something others want enough to pay me
in several years time several million dollars (or something else,
depending on my conditions). I just want enough to keep my family
ahead of inflation in the long term.