Re: economic history question
Would social unrest increase if the market were, for once, left alone? Has compromise moderated the calls for its destruction? Anton, Thanks for clarifying for me. Armchairs, this is more along the lines of what I meant by my question. It seems to me, at least from talking to many other students here at UGA, that popular opinion is that capitalism will be the downfall of us all and our only hope is for further government intervention. If the compromise of unemployment benefits and other programs was designed to moderate the calls for [capitalisms] destruction, it is not immediately obvious that the comprimise was successful. Bryan From: Anton Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:57:32 -0700 --- Bryan Etzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest had capitalism been left alone? Has/was capitalism been saved? Fred Foldvary wrote: There seem to be two different meanings of capitalism here. 1) capitalism left alone implies a pure market or close to it. 2) been saved implies the mixed economy we have always had. No contradiction. Would social unrest increase if the market were, for once, left alone? Has compromise moderated the calls for its destruction? The questions are not obviously absurd. -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/ _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: economic history question
Dear Lynn, to echo what has been mentioned by Bryan Etzel and Alex: You presuppose that leaving capitalism alone would have created social unrest (I assume by creating greater differences in income / fortunes) - although I have never seen any evidence of this claim: in fact, the Cato institute publiced a study on this some years ago, where the only detectable causality was between more capitalism (economic freedom) and less inequality - so one may in fact state that every implementet social policy has brought socialism closer, not saved capitalism. ...and on this last point! Has capitalism been saved? The current government involvement in the US economy - and thus de facto ownership of ressources is enourmous by any historical standart - even if it is low compared with Europe. Just because we have seen socialism in one hiddeous form (e.g. soviet union etc) - it does not necessarily follow that other forms of government (the US today) is Capitalism. - jacob The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to- work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- -- -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- NeoMail - Webmail
some history! RE: economic history question
A friend told me about her grandfather, on a striking picket line at Ford Motor Co. in freezing winter, during the Depression. The poor workers, peacefully striking on government streets, were sprayed with water by the Detroit fire department, who was there with the police. The water rapidly cooled towards freezing. This kind of gov't cruelty to protect the rich and their property rights is, to a large extent, the impetus to the creation of such socialistic/leftist orgs as the ACLU, etc. I'm sure most of FDR's New Deal was based on an attempt to solve The Problem of the Poor People. And very subject to the various existing political influences. If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. Until there are better answers, in practical examples, of systems that are more capitalist with fewer poor, the socialist example (threat?) remains seductive to many, many people. I'm keeping my eye out for answers, including this Armchair list. Tom Grey PS I found this Abstract on the net: - Katherine Baicker, Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz NBER Working Paper No.w5889* Issued in January 1997 Abstract - Unemployment compensation in the United States was signed into law in August 1935 as part of the omnibus Social Security Act. Drafted in a period of uncertainty and economic distress, the portions that dealt with unemployment insurance were crafted to achieve a multiplicity of goals, among them passage of the act and a guarantee of its constitutionality. Along with the federal-state structure went experience-rating and characteristics added by the states, such as the limitation on duration of benefits. The U.S. unemployment compensation system is distinctive among countries by virtue of its federal-state structure, experience-rating, and limitation on benefits. We contend that these features were products of the times, reflecting expediency more than efficiency, and thus that UI would have been different had it been passed in another decade. But how different is the UI system in the United States because of these features, and how have they affected the U.S. labor market? We present evidence showing that more seasonality in manufacturing employment in 1909-29 is related to higher UI benefits from 1947 to 1969, if a state's manufacturing employment share is below the national mean. Lobbying activities of seasonal industries appear important in the evolution of the parameters. We also present suggestive evidence on the relationship between declining seasonality and experience-rating. *Published: Moment: The Great Depression and the American Economy in the TwentiethCentury. Edited by Michael D. Bordo, Claudia Goldin, and Eugene N. White,Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998, pp. 227-263. You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery. Information for subscribers and others expecting no-cost downloads If you normally receive free downloads but are having trouble with the new system, please contact us and use this link to download the paper. --
Re: some history! RE: economic history question
If there was a capitalistic system with very few or no poor people, it's answer to the question of the poor would be extremely interesting. Tom Grey Taiwan has develped rapidly while maintaining a distribution of income more equal than that of Sweden. It was able to do this with land reform combined with taxing much of the land rent. A market economy can have both more efficiency and more equity relative to today's economies by shifting taxation off of wages and capital and onto rent. Excessive regulations would also need to be removed. That would go a long way to reducing poverty, without a welfare state. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
