pull down to refresh

When you actually learn the ideals of socialism, specifically central planning, you realize that many American politicians aren't really all that against it. I'm not talking about Democrats only either. There are many institutions in American society that are highly socialist in how they are facilitated. Here are some examples.
What do I mean? Mainly I'm referring to central planning, and if you think about central planning being the far left of the spectrum, free markets would be the other extreme. The things I will list are far more to the left than we probably acknowledge.

Hospitals

While most hospitals are privately owned, most people are not aware of how centrally planned they have become in most states. In order for a hospital to be built, there is a process that has to be followed called a Certificate of Need (in most states). I first learned about this many years ago when I asked my father‑in‑law why there was only one hospital in our area. The hospital has a terrible reputation and record. Many people will drive over an hour and a half to avoid using it. Knowing this, I was perplexed about why another hospital hadn't popped up to compete with them. So how is a Certificate of Need obtained? Through a committee of mostly politicians—politicians who get campaign money from the existing medical providers. And this, this classic pattern we should all be aware of, is why we don't have true market competition for hospital care. I mean, imagine if we didn't have these impartial and educated arbiters of public need to decide how many hospitals we need in an area...

Utilities

Power companies, water companies, and sewer systems are almost always either completely centrally operated by cities or so heavily regulated that they are private in name only. At best, we have a government‑established monopoly. The government decides which company is given the right to operate, and no competition is even allowed. For the state, it’s a great solution. Think about PG&E in California. The public thinks of PG&E as a private company. But in reality, their pricing of power, their ability to build power generation, and their governance are almost completely dictated by the state. I honestly wonder if it wouldn't be better if the state just dissolved the company and ended this farce. At least then the public would point their fingers at the correct root problem: central planning.
In California—which isn't alone in this, by the way—the state restricts the building of new power generation. The state hasn't allowed a significant power generator to be built since 1985. The state uses far more power than it generates, and the power companies must import power from other states. Of course, this drives up the cost of power and is the main reason why power is more expensive in the Golden State. It doesn't have to be this way. Allow competition. Allow companies to come in and build new power generation that isn’t these solar science experiments. The vast majority of building that has been done in the state is for natural gas plants. They are basically required due to the spikes and valleys produced by grids dependent on solar.

Firefighters

The volunteer firefighter is becoming a thing of the past. Over the years, I've had several friends who used to do this. Firefighting started as a volunteer and privately run operation. It still is in some places, but this is exceedingly rare. One need only look at what happened in Southern California to see the consequences of centrally planned fire prevention and firefighting.

The Fed

The biggest example and most broadly influential is the Fed. The price of money (credit) is centrally planned and managed. It galls me every time I hear a conservative decry socialism and then defend the Fed.

Price Controls

Price controls are, on the surface, largely discredited. Even the average person will laugh if you suggest them in many situations. But the poisonous idea of central planning at the center of the rot of socialism is far too present in so‑called free nations. These ideas have not been destroyed. Until they are proven to be terrible, we will suffer the consequences. We see price controls in the form of rent control, insurance regulation in many states, and anti‑price‑gouging laws.

What Did I Miss?

