Social Remedies

[dairygirl4u2c]

do socialist states experience recessions andor depressions?
would creating socialism or socialist type schemes to the extent necessary to ward of recession etc work? why or why not?
(if it's a practical issue, like 'they'll create another new deal', that makes you think it wouldn't work, would it work if these possibilities did not occur, but theoretically would it work in the purer 'socialistish' sense where they don't create new deals (basically imagine a scenario where it might work and expect them to do that)?)

if ya want, you can throw in your two cents about whether they shouldn't, even if it did work, or why they should.

the popes consistently say socialism is wrong, but they also say that the government can intervene in the market etc, to ensure people who are in good faith and reasonable have a basic minimum. plus pure socialism probably wouldn't be needed, so it's not like those quotes guide much, so you're best bet is to make good arguments instead of deferring to ambiguous documents like that.

[HisChildForever]

[CatherineM]

When the USSR had a recession, people just starved to death, like in the Ukraine. When it got bad enough, they broke up. That caused a recession in Cuba. They just learned to do without gasoline.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1778428' date='Feb 10 2009, 11:11 PM']do socialist states experience recessions andor depressions?[/quote]

Yes, they're generally in a constant state of recession.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1778428' date='Feb 10 2009, 11:11 PM']would creating socialism or socialist type schemes to the extent necessary to ward of recession etc work? why or why not?[/quote]

No, because warding off a recession is like warding off the rain. It's impossible, pointless, and in the long run we'll all starve to death.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1778428' date='Feb 10 2009, 11:11 PM'](if it's a practical issue, like 'they'll create another new deal', that makes you think it wouldn't work, would it work if these possibilities did not occur, but theoretically would it work in the purer 'socialistish' sense where they don't create new deals (basically imagine a scenario where it might work and expect them to do that)?)[/quote]

Jibber jabber.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1778428' date='Feb 10 2009, 11:11 PM']the popes consistently say socialism is wrong, but they also say that the government can intervene in the market etc, to ensure people who are in good faith and reasonable have a basic minimum. plus pure socialism probably wouldn't be needed, so it's not like those quotes guide much, so you're best bet is to make good arguments instead of deferring to ambiguous documents like that.[/quote]

Yes, Adam Smith also agreed with appropriate and necessary government intervention. Capitalism needs government and other social institutions (like churches, faith communities, and non-profits) to absolve the economy of problems inherent in capitalism. As I've said before, the reason I believe in capitalism is that -- by design -- it is an imperfect system. And it isn't appropriate for every situation. Some goods, like education and utilities, are often better supplied by monopolies or subsidized state-owned or sponsored institutions, as long as freedom to choose one's own source of electricity, education, etc. is preserved.

My guess is you consider the popes' commentary on this ambiguous because they don't come out and recommend any particular economic system.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's the extent of their message:

"pure socialism is bad. pure capitalism is bad, sometimes. charity is good, always, as a remedy. government should intervene sometimes, to ensure 'rights' to basic goods for the nonslacker type. lower level of government usually preferrable"

i might have missed some points. it's not totally ambiguous, granted. but, unless you're a pure socialist, pretty much anyone could form a reasonable argument that they are compliant with all that. so, in that sense, it's ambiguous.
i don't care they don't come out and say "this position, or this party is right", they could just give a little more guidance sometimes, break it down into components, political philosophy, analytic philosphyy. don't just write fancy sounding walls of truisms that by far most everyone knows already.

Edited February 12, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c