Debanjan:Socialism,what socialism?

Submitted by Shishir (United Arab Emirates), May 8, 2012 at 04:29

"Actually yes the West adversely affected by one particular type of Western financial system-socialism!"

My Answer : Can you kindly explain in simple terms what is meant by socialism and how it is affecting the economies of the Western World that it is in so dire straits now ?

I dont see why you are burying your head in the sand for the past five years is MY problem but never mind.Im in a charitable mood.Socialism is Robin Hood taken to the extreme-taking not just from the rich but the productive middle classes and giving to the unproductive.

The EU countries in particular the PIIGS have been affected by a combination of socialism and crony capitalism where Germany has almost single handedly supported their economies and lifestyles due to near unconditional lending.

Things to keep in mind:Countries that claim to be free market are in some ways more restrictive than some "socialist" countries who follow a far more laissez faire approach.For example U.S has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and pseudo socialist Germany has only a slightly higher income tax rate.

Italy's taxes are so notoriously high that it compels the average Italian to indulge in even more notorious corruption.

Can you also kindly specify when did USA and Europe went to socialism ? The USA has been ruled in the last 60 years by fiscal and free-market conservatives like Eisenhower , Nixon , Ford , Reagan and Papa Bush and two terms of baby Bush. So can you say were these people socialists ?

In your utter ignorance, you have considered Eisenhower and Nixon as free marketers when they were nothing of the sort, the 50s under Eisenhower followed a watered down version of the New Deal.As for why the 50s were booming, it is because American industry had virtually no competition, Europe and Japan were devastated by war, China was undergoing Chairman Maos barbaric purges and India thanks to your heroes like Nehru was undergoing what was called a "Hindu rate of growth"(note how shamelessly socialists attribute their failures to Hinduism than themselves)

Only under Reagan did some free market reforms take root.But even those were rather limited as he couldnt curb spending.

I dont think you realize that the President is not a dictator,he is subject to the vetoes of Congress and Senate (who until 1994 were overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats) and populist but counter productive economic notions of protectionism,trade wars and rampant unionization.

You conveniently left out LBJ, (JFK was somewhat more pro freemarket than Eisenhower) whose Great Society had devastated the lower classes and halted upward mobilizationa and therefore growth of the middle class for nearly a generation.

Also Ford and Nixon in their Presidential avatars werent really pro free market at all.You also forgot about Jimmy Carters disastrous economy as well Bill Clintons near failure in the first term.

Can you kindly also explain how US is the World's biggest indebted nation when we consider that the US likes to boast itself as the home country of Protestant work ethic and industriousness ?

Talking to you sometimes is like talking to a child! As to why the home of Protestant work ethic is an indebted nation..well things change, the culture changes! The Protestant virtues such as thrift and savings have been near extinct since the birth of mass consumerism in the 50s.Thrift though has little to do with work ethic and productivity, a hardworking and rich person can manage to outspend whatever he earns to due to easy credit.

Considering the fact that China has been the fastest growing economy in the last 30 years and how it is soon to overcame the US economy by this decade (according to luminaries such as IMF and Goldman Sachs) , so do you want to say that Chinese are best practitioners of protestant work ethic than the protestants in the USA itself ?

Yes, next question?

Also I am yet to see from you any explanations regarding what is Islamic finance , how it is implemented in Turkey and how it is endangering Turkish economy.

Simply put, Turkey was going on the right track and Erdogan was initially much better for the economy than his semi socialist secular predecessors ,however like others he got greedy and impatient and tied his economy to easy/phantom credit courtesy of Islamic finance.The Turkish economy while in better shape in others in the EU is heading in the same direction as it is fast approaching a credit bubble.While the results wont be as severe as in say its historic enemy Greece, it will still makes uncomfortable for Turks,perhaps this will be Turkeys "lost decade" ala Japan.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".