I could go on and on about this. I could probably think of a dozen or more examples of central planning in our so‑called free nation. What is a big one I missed? What is a big one that bugs you?
Certificates of Need are worse than that. My understanding is that they usually require approval from the existing hospitals.
reply
I think that is correct. I wasn't 100% sure so I left that out but my memory is that my father in law tried to get another hospital into the area. He was on the city counsel at the time and he said the existing hospital operators and politicians blocked it every time it came up.
reply
Are most hospitals non profit?
I think most if not all hospitals in Southern California are structured as nonprofit
reply
I think so but that’s mostly only relevant for taxes
reply
Understood
I think most hospitals barely break even. In fact they would be ecstatic to break even
reply
From my understanding, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
They essentially hide their profits in the fake prices they don’t really charge anyone.
Exactly. Non-profit is such a misleading term.
reply
Microsoft getting to decide whether people need a new OS or not.
reply
Insurance is a big one. Who is covered and for what and at what rates are all heavily regulated. Plus, consumers are required to purchase this product.
Building construction has lots of central planning elements, through building codes and zoning.
reply
Healthcare world has basically zero price discovery because everything is paid through insurance, most of which people didn't proactively choose
reply
Over reliance on third party payment and the third party is the federal government
reply
64 sats \ 1 reply \ @sophos 7 Aug
You are on the track, and it is not only American society.Socialism is in fact everywhere globally where there is "politics" and "government". Government is the tool socialism thrives from.
I just started to write a book about how the idea of Socialism is present at almost every level of our society and it continues to thrive on expanding governments, but not only that it is in the way of thinking, by distorting the once clear in language meanings into something else that protects it and causes conflict in society. Socialism is dangerous and evil idea, but it is also very dominating idea that is wielded mostly unconsciously - which makes it even more dangerous (think of people thinking good, but results end up powering this evil idea).
Socialists are possessed by the idea that they can promise something that collective (usually government will provide). Of course collective fails on that promise most of the time. What then for the solution? We lacked the resources, therefore we need more TAXES, more DEBT, more CONTROL - and this time it will be different!
Socialism as an idea infests not only government, but culture and language as well in order to protect itself. It distorts meanings. Let’s take economics for example: nowadays it almost certainly means Keynesian Economics which is not even backwards compatible with classical economics which reigned 250 years, but was of course discarded because politicians needed something to protect their actions in before great depression and afterwards as well. It changed totally the meaning of economics, and economics now is completely captured language and profession that serves these politicians. And this was just one example of the protective language and culture shell socialism has formed. There are many others, many taboos as well like: what if people and nations would generate more wealth and happiness with minimal government?
reply
Socialists are possessed by the idea that they can promise something that collective (usually government will provide). Of course collective fails on that promise most of the time. What then for the solution? We lacked the resources, therefore we need more TAXES, more DEBT, more CONTROL - and this time it will be different!
Indeed. I don't think most Americans realize how often their own politicians sound like Soviets and use the exact same logic. I'm not calling them all socialists but I get why some do. The hubris of politicians is hard to wrap your head around.
reply
Over the years I've learned most people...
  1. Don't really understand what socialism
  2. Think they oppose it
  3. Actually only have a problem with redistribution of money to things they don't like
reply
This is a good take on this idea.
I come from a country that is currently still socialist, but very extreme! Which is bleeding the nation dry, if not already dead...
The United States, a country whose main emblem is capitalism, and a president who emphasizes his nationalism every chance he gets amidst so much garbage politics, applies socialist concepts, and for better or worse, they mostly work! I think politicians paint you a capitalist image to win the campaign, and then they let that idea go for a bit and dip their toes into socialism!
reply
Freedom, even in small doses makes a big impact. Look at China. The US could be so much more prosperous if we ditched socialism.
reply
Disagree. The most prosperous era for USA was its mixed economy post WW2- till about 1975 when corporates took control of your government. Chinas mixed economy is far more effective. Free market ideologs ignore the reality that governments have a major influence over the wealth of nations and that allowing powerful industry lobbyists to control a government as has been the case in the US for decades now leads to economic decline and loss of competitive advantage.
reply
I agree with you 👌
reply
36 sats \ 1 reply \ @claos545 6 Aug
Not a fan of socialism at all , I live in Cuba, I know what it looks like when central planning runs everything. You're right, a lot of what people call "capitalism" in the US is full of centralized control. Hospitals, utilities, the Fed, it's all gatekept. Feels more like managed scarcity than a free market.
reply
Indeed. In the US they fool the masses into believing they have real freedom and free markets. Starts not long after birth.
reply

Airports

  • Imagine if somebody opened a TSA-free airport just outside a city.
  • The experience inside airport terminals sucks. Surely we could figure out how to sell a bottle of water for less than 500% markup.

Public restrooms (in the US at least)

  • why don't we have more pay-to-use public restrooms? I suspect it's a cultural thing (although it's also possible that it's just really hard to monetize well).

