Roth conversion

[Bubba]

Yes, England had abolished slavery in England itself and began doing so in the colonies afterward. I acknowledged that the US wasn't first. They even created a fleet whose mission was to stop slave ships on the open seas.

England wasn't capitalist during the last centuries of it's slave period (earlier centuries used the feudal system of economics). From the 16th to the 18th centuries, the economic system they were under was mercantilism, not capitalism. After they switched to a free trade / imperialist capitalism approach is when they eliminated slavery. In England's case, capitalism actually contributed to the end of slavery.

Yes, Venezuela is socialistic if one goes by the core definition of socialism. The workers - via the government - have seized the means of production of the entire economy. Is there a dictator? Sure - somebody has to be at the top. Socialist structures can exist with or without a dictator, but most of them will have them. Purely communist ones can on the very small scale (see communes in the US who operate under as socialist or communist rules within, but rely on interaction with the rest of capitalist society to exist), but large ones always need a group that gets dominated by single leader (USSR, China, etc.).

"England wasn't capitalist during the last centuries of it's slave period (earlier centuries used the feudal system of economics). From the 16th to the 18th centuries, the economic system they were under was mercantilism, not capitalism. After they switched to a free trade / imperialist capitalism approach is when they eliminated slavery. In England's case, capitalism actually contributed to the end of slavery."

Agreed that they were mercantilist, but by 1860 they were fully into pure capitalism (https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Me ... re%20freed. and https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog ... lism-in-uk). When they were pure capitalist, while many were lifted out of poverty, living/working conditions were atrocious. This is because when companies have full control of an economy...they do what's best for the companies which is make as much profit as possible (which by the way, should be their priority). That's where my point is that government has to intervene or profit measures will take all priority.

"Yes, Venezuela is socialistic if one goes by the core definition of socialism. The workers - via the government - have seized the means of production of the entire economy. Is there a dictator? Sure - somebody has to be at the top. Socialist structures can exist with or without a dictator, but most of them will have them."

Here's where I disagree. If there's a dictator, then by definition it's impossible that workers control anything. Yes, perhaps in name they have some control, but the dictator (with friends and trusted helpers) literally control everything. It is impossible for socialism to thrive under a dictatorship and why there are no socialist states (or ever have been). Here is a great reference (https://www.governmentvs.com/en/sociali ... ..although i think it loads badly because there are some odd spelling/word mistakes).

[bloobs]

If there's a dictator, then by definition it's impossible that workers control anything. Yes, perhaps in name they have some control, but the dictator (with friends and trusted helpers) literally control everything. It is impossible for socialism to thrive under a dictatorship and why there are no socialist states (or ever have been). ...

True. Always the case. Seen it first-hand up-front with my own eyes and ears in my int'l visits.

Further, any nation that somehow allows itself to be led by a despot regardless of its "official" ideology (be it socialism, capitalism, monarchy, fascism (of course!)), succumbs to this very top heavy power imbalance, wherein the top 1% assumes absolute control of all levers of society. Again, this is just HUMAN NATURE that causes this phenomena to play out. Hundreds of years of written history proves this.

Here is when, instead of ideology, the nation's political systemcomes in play to legislate and enforce the controls that prevent the aforementioned suction of power from the masses to the very few at the very top.

In the USA, its the principles as originally outlined in the US Constitution is what has (so far) provided this control. You know, the document that everyone trendily poo-poos nowadays as irrelevant and outdated.

[Aitrus]

Here's where I disagree. If there's a dictator, then by definition it's impossible that workers control anything. Yes, perhaps in name they have some control, but the dictator (with friends and trusted helpers) literally control everything. It is impossible for socialism to thrive under a dictatorship and why there are no socialist states (or ever have been). Here is a great reference (https://www.governmentvs.com/en/sociali ... ..although i think it loads badly because there are some odd spelling/word mistakes).

Socialism can never endure. It has always devolved, often into despotism, as part of the change from socialistic rule by a group chosen from among the "more equal than others" upper crust of the proletariat, and eventually to communistic rule by small group / dictator. The transition to communism can either be ushered in by a cult of personality (Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin), or by popular vote of the populace and the dictator arises in the power vaccuum (China's Communist Revolution in 1949),

"True socialism" is just a transitory phase according to Marx and Engels. When a dictatorship arrives, you know that socialism has run it's full course, having been implemented fully and faithfully, and the next phase has begun. It's the first step of that particular brand of authoritarianism. There are other brands of authoritarianism - fascism (a strongly nationalistic variant of socialism), strong absolute monarchy, etc. All are bad news and are best avoided at all costs.

But just because the government has oversight doesn't mean it's socialist. It's the manner by which the government gets its power, and what checks and balances (if any) exist to limit that power. That's why a capitalist economic system refereed by a government empowered to do that - and only that - is the best system yet devised.

