Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Letters: Curry was right not to raise taxes; and letter on socialism was bogus – The Florida Times-Union

Times-Union readers| Florida Times-Union

Curry was correct not to

raises taxes in pandemic

Mayor Lenny Currys proposal to keep the city budget and our property tax rates the same as the previous year is responsible.

Local families and the business community have taken an economic beating during the pandemic. Now is not the time to raise taxes.

Due to government shutdowns, businesses have lost substantial revenues. Small businesses need more help than government bureaucracies as The New York Times reported that more than 40 percent of the nations 30 million small businesses could close permanently in the next six months because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Even in this current dire situation for Jacksonvilles taxpayers, there are those that continue to argue for tax increases. One of the common claims is that Jacksonvilles taxes are too low and that Jacksonville does not spend enough on city government compared to rival cities. This is misguided. To be fair, Jacksonvilles tax rate is lower, and should be lower, because it has the benefit of consolidated government.

For example, having one police agency in lieu of 31 municipalities like Broward County saves Jacksonville a lot of money. The same goes for the fire, building, public works and all the other consolidated departments that allow Jacksonville to be vastly more efficient.

Not raising taxes at this critical time in our citys history while businesses are struggling is of utmost importance. The city leaders have a duty to the people to smartly set tax rates as well as to properly manage existing tax revenues. Doing so will bolster economic activity and create a better business environment. Only a profitable business community will have the money to hire and invest and ultimately to pay the taxes to sustain quality city services.

Bill Spinner, builder-developer, Jacksonville

Norman Thomas quote was bogus,

and so was writers logic

A recent letter railed against creeping socialism in the U.S, utilizing a bogus quote from former Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas that predicted Americans would adopt socialism under the name of liberalism. The letter implies that any public policy called liberal is just a cover for socialism. The purported Thomas quote lends authority to the warning.

Thomas did not make any such claim. Both Politifact and Snopes conducted exhaustive searches for the quote through Thomas writings and speeches online as well as through a curator of Thomas archives at the New York Public Library. The quote does not appear anywhere in Thomas works.

If federal programs that directly affect peoples lives is a definition of socialism, then rail against Medicare, Social Security, federal tax mortgage interest deductions, federal relief after natural disasters and the myriad other federal programs that redirect tax dollars fromgovernment coffers to our pockets. The problem, then, is not liberalism but every one of us, conservative and liberal.

Richard Birdsall, Jacksonville

Read more:
Letters: Curry was right not to raise taxes; and letter on socialism was bogus - The Florida Times-Union

Should we really trust the experts? – The Troy Messenger – Troy Messenger

Experts in public health and epidemiology have driven policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic. How much should we trust experts? Critics dismiss Republicans who voice distrust of experts as anti-science. Yet even experts know very little about complex economies and societies.

Frustration with experts does cross party lines. New Yorks Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo recently remarked of experts forecasts of hospital usage, They were all wrong.

The Wisdom of Crowds argument, wonderfully explained by James Suroweicki, provides a first reason for doubt. Numerous seemingly poorly informed opinions can be remarkably wise. Mr. Suroweicki relates a story from British scientist Francis Galton about a contest at a country fair in 1906. Nearly 800 people paid sixpence to guess the weight of an ox (after being slaughtered and dressed); the average was only one pound off.

The theory of efficient financial markets illustrates another reason for skepticism. An old joke was that darts thrown at the stock page were as reliable as a brokers recommendations. Why? Stock prices quickly incorporate all available information. With all information priced, a stock price is as likely to go up as down. The market can be consistently beaten only with inside information.

The central planning of socialism represents the most thorough application of expertise to an economy. Proponents thought that scientific socialism would replace the chaos and waste of the market with rationally ordered economic activity. Only a handful of economists in the 1930s and 1940s, notably Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, argued coherently that socialism would fail.

Socialism failed in part due to the different nature of truths in the physical and social sciences. Truth in the physical sciences in general and timeless: water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and boils at 212 degrees. Truth in economics depends on time and place. Are trains the best way to travel between American cities? True in the latter half of the 1800s, but now flying and driving dominate.

