Mediaboss Marketing

Wouldnt we all prefer to live in an economy that brought out the best in us? Socialists often argue that their ideal system is more moral than the selfish greed of market life. But some of the best defenses of the free market argue that it in fact encourages virtuous behavior.[i]

Its in everyones interest to be honest and hardworking, for example, since news of ones not being so can easily spread throughout the marketplace and harm ones ability to make money.[ii]

Virtue must come primarily from outside the marketplace.

Other defenders of the free market, however, argue that while the free market depends on a culture of virtue, it cannot provide the sole foundation for that culture. Instead, virtue must come primarily from outside the marketplace, from institutions whose primary purpose lies beyond economic productivity. The most important advocate of this view was 20th-century economist Wilhelm Rpke.[iii]

Rpke defended the free market, but he did not think that the free market left to itself could produce the conditions favorable to its perpetuation. Instead, he argued that a free market order could not grow and flourish without the fertile soil of a sound moral fabric.

Rpke understood that the free market, at least to some extent, encourages morality and that the free market is clearly superior to a socialist economy: In capitalism we have a freedom of moral choice, and no one is forced to be a scoundrel. But this is precisely what we are forced to be in a collectivist social and economic system because people there are forced to act against their own nature, he writes.[iv]

If the collectivist economy is to function, it needs heroes or saints.

Why? Rpke explained that if the collectivist economy is to function, it needs heroes or saints, and since there are none, it leads straight to the police state. In all socialist economies or modern welfare states, moreover, the allegedly higher morality behind social programs is propped up by police and penalties [that] enforce compliance with economic commands.[v]

As a result, heavy tax burdens paid under threat of force make people unable to care for those closest to them as much as they may like, therefore effectively legislating what people in many cases would judge to be immoral. By contrast, only under political and economic freedom do people have the ability to be good, for to be good, an action must be committed freely.

An even more reliable source of virtue than the market, however, are local institutions whose primary purpose is not the exchange of goods and services. Ropke argues that social factors such as family, religion, and tradition provide the economy with an indispensable bourgeois foundation in which people exercise virtues such as

individual effort and responsibility, absolute norms and values, independence based upon ownership, prudence and daring, calculating and saving, responsibility for planning ones own life firm moral discipline, respect for the value of money, the courage to grapple on ones own with life and its uncertainties, a sense of the natural order of things, and a firm scale of values.[vi]

Such local institutions have as part of their primary purpose the inculcation of virtue and the enjoyment of higher-order goods, and they teach people a firm scale of values that reminds us that the creation of wealth and the spending of money are lower-order goods. In other words, the free market is a positive good that can nevertheless do little to show us the meaning of life.

Disregarding this truth, Rpke believed, tended to make the pursuit of material well-being drift into the demand for immediate material enjoyment, the economic manifestation of which was a Keynesian unconcern for the future that regards it as a virtue to contract debts and foolishness to save.[vii] Placing too much of a burden on the free market to provide us with the source of our social morality paradoxically undermines the perpetuation of sound economics and the free market itself.

To summarize, the free market does encourage some level of social morality, while collectivist economic systems undermine it. Yet Rpke argued, correctly I think, that we cannot rely primarily on the free market and certainly not on the free market alone to produce the social morality the market itself needs to thrive.

[i] McCloskey is the best contemporary advocate of this thesis. See, for example, Deirdre McCloskey, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce (University of Chicago Press, 2006); Deirdre McCloskey, Avarice, Prudence, and the Bourgeois Virtues, in Having: Property and Possession in Religious and Social Life, edited by William Schweiker and Charles Mathews (Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 312336; and Donald McCloskey, Bourgeois Virtue, American Scholar, Vol. 63, No. 2: 177191.

[ii] McCloskey, Bourgeois Virtue, 182.

[iii] Rpke was a German economist who fled the Nazi regime first to Istanbul and then to Switzerland, where his writings would provide the intellectual groundwork of the wirtschaftswunder the German economic miracle that saw West Germany move rapidly out of the destruction of total war to being the most robust economy in Europe in only a few decades. He was present at the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society along with such great thinkers as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

[iv] Wilhelm Rpke, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market (ISI Books, 1998), 121.

