Mince words, much? Collectivism is not mutually exclusive with individualism. I, as an individual, can be who I am and improve myself and enjoy myself and be healthy and happy and even reasonably wealthy without having to spurn (or harmfully exploit) the collective. There are so many things you and I take for granted today that could not have existed (much less continue to exist for the discernible future) without the raw power of collectives. The issue here is that we have some collectives (corporations) feeding upon others (civilizations) like wolves upon sheep rather than cooperating with them (like gardeners.) We had tons and tons and tons of individual rights during our [economic] golden years... more so than we do now, given that rights for the vast majority of us (i.e., the working/middle class laborers) are deteriorating rapidly in favor of wider profit margins for those sitting at the top of the pile.
From WikiPedia: "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. "
and:
"Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual".[1] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance[2] while opposing most external interference upon one's own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution."
The focus is either on the "collective good" or on every individual's rights. To the extent that the collective good trumps any individual's rights, collectivism usurps the position of individualism.
(By the way, you're once again criticizing corporatism, not individualism/capitalism. The problems you talk about are important and, indeed, caused by institutional factors, but the wicked institution is statism, not capitalism. This is definitely an important point.)
You make it sound like collectives and communities consist of something other than individuals all of whom are somehow not a part of the collective that is reaping the rewards of their mutual prosperity. [...] America was this from FDR through Carter until the rich utilized reagan, bush, clinton, and bush to fire all of our systems' referees and hire new ones who would routinely blow the whistle in their favor.
"
This stems from allowing a dramatic imbalance between the rich and poor (not to be confused with a more natural and subtle imbalances between individual of differing energy levels and motivations)"
Wait, what? You agree that the wealth distribution in society, absent any gov't intervention, would lead to an "ideal" distribution, or have I misunderstood you? The fact that any (non-criminal) individual in a free society would necessarily have to had given more to his fellow men than he has gotten in return does, in my view, make the concept of "predatory" and "exploitative" rich people an impossibility without gov't intervention.
If it is accepted that gov't intervenes and redistributes, it will obviously tend to favor the rich with this approach, since the "common man" isn't really all that into politics and can't bribe as much. It's a
feature, not a bug.
(By the way, crash of '29 and subsequent depression, during which gov't spending and interference was rampant was very drawn out, while the '20 crash (which was, according to several indicators, worse than the '29 crash, initially), after which size of gov't decreased, ended in ~a year. Even if we don't go into theory the empirical data seem to discredit the role of FDR as a savior, the economy didn't recover for realsies until after WW2.
Entertainment and education: (is there any way to deactivate embed videos? I'd rather they were clickable links)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=relmfu"]YouTube - "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc"]YouTube - Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two[/ame] If you're intrigued, more resources can be found at sites like
this.)
While America right now can be easily classified as fascist, the military industrial complex has surpassed 50% of our 'purpose' as a nation now, so we may still end up in more of a germany-esque situation... not that either is pretty. It also ends up depending on whether the military owns the government or owns the corporations... or if the corporations own the government or own the military. You sorta indicate the government is to blame here, but right now it is a ~almost~ fully owned subsidiary of the ultrarich and the corporations they hide behind, not the other way around. A government doesn't go around saying 'I'm going to inflict the great penalty of obscene wealth on you in some perverse form of punishment' to people as one might believe listening to pseudoconservative soapboxers. No, the government simply has been bought and paid for by the people who increasingly have all the wealth.
The military spending is
apparentlyca. 30% of the federal budget (some of the discretionary spending goes toward military ends), which itself is ca. 40% of all public spending, which is ca. 40% of GDP. 0.3*0.4*0.4=4.8%
Of course, it might be a lot higher but hidden by accounting tricks, but I think you might be overestimating military spending. Of course, that isn't to say that the US should (more or less) immediately bring their troops home, from all
135 countries they're in. Just like practically every gov't scheme, the military is mostly a racket.
Well, I'd say that coercive power is to blame, and this power resides in the state only, so in this sense, it is to blame. The rule of reciprocal benefit is true even for bribes, of course.
Link? Keep in mind that wealth and prosperity are two different things. The average black american is not prosperous, endures great stress, has limited access to quality education, is overprosecuted, has to live under the poverty level, suffers from increased incidence of preventable diseases, et cetera. The average swede, no matter how to translate cash-to-wealth, is both relatively and, per capita, far less touched by these concerns. They may take home less pay, and yet are far more cared for. They're also right there among the top of the list of happiest nations on earth, whereas most studies conducted lately suggest that anything above
$75,000/yr american ceases to buy any additional 'happiness.'
Sorry about not answering the rest... I might be able to later, but I suspect the conversation will evolve from here anyways. If there is any point you are particularly happy with in what remains, don't be afraid to reiterate. My disagreeing on message doesn't mean I find this upsetting (and I suppose it wouldn't really matter if I did.) =3
Yeah, BNP and such are of course no direct measures of prosperity, since such subjective things are, indeed, impossible to quantify, but there are some good indicators.
This was the study I thought of, I apologize for not finding a primary source.
Here is a study comparing economic indicators for Sweden and the US, it's in Swedish, but you can probably make use of the graphs.
Maybe I can dig something up about Sweden's economic history if you want to read more details (although it would surprise me if there was much material in English on this topic), but a short summary: late 19th century to 1950's: gov't interference in markets is very low, the welfare state smaller than the US counterpart, economic growth paralleled only by Japan. Since 1950: vastly increased public sector, lots more regulation (there was a period in the 90's where this trend was broken, as demanded by a devastating crisis, leading to better economic growth), and an economic growth way below that of average industrialized countries. The net increase in private sector jobs between 1950 and 2005 was - wait for it - zero! etc.
I apologize if this post is incoherent or whatever, I'm quite ill and should probably be taxed for the negative externalities brought about by my posting.
But I think what I'm trying to say can be summarized as this: you, rightly, criticize corporatism, but, instead of seeing the solution as ending this gov't interference, you advocate increased state intervention, and seem to blame non-existent capitalism for current woes.
You rightly criticize corruption in gov't, but seem to think that the solution is simply to let Obama run the show, while I see it as a natural result of state power.
(Okay, I don't know how to summarize it, I'm just going to go rest or something.)
Recommended reading.
(By the way, I saw someone say that the euro will be the world's dominant currency. Rest assured, the euro will fall just like the dollar. It's the inevitable result of fiat money and inflationary policy. Bye)