Another factor is the subjective value of goods and services, meaning based on the wants, needs, and desires of consumers. Goods are valuable because people will pay money for them. People differ greatly in their wants and needs, making it nearly impossible to predict what will be valuable, as pet rocks from the 1970s and the variety of videos on YouTube with millions of views illustrate.

Experts are disadvantaged on economic questions. Truths cannot be learned from a textbook, may not hold everywhere (or anywhere tomorrow), and depend on idiosyncratic consumer preferences.

The other part of the argument against socialism is the miraculous degree of coordination in markets. Thousands of products from around the world are available in a grocery store without preordering a week in advance. The times we cant get what we want, like the recent toilet paper shortage, stand out.

By contrast, central planning in the former Soviet Union produced empty shelves. People would wait in line for hours to buy goods. Russians would join lines without even asking what people were waiting for.

No one would hold a high school dance without a committee to plan the event. Yet the market economy has no one in charge, no one with the power to command others. Coordination occurs voluntarily and is called spontaneous order. And the market does not merely repeat what was done yesterday, it offers improvements too. No one ordered Mark Zuckerberg to start Facebook, he just decided to try.

Politicians rely on experts to devise policies because America has, in Abraham Lincolns words, a government for the people. In America, restrictions on our freedom can be justified only if they make us as opposed to the rulers better off.

Politicians consequently seek out the experts willing to justify policies. Economists who do not understand economic knowledge, subjective value, and spontaneous order will offer unrealistic claims about how government will improve our lives. Such experts exhibit what Professor Hayek called, The Fatal Conceit. We should not trust experts who are unaware of the limits of their expertise.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University. The opinions expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

I am the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

Continue reading here:
Should we really trust the experts? - The Troy Messenger - Troy Messenger

This Week @CPUSA: How to fix a canceled election – Communist Party USA

This Week: John Lewiss funeral, Trumps attempt to postpone the election, and the HEROES Act.

Image: Stephen Harlan, Creative Commons (BY 2.0).

The Communist Party USA is a working class organization founded in 1919 in Chicago, IL.

The Communist Party stands for the interests of the American working class and the American people. It stands for our interests in both the present and the future. Solidarity with workers of other countries is also part of our work. We work in coalition with the labor movement, the peace movement, the student movement, organizations fighting for equality and social justice, the environmental movement, immigrants rights groups and the health care for all campaign.

But to win a better life for working families, we believe that we must go further. We believe that the American people can replace capitalism with a system that puts people before profit socialism.

We are rooted in our country's revolutionary history and its struggles for democracy. We call for "Bill of Rights" socialism, guaranteeing full individual freedoms.

View post:
This Week @CPUSA: How to fix a canceled election - Communist Party USA

Universities prepare to blame students for COVID-19 outbreaks – WSWS

By Trvon Austin 1 August 2020

As in-person classes resume in the fall, the uncoordinated and insufficient response of administrators poses a serious risk of a further spread of COVID-19. Indeed, the American ruling class is fully aware of the inevitability of a surge in cases if schools are reopened. In light of this, colleges and universities are prepared to blame the spread of the coronavirus on students.

Tulane University dean of students Erica Woodley sent out a scornful email July 7, after a number of students partied on the July 4 weekend. Woodley chided students for disrespectful, selfish and dangerous behavior and posed the question [d]o you really want to be the reason that Tulane and New Orleans have to shut down again? In bold and all caps, Woodley threatened students with suspension or expulsion if they hosted gatherings with 15 or more students.

Woodleys email is a verbal expression of a sentiment shared by university officials across the US. Authorities admonished students for not following social distancing measures in the spring and summer. A recent survey of 70 universities found that 57 percent were considering updating their code of conduct, or already had done so, to enforce social distancing guidelines. Failure to comply will lead to severe disciplinary action.