[v] Ibid., 120.

[vi] Ibid., 98.

[vii] Ibid., 100.

See the rest here:
Does the market make us good? Does socialism? - Learn Liberty (blog)

In a Sunday article for the New York Times, Sarah Leonard argues for socialism. Socialist leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, Leonard says, are working with a coalition of young leftists to serve millennials.

An editor at The Nation, Leonard's case fixes on three points. First, that millennials need stronger union power in order to attain better living standards. Second, that capitalism has failed. Third, that larger government is beneficial.

Leonard is wrong on each count.

She starts by lamenting that "...there is no left-wing party devoted to protecting the interests of the poor, the working class and the young." Leonard blames declining union influence over political parties. Unions, she says, are the best way to empower the poor, the lower skilled, and the young.

I think not.

At a basic level, unions serve their members, not society. When, for example, a transport union shuts down commuter access to a city, it is not doing so to help commuters. It is doing so to extract wealth from those consumers, via the transport company, and redistribute that wealth to its members. Moreover, when unions demand absolute protections for older workers, they make it near-impossible for companies to hire younger workers. As I've explained, there is a damning correlation between greater union power and increased youth unemployment.

Voters seem to realize this problem. On Sunday, the newly elected president of France won a huge parliamentary majority. His key promise? Unshackling France's labor market from union power.

Leonard does not accept this reality.

Instead, deriding "...precarious and non-unionized labor," she lurches into an attack on the sharing-economy of Uber, AirBnb, and others.

Most millennials take the opposite view. An Airbnb study from last July showed overwhelming millennial support for the industry. Contrary to Leonard's suggestion, conservatives actually have an opportunity to earn millennial support by defending these industries!

Next, Leonard jumps to the crux of her argument: "The post-Cold War capitalist order has failed us..."

"Especially since 2008," Leonard says, "we have seen corporations take our families' homes, exploit our medical debt and cost us our jobs."

Here Leonard implies that "the system," rather than individuals, is responsible for all the ills of the world. It's that favorite socialist trick: do not blame the person in the mirror, blame anyone else. Her attack on the private sector is particularly odd. After all, the private sector accounts for the vast majority of jobs in the United States. Which, incidentally, is one reason why union power is declining so substantially. People believe unions hurt them.

Leonard's final point is the most important. She claims that "within this generation, certain universal programs single-payer health care, public education, free college and making the rich pay are just common sense."

The problem here is Leonard's inversion of "common sense."

For one, the U.S. already has one of the world's most progressive tax systems. The top 5 percent of U.S. earners hold 36 percent of national income, but account for 60 percent of total federal tax revenue. Think about that. About 5 percent of taxpayers pay for more than half of the U.S. government.

Still, when it comes to Leonard's "common sense" case for big government, her main failing lies at the intersection of millennials and math. As I noted recently, we already spend far too much. "As the CBO shows... the national debt will reach 106% of GDP by 2035 and 150% by 2047." And that's assuming none of the new spending Leonard calls for! It's a joke. The existing debt already poses big problems. Why double down on failure?

Of course, Leonard is right about one thing. Millennials are increasingly supportive of socialism. And if nothing else, her piece should be a wakeup call for conservatives. Employing math, history, and meaningful dialogue, we must prove why and how socialism would be disastrous.

Read more from the original source:
Why socialism would be disastrous for millennials - Washington Examiner

The Endless Bizarre Allure of Socialism CNSNews.com But most people today think socialism is big government, with business still privately owned but with lots of redistribution and intervention (I've argued, for instance, that even Bernie Sanders isn't a real socialist, and that there are big ...

See original here:
The Endless Bizarre Allure of Socialism - CNSNews.com

While Venezuela has slid into an economic and political cataclysm under authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro, the political right-wing in the United States has consistently used the example of the countrys failed economy as a reason why leftist politics should be dismissed altogether. What theyre missing is that Maduros authoritarianism isnt just contrary to the economic egalitarianism established by his predecessor Hugo Chavez, the corruption, greed, and elitism of the democratically elected government is directly at odds with everything socialism represents and everything the people of Venezuela long for.