ISPs

  • There are two choices in my neighborhood. Seems surprising, considering everyone wants internet and is willing to pay for it.
reply
Airlines are another one. Though it is less central planning but rather bailouts where they get involved.
The FAA is probably the best example. Could probably use some competition. Of course there would need to be some sort of governing body like Insurance and a standards body but those could be private and voluntary. If one didn't care you should be able to fly on a wild-cat airline IMO. I wouldn't do it but I can see people choosing to do so.
See socialism usually just removes choices for the masses and calls it organized. When they fail at doing their job they say they need more money. We see this over an over again.
reply
What is always interesting to me is the paradox of logic. It is absurd to most people that a central party should be responsible for all the pizza in the US. Like if central planning is so good... why wouldn't you use it for everything. Since food is super important and all one would think it makes sense for the state to be over it right? To pick the winners and losers. Maybe even run it fully.
Obviously that fails in socialist nations. So if that doesn't work, why would one think that the best way to do even more important things is through central planning?
reply
Great examples. ISPs are one most people are clueless about.
reply
Education, concessions, regulated professional activities and, in the case of the territory where I live, everything on and under the ground belongs to the government.
reply
I finally get the opportunity to feel good about my home region. Long Island has remained the land of the volunteer firefighter.
reply
You speak small thing about everything which seems good but if you would split to more threads and talk more specific it will be better.
reply
Go for it. I'll read them.
reply
Having extensive experience in infrastructure when things go bad it’s always convenient to blame central planning but America has countless utility systems and hospitals that operate extremely well and provide excellent service to their customers.
When planning large capital projects such has hospitals and utilities you best make sure the project is economically viable or tons of waste will resort.
I never see you Free market guys bash things the free market gets wrong and with that comes destroyed capital and opportunity.
reply
Really? You never see companies mocked? I do. And what we are referring to isn't just planning. It's monopoly state actions. Every company is centrally planned but they have competition and market incentives to push against them.
Of course there is a scale of good to bad utilities. The issue is that when the government controls and centrally plans a utility and it doesnt work the public has few options.
Personally I'd much rather see private investors risk their capital than see them rig the system in their favor. That is what we see over and over again.
reply
But for systems that are life and death how do we know that private investors will put morals and ethics before profits?
reply
I'm not trying to be smart here but these are the same exact arguments that socialist (Soviets) would make. Just wanted to point that out because I used to think and say the same things.
I think you are making a straw man argument here. You think morals and ethics are present and a given more in the status quo? The incentives of the status quo political system are ethics and morals? The incentives in the monopoly state (democracy included) is power and prestige. Sure, there are moral and ethical people in the various parts of the system. Personally I think our system would work much better if the masses viewed politicians, and government run systems with the same suspicion you put forward of the private sector capitalists. For the record, I'm very suspicious of private companies and public ones like Amazon. Its just much easier for the public to send signals of displeasure to market actors vs. political actors.
But if I just take what you are putting forward as a given think about this. If a private company in a truly free market kills many people what is the consequence? Well... they just opened themselves to being boycotted and destroying the eyes of the public. They have opened themselves up to lawsuits. They opened themselves up to an upstart taking all their customers. The profit motive is a pretty good one. It seems to me to be faster and more decisive than the political systems.
Now, I'm not saying the market is enough. I think a society is built on ethics and morals. I just fail to see that the state monopoly is the best or only way this is brought about. In fact I think the status quo is dependent on a moral system outside of itself. I would argue that monopoly state power erodes morals and ethics. My belief about the US specifically is that the Christian influences on morals and ethics have largely been responsible for most of the good we see around us. The state seems to me to be a secular attempt to replace God with a man made construct. One that can speak things into existence. One that seeks to be the central part of people's lives. Something that you can't question. By contrast the free market is really just nature. Its freedom of choice. Its more democratic than any political system. It is amoral. I think we can agree on that.
I have to ask one more thing. If this is how you think about things that are so important as energy why on earth would you think bitcoin is a good idea? Shouldn't money be centrally managed and planned? I mean its much more influential and important than pretty much any other part of the economy.
reply
I think bitcoin is a good idea because it helps keep corruption at bay.
When you say I am making a straw man argument I’m not 100% sure what that means.
But overall I think we have some overlapping agreement. You mentioning Amazon is a good example of how the market can make it extremely difficult for an upstart to complete.
If a private company in a truly free market kills many people what is the consequence? Well... they just opened themselves to being boycotted and destroying the eyes of the public. They have opened themselves up to lawsuits.
Like what the cigarette companies did in the 20th century? They gaslighted society for decades before the state (which has an absolute monopoly on law interpretation) finally exposed them and let the population know that on average cigarettes are bad for you.
reply
Let me ask you a few questions.
  1. Do you think the state(governments broadly) have grown to big and powerful?
  2. Do you think there is a corruption problem in the US government?
  3. If you answer yes to those questions is this a structural problem or is it more of a cultural problem. In other words, how would we improve the status quo vs. starting over which is what I think?