Yes - completely free capitalism is bad. I agree. Under the system I describe above, unions (so long as they operate within their intended role and not as extortionists) can arise to counteract bad business practices and eliminate the problems you cite (terrible working conditions, child labor, etc). The government can enact rules and laws to compel businesses to conform to certain practices or standards, but such power is legitimate only so long as the rules and laws aren't overly prohibitive, invasive, serve to benefit one business or sector over another, big business over small business (or vice versa), or coerce the performance of certain behaviors (forcing religious bakers to make art that violates their beliefs). When government rules and laws regulating businesses adds excessive costs, unjustly inhibits growth, and threatens the survival of the business, then the government has gone too far.

And it's wrong for the government to get overly involved not only because of ethics and moral issues, but due to how it affects the people within the system as established by the Constitution (as bloobs correctly pointed out) - family finances, costs of goods, the ability of retired persons to afford living expenses, etc. The 9th and 10th Amendments are clear about the limits of governmental power, but they are ignored every day. At present, the government enacts so many rules and laws that the elderly become dependent on government for basic survival, when that should not be the case at all. The government should not create conditions which cause a feedback loop that it fosters dependence on government benefits via socialistic means.

[Bubba]

Here's where I disagree. If there's a dictator, then by definition it's impossible that workers control anything. Yes, perhaps in name they have some control, but the dictator (with friends and trusted helpers) literally control everything. It is impossible for socialism to thrive under a dictatorship and why there are no socialist states (or ever have been). Here is a great reference (https://www.governmentvs.com/en/sociali ... ..although i think it loads badly because there are some odd spelling/word mistakes).

And it's wrong for the government to get overly involved not only because of ethics and moral issues, but due to how it affects the people within the system as established by the Constitution (as bloobs correctly pointed out) - family finances, costs of goods, the ability of retired persons to afford living expenses, etc. The 9th and 10th Amendments are clear about the limits of governmental power, but they are ignored every day. At present, the government enacts so many rules and laws that the elderly become dependent on government for basic survival, when that should not be the case at all. The government should not create conditions which cause a feedback loop that it fosters dependence on government benefits via socialistic means.

This is the part that also concerns me, especially where good pensions have been eliminated for people and so they're reliant on social security (https://files.epi.org/charts/img/11360-body.png). The whole 401k idea is a mess. I personally do like the 401k because if you do it early enough and understand how it works, the outcome can be better than a traditional pension. Most people don't have the time or interest to understand it and then you end up with this stuff (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/30/fidelit ... in-us.html) where the 401k basically means almost nothing. As a result, SS is a lifeline, but that'll be unreliable for the future too.

Now I think things will be even more difficult for our children once the new trend of retirement "accounts" becomes the norm https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/what-ib ... rkers.html. Imagine having a treasury return for your pension. Ouch!

[Aitrus]

Good points, Bubba. Great conversation.

I wish that basic financial planning - including investment for retirement, the effects of compounding, how to manage / stay out of debt, how taxes work, etc. - was a mandatory requirement to graduate middle and high school (start basic lessons in 8th grade, reinforce in 11 or 12th grade). If school is meant to prepare students for functioning as an adult in society, then this should be just as civics or health classes. It would take a generation or two, but eventually the average number of people in the nation who are proactive about preparing for retirement would go up significantly.

But, alas, having watched my kids go through it and my wife teach at several, I've come to the conclusion is that modern high school is focused on preparing kids for college (which isn't the optimal path for a large portion of students anyway), not for living a successful and meaningful life in society. It's a shame, and a real lost opportunity.

[Bubba]

Good points, Bubba. Great conversation.

I wish that basic financial planning - including investment for retirement, the effects of compounding, how to manage / stay out of debt, how taxes work, etc. - was a mandatory requirement to graduate middle and high school (start basic lessons in 8th grade, reinforce in 11 or 12th grade). If school is meant to prepare students for functioning as an adult in society, then this should be just as civics or health classes. It would take a generation or two, but eventually the average number of people in the nation who are proactive about preparing for retirement would go up significantly.

But, alas, having watched my kids go through it and my wife teach at several, I've come to the conclusion is that modern high school is focused on preparing kids for college (which isn't the optimal path for a large portion of students anyway), not for living a successful and meaningful life in society. It's a shame, and a real lost opportunity.

There are some school districts trying to address that problem. My children's district is making financial courses mandatory. I'm pretty stoked about that. Sadly, however, then other things come into play like information degradation, quality of instruction, quality of books, etc. Even so, I'm happy that things will be introduced to those kids.

I also agree on a different notion you mentioned. I think we've thrown basic civics courses out the window. In the book Bowling Alone (Putnam), we can see that there's a long trajectory of less engagement by people within their communities. He primarily makes a good argument blaming that on the TV. I see other changes due to phones...so likely things will look different soon enough. Even so, it would be great if our society were to consider addressing the eventual loss of further engagement by prodding young people to engage while in school and other places (of course some would argue that a school fix is another government fix...but something is better than nothing!).

Thanks!

[Aitrus]

Bowling Alone is a great book that has been kind of (wrongly) dismissed ignored by many schools and in academia because it strongly supports civic nationalism. Seems as if anything with the word "nationalism" or a nationalistic political view is automatically bad for some reason.

But the rest of your points - agreed.