The largest failure of the government, despite the overwhelming corruption, is the inability to set up a sustainable economy, which has resulted in extreme food and medicine shortages as well as astronomically high inflation and trade disparities. The vast natural resources in Venezuela, which include one of the biggest oil reserves in the world, should make it an extremely profitable society, but those resources are instead used to directly profit the people in the authoritarian regime. The countrys economy did not diversify to support all the Venezuelan people before this economic downturn the way Hugo Chavez originally envisioned. To a certain extent, Chavez carried out his socioeconomic reforms but pursued less savory results in various bids to increased his executive power, which gave Maduros administration more elbow room for corruption.

This is where the valid argument that dangers arise from putting a highly centralized system into the wrong hands comes into play. The possibility of a socialist government being taken over by a corrupt president like Maduro is, of course, high. There is no disputing this, but to say that the problem is equitably distributing the resources of the country would be like saying that capitalism is to blame for the abuse of the free market or our bought politicians, or overall harm on the planetbut American capitalists wouldnt say that.

The imminent degradation of the environment, unethical agricultural production, and an immoral financial services industry steeped in voracity are all consequences of corrupt and immoral capitalism. The wealthiest companies in the world abuse their power and shift economic opportunity to benefit their companies by lobbying for laws that are favorable to themselves but not the workers or the world at large. Not only can capitalism result in immoral consumption, corruption, and limitless greed, we critique the ideology when we should be critiquing the corrupt individuals. Unfortunate consequences of human nature and capitalism lead to disparities in income equality around the world and oppression of the lower class. Yet we still only blame socialism for its flaws while there are plenty of faults to explore in capitalism.

Weve abandoned impoverished Detroitand Flint, we poison the water and steal the land of indigenous Native Americans for the capital gain of oil pipelines, and we incarcerate 2.3 million peoplemore than any country in the worldfor profit in privately owned prisons. Yet we dont blame capitalism for these things, in part because these examples directly conflict with the stated values of the economic dogma: equal opportunity and free competition.

Of course, this is not to suggest that Venezuela isnt an extreme example of corruption, but just as capitalism shouldnt be blamed for these faults, socialist ideas are not what has led the country to starvation and commodity shortages like many in the United States suggest.

Under Hugo Chavez, there were significant strides forward that were never sustained, partly due to the incompetency of the Maduro government and partly due to their immense insatiability and corruption. Venezuela under Chavez saw progress for the people in reforms establishing universal health care, raising life expectancy, strengthening social security, providing adequate education, and even improving political participation despite the presidents bid for broader powers and diminishing non-party institutions to cripple political opposition.

How can the principles of universal health care, access to education, and attempts to mitigate hunger as well as poverty be associated with Venezuelas failed socialist experiment, when relative prosperity came to the people when these policies were implemented? From a long history of tyrannical leftists and Red Scare brainwashing, socialism is equated with tyranny in the United States despite the central goal of the ideology being an equitable, classless society. Though here it exists on a different scale, we dont disparage capitalism for those who pursue unfair circumstances, detriment to the workers, or harm to the natural world, despite these things being inherent to rampant free market consumerism, avarice, corruption, and labor exploitation.

The failure of Venezuelas leaders to sustain a prosperous economy out of the fiscal opportunities innate to Venezuela has resulted in anything but an equitable society. But even more so, what really matters is the intent. Instead of having the peoples welfare in mind, Maduros band of tyrants are the beneficiaries of a sinking economy, while the rest of the society lacks the collective wealth that was once within their reach. The government consistently uses anti-Americanism, which has been perpetrated by Chavez and other leftists in the Americas, to blame the United States for sanctions and economic woes instead of doing the right thing: abstaining from corrupt activities and remaining accountable to their people.