This is kinda where I came from about 20 years ago. Kinda standard Republican views of the time.
For what its worth, I'd much rather see a world where the state is smaller and only really seeks to protect consumers from big corporations and foreign powers. The problem with this idea is that the incentives lead to the growth of the state to something like we have now and worse. If you let the camel put its nose under the corner of the tent the next thing you know its inside and has taken over.
Its hard for me to see a line to set and mechanism to keep the state in check. People will claim the Constitution but really its the people and the people are easily manipulated by politicians and the education system.
I would argue that the free-market thinkers have at least pushed back and limited the growth of the cancer a bit. Without people pushing back it will take over every aspect of our lives. Bitcoin and my faith in God are the two things that keep me from being black-pilled.
I think bitcoin is a good idea because it helps keep corruption at bay.
Why does it do that though? Why would their be corruption?
Like what the cigarette companies did in the 20th century? They gaslighted society for decades before the state (which has an absolute monopoly on law interpretation) finally exposed them and let the population know that on average cigarettes are bad for you.
This is my point. The state monopoly has taken the place of the market system in your example. Authority figures were not only not saying smoking was not bad, they said it was good. I'd argue that if you had competition for the "authority figure" role you'd probably had seen the public learn much faster. The state allowed this all to happen under their watch. I don't think that's a good example to say we need the state to keep industry in line.
What we need is the public to realize they can't depend on political systems to be ethical and motivated by their self interest. I'm not saying industry is motivated by the self interest of their customers but rather that the relationship is more transparent and therefore people tend to be more skeptical.
What I meant regarding the straw man was the ethical and moral question. You are asking about that with private businesses. Yeah, they aren't just gonna be always ethical. But the status quo isn't either. They are motivated by profit. Yeah, in modern times many try to market themselves as moral and ethical but your skepticism is fair. My point is the state/politics isn't moral or ethical either. So you are putting up a straw man on the market.
One last thought. Many people do not realize that the legal system can and does exist outside of the state. So I don't see your argument as a strong one for the state monopoly on violence for this is the root of the state's part to play.
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 7 Aug
One thing I couldn't get my head around is how the free market could solve e.g. safety standards. In my opinion, it's crucial to have standards to follow when implementing projects, especially in the public sector. For instance, if safety standards for train brakes are not maintained properly, a crash could occur, leading to fatalities. Similarly, in a laboratory, a virus could escape due to improper implementation of risk controls. I mean in certain areas, standards are required to ensure that individuals can operate together safely. This means that I usually don't get killed when going by train because it was more cost-efficient to eliminate safety standards in favor of performance features. Maybe I didn't use the best examples, but my take is that there are certain scenarios where central coordination is necessary, and I don't think the free market can solve everything entirely. Curious about stackers take. What do I miss?
reply
I think the traditional libertarian answer is that some combination of tort lawsuits, industry-agreed-upon standards, and privately run consumer information groups would be enough to keep the companies' behavior in check.
reply
Yes, but more to the point it is the anarco-capitalist position. Libertarian thought is WAY more broad.
The question Anon is asking are good ones. The simple answer is if need is really present and incentives align people acting in their own interests usually see it and work together. Free markets only work when people voluntarily co-operate. I don't have examples handy but there are plenty of standards bodies that have sprung up organically. Even though we have a state that is supposedly supposed to solve so many problems we still see many examples of things NOT being standardized.
The most common anarchist idea to fulfill many of the governance functions listed is insurance. Insurance already does this in many fields over the top of governments. Lets look at medial for example.
Doctors have malpractice insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits destroying their businesses if they make a mistake. These insurance companies have requirements that they enforce on their customers. Doctors and their practices are required to stay up to date on training. Consumers today depend on many privately run associations and things like that to validate a doctor. The status quo is not perfect but it is far from being fully centrally managed and I'd say there is a pretty good pattern to suggest it could operate just fine without a state. Maybe better.
The FDA has a pretty terrible track record for example. Its a monopoly. There are privately run institutions that test drugs and both approve drugs that help faster and have recommended against using drugs that are less safe before the FDA. You could still have an FDA but if it didn't have monopoly power to ban things people would have more choice to trust other institutions or the FDA. They could make determinations using their own risk tolerance.
reply
I don’t support price controls but I support affordable housing
I support fair trade not free trade
reply
You missed the US military and how US economy is built upon the strong arming of almost all other nations on earth over access to resources, commodities and markets.
The idea that free markets are the ideal is fine in theory until you acknowledge that humans for groups called nation states and these nation states are the mechanisms by which territory and resources are competed for.
The US is at best a crony capitalist empire maintaining its wealth via military power and domination of global institutions and protocols. Without that centralised power domination the US would be very swiftly insolvent.
reply
Socialism is like a Ponzi scheme. If you take money from one worker and give it to 8 lazy people, you lose 1 vote but gain 8.
"He's awaking ..."
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.