Images on social media of youth partying with a disregard for social distancing have spawned a narrative that young people are responsible for the recent surge in infections. Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the Trump administrations coronavirus response coordinator, said officials did not anticipate the rise in infections among those aged between 18 and 35. Birx suggested that youth, who were so good and so disciplined through March and April, threw caution to the wind after seeing their friends having fun.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, complained that those under the age of 35 were the age cohort that believes in many cases that they are invincible, and they are somehow immune from the impacts of COVID-19. New York Citys official Twitter account posted a chart showing infection rates increasing among young people. The tweet pointed to millennials and Generation X, telling the age groups to do better.

Despite the irresponsibility of some youth, and the role risky celebrations played in spreading the virus, such criticisms are founded on a lie. The unbridled spread of COVID-19 is not the fault of a relatively small number of students but is a direct consequence of the criminal response of the American ruling class.

The policy of the American government during the pandemic has been entirely oriented to the whims of the financial and corporate elite. After implementing a brief lockdown and securing a multi-trillion-dollar handout for the wealthy, states and the federal government prematurely reopened the economy to ensure the extraction of profit from the working class could continue unabated.

In fact, the rising infection rate among young people is directly linked to this policy. Rather than social gatherings, the trend is explained by the substantial number of students and youth employed in jobs that have been deemed essential or reopened widely after lockdown measures expired.

In retail, one of the first industries to reopen, approximately 56 percent of clothing store workers are below the age of 35, as are 70 percent of workers at shoe stores and 60 percent at electronic stores. According to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly two-thirds of restaurant workers are 34 or younger, and nearly half of all grocery store workers as well.

Even if one takes the parties into account, these were not simply the responsibility of the youth involved, but were encouraged and promoted by definite political and social forces. One must note the role the Trump administration, state governors and the media played in encouraging laxity; the parties hosted by youth and small protests against social distancing measures were framed as reflecting a widespread desire to get back to normal and utilized as justification to accelerate reopening the economy.

Furthermore, youth forgoing weeks of social isolation to enjoy human interaction is an understandable, although reckless, impulse. For many young adults, the loneliness that accompanies isolation takes a toll on their mental health. In an April survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported nearly half of people between 18 and 29 felt symptoms of anxiety or depression. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for people under 35, suggesting a serious mental health crisis among younger layers.

Rather than acknowledging the miserable response of the government, universities are hoping the personal responsibility of students will be sufficient enough to contain outbreaks on campuses. Students are being set up to take the blame when outbreaks do occur and schools are forced to shut down. It should go without saying that the task of keeping campuses safe is not primarily, let alone solely, the responsibility of students.

Containing the coronavirus in a campus setting is a tall order. According to a study by Harvard and Yale researchers, controlling the virus would require all students to be tested every two to three days, not to mention the need for intense contact tracing. Approximately 20 million students attended colleges and universities in 2019. Currently, the testing capacity in the United States is nowhere near the level to keep up with the testing required.

While insisting schooling resume in the fall, the US government has left universities to deal with the challenges of opening during a pandemic. The CDC failed to recommend entry testing of all returning students, faculty, and staff. The Trump administration asserts that science cannot get in the way of reopening schools, and impedes efforts to implement safe educational environments.

One can also point to financial interests behind ensuring in-person classes resume. Dormitory costs are a significant source of revenue for schools. Colleges charge students above market rates for housing as a less transparent way of augmenting revenues without formally raising tuition fees. In fact, campus housing prices have risen far more than the price of housing in the broader economy.

One 2014 study showed that from 1976 to 2013, the inflation-adjusted rate of increase in public university housing costs was about 72 percent, compared to less than 5 percent for housing in general. Many universities also require students to stay on campus up to their sophomore year.

Blaming students for the nigh inevitable surge in COVID-19 cases that will accompany reopening schools only serves to mask the recklessness of the decision. A recent study found that between 70 and 80 percent of infected individuals aged 20 to 35 are asymptomatic. This exposes the danger of reopening schools. The virus could spread through student populations without many being aware they carry the virus.

Students must oppose the drive to rush back to school under grossly unsafe conditions. The fight to ensure the safety of students, faculty, and staff is intimately linked with the struggle against the capitalist system, which has elevated the right to profit above the right to life. The International Youth and Students for Social Equality urges students to join the fight for socialism.