RE: economic history question
--- Bryan Etzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest had capitalism been left alone? Has/was capitalism been saved? There seem to be two different meanings of capitalism here. 1) capitalism left alone implies a pure market or close to it. 2) been saved implies the mixed economy we have always had. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/
economic history question
Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray
RE: economic history question
That was certainly Bismarck's theory when he introduced them to Germany in the 1870's. It was a part of an effort to undermine the Social Democratic Party in Germany. -Original Message- From: Gray, Lynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: economic history question Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray
Re: economic history question
There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: economic history question
We need data! -Please it is fairly obvious the question being asked here. If you want to differentiate in one's answer that's understandable, but otherwise the question is straightforward. -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: economic history question
Most observers have always been very surprised that there never was a big demand for socialism in the United States - even at the height of the depression. The New Deal was very much driven by the Executive branch not by Congress - thus I think things could have been quite different had we not had FDR. Alex P.S. Note also that many of the programs of the New Deal had the effect of increasing and lengthening unemployment thus the safety net of unemployment insurance could be seen as more of a safety net for the New Deal than for capitalism. -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: economic history question
The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: economic history question
Lynn, It seems that you have one observation to base your conclusion. There may have been numerous other reasons why socialism declined in the US: WWII (socialism may have been unpatriotic, the Great Depression, the 1929 stock market crash (people may have felt sorry for the rich), happened by chance, etc. The basic problem here is that there is one observation, with many competing potential causes. Without more data, one cannot make a defensible conclusion about the cause of the observation. Tim Maull On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Gray, Lynn wrote: The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: economic history question
Most observers have always been very surprised that there never was a big demand for socialism in the United States - even at the height of the depression. The New Deal was very much driven by the Executive branch not by Congress - thus I think things could have been quite different had we not had FDR. Alex I don't share that interpretation. I think the American party system was able to absorb and ameliorate the demand for socialism. My take is that the American labor movement was quite like the European socialist movement, and was quite prominent (remember Eugene V. Debs?). But the big parties were able to produce concessions - for ex, TR's trust busting or FDR's New Deal. Fabio
RE: economic history question
Thanks. To be honest, I had a suspicion this is what you meant, but wanted to hear it for sure. My study of history never gave me the impression that the push for socialism - not just socialist programs like unemployment insurance and right-to-work programs, but actual community ownership of the means of production - was never as severe in the U.S. as it was in Europe. I think the few instances of open socialist sentiment - the Haymarket riots, the various commune experiments of the Progressive era, etc - are noted historically because they're unique and atypical, not because they're indicative of a trend. And while the Progressive movement itself - Frank Norris, Ida Tarbell, etc - probably drew a lot of water from the socialist well, I don't think it would be ideologically accurate to call that movement socialist itself. So, my answer is: I don't think there was a strong socialist movement in the U.S. to begin with, so I don't know how legitimate the question is. -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:35:48 -0500 The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: economic history question
Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest had capitalism been left alone? Has/was capitalism been saved? From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:35:48 -0500 The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
RE: economic history question
Well, of course it cant be stated absolutely either way. My impression is that over time from the populist movement of the late 1800s to the 1930s the nations patience with the down side of pure capitalism declined. I could be wrong in that though. Lynn -Original Message- From: Bryan Etzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 3:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Would we have seen an increasing level of social unrest had capitalism been left alone? Has/was capitalism been saved? From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:35:48 -0500 The program I was manly referring to was the unemployment insurance program. By calls for the US to abandon capitalism I was referring to the vocal supporters of American socialism back in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The % share of the US public which advocates socialism has seemingly declined since programs like unemployment insurance have been put in place. If it were not for these type of programs might we have seen an increasing level of social unrest with a decreasing patience with capitalism. Such increasing unrest finally giving way to the end of capitalism and to US socialism. Thus it would follow that limited govt interventions in the market actually saved capitalism. Lynn -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray --- - -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