View post:
Universities prepare to blame students for COVID-19 outbreaks - WSWS

Opinion | What The NBA Can Teach Us About Fixing Income Inequality – The New York Times

The United States is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. People who arent wealthy have less chance of success and less chance for their children to succeed. When you talk about fixing these things, though, people freak out. Taxing the rich? Helping the poor? To many Americans, that smells like socialism. But theres one part of American society that has been successfully fighting inequality for years, and right under our noses, because they know just how important it is to make sure everyone gets a fair chance. Thats right, Im talking about the National Basketball Association. [UPBEAT MUSIC PLAYING] See, in the N.B.A., there are rich teams and poor teams. The New York Knicks, the Los Angeles Lakers and other big-city teams charge more for tickets, sell more merchandise and strike bigger broadcasting deals. Theyre rolling in money. Meanwhile, the Phoenix Suns and Minnesota Timberwolves are struggling to get by. Now, you may be thinking, great. Thats competition for you. Let the best team win, right? Well, no. The N.B.A. wants competition on the court. But to maintain that competition and make sure every team has a fighting chance, the N.B.A. imposes strict rules to limit competition everywhere else. Lets take a look. Rule 1: revenue sharing. The N.B.A. makes about $2.6 billion every year from national television deals. But that money is divided evenly among the teams, regardless of how many viewers each team attracts. Popular teams, which bring in huge audiences, are actually giving up some of their earnings to help out teams that are less profitable. Rule 2: spending limits. Theres this thing called the salary cap. Its a limit on how much each team can spend on players. Last year, it was about $110 million. And every team has to stay under that limit. So instead of a no-holds-barred free market, the N.BA. is actually stepping in to make sure the wealthy teams dont always outbid everyone else. And that means poor teams can make competitive salary offers to top players. Rule 3: the Draft. New players enter the N.B.A. through a draft. But how do you decide who gets first dibs on the hot talent? Well, its not random. The N.B.A. awards those precious top draft picks to the worst teams. Thats right. Each seasons worst teams are actually rewarded for their failures by getting a better chance at the top pick. And that gives them a head start on building a better team for next season. So why does the N.B.A. do all this? Simply put, they know that unregulated competition would be a disaster. The rich teams would use their mountains of cash to buy up all the best players, and soon, theyd have a chokehold on the league. Youd start to see the same few teams in the championship every year Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Just imagine the Knicks. It would be a lot like the rest of America, where the wealthiest people can set their kids up with trust funds, while everyone else struggles just to pay the rent. But maybe youre wondering, why do rich teams agree to share their hard-earned profits with their poorer rivals? Well, the answer is simple the Lakers need other teams to play good teams. Otherwise, whats the point? The only reason fans show up for basketball is because we believe its a fair fight. We need to know that with enough talent, hard work and good old-fashioned luck, any team has a chance at the championship. Without that level playing field, it would be boring as hell, and bad business for the N.B.A. And heres the thing a level playing field would be good for the rest of us too. So what would it take for America to look a little more like the N.B.A.? Well, we would need higher taxes on the wealthy to redistribute money from the rich to the rest of us. And, just like the N.B.A. draft, we would need to give poor folks a better shot at opportunity, like making sure everyone has access to education and good housing. Thats what a leg up looks like. Now, obviously, you cant run a country like a sports league. And the N.B.A. has plenty of flaws too. The rich owners keep getting richer, just like the rest of the country. And while the players are well compensated, thousands of other workers, the ones who collect tickets, sell popcorn, clean the stands, dont make very much at all. But we can still learn a lesson from the N.B.A. They havent abolished winners and losers. They havent abolished capitalism or wealth or profit. They just keep teams from using those profits to rig the system and spoil the game for everyone. Thats not socialism. Its just fair play. So which world do you want to live in? A society where everyone has a chance to succeed or one where the winners are always the New York Knicks?

Follow this link:
Opinion | What The NBA Can Teach Us About Fixing Income Inequality - The New York Times