The National Assemblys Comptrollers Commission said last year that $70 billion, or 16% of Venezuelas overall GDP, was siphoned from public institutions. The National Assembly Commission determined one of the most corrupt institutions in the government is the state-owned oil company Petroleum of Venezuela (PDVSA). It makes up over 90% of the countrys export revenue and 25% of its GDP. A congressional probe recently stated that $11 billion was missing from the PVDSA, which is more money than the annual GDP of five Central American countries. In addition, there was a case investigated during the probe in which $4.2 billion was laundered in Andorra, the tiny tax-haven of a country between France and Spain. The commission also stated that there were nearly twenty cases like these that they were investigating.

This corruption is found at all levels of government, military, and bureaucracy. To sustain these extraneous profits for politicians and bureaucrats, the Maduro government has eradicated the health care system by cutting its funding, and has failed to provide adequate food for their citizens. Foods high in fats, sugars, and carbohydrates are cheaper in the country and have resulted in increased obesity in Venezuela, only adding to the health crisis.

The Economist described how the military is involved in businesses like food production and other nationalized entities ripe for exploitation. Though the argument could certainly be made that nationalizing key components of daily life can lead to this sort of nefarious abuse of power, capitalism is abused incessantly by businesses, politicians, and lobbyistsonly less noticeably. It is not the socialist system in Venezuela that was pursued democratically, desired by the majority, and beneficial to many that should be liable for the countrys failure. The people who are supposed to uphold the laws are acting against them with impunity. Just as the failure of health care privatization to provide affordable medical services isnt attributed to capitalism, the common notion that socialism is responsible for Venezuelas poor health care is misguided and uninformed.

These purveyors of corruption clearly arent concerned with creating a society of equitythey cultivate a class of elites while the rest of Venezuelans are starving in Soviet-reminiscent bread lines (which is another country whose reprehensibility is attributed to socialist ideas) without adequate health care. While the people go hungry and die in desperate riots, the elite live with luxury in a completely classist, non-egalitarian society. There is even a full blog dedicated only to depicting government politicians and bureaucrats guilty of corruption and their expensive watches.

The corruption is widespread and widely known in Venezuela, so why do we blame socialism? It is not the ideology that is at work here, just like socialism wasnt practiced during the Soviet Union or in modern China. We dont hold capitalism in the United States to this catch-all criteria, so why do we hold socialism to a double standard? If the economic dogma of capitalism isnt being fairly practiced in the country that preaches its benefits the most, the negative slant on socialism is a part of sustaining the globally inequitable, yet undeniably profitable, economic system at home, and is used as proof that leftist democratic socialism itself is to be dismissed.

The elites robbery of money and resources from the people of Venezuela is directly in opposition to the ideas of democratic socialism. It creates a clear class distinction in Venezuelan society, like others before it. While Maduros government halts the pursuit of socialist ideas that had gained decent progressusing them to foster inequitythe economy is plummeting, the Venezuelan people are starving, health care is failing, and crime has proliferated, making Venezuela one of the most dangerous countries on Earth. If the democratically elected socialist government was taking the actions voters wanted them to, then why would they be persistently rioting in the streets in valiant protest against the despot and his corrupt, regime even though many citizens supported the socialist policies of the past? The answer is simple: corruption, avarice, and exploitation yet again.

If Maduro and his government truly fulfilled the stated values of egalitarian democratic socialism, people wouldnt be starving, there wouldnt be bread lines, there wouldnt be medicine shortages, there wouldnt be inflation, and there wouldnt be riots. There would be the promise of resources despite an economic recession, there would be equal opportunities for all and hope for better.

Ryan Beitler is a journalist, fiction writer, traveler, musician, and blogger. He has written for Paste Magazine, Addiction Now, OC Weekly, and his travel blog Our Little Blue Rock. He can be reached at ryanrbeitler@gmail.com

Continued here:
What's the Matter with Venezuela?: It's Not Socialism, It's Corruption - Paste Magazine

I've seen people on social media claiming the Bible doesn't bother to advocate any particular economic order. Supposedly, if a nation chooses capitalism, socialism, or any other "ism," we shouldn't imagine that God cares one way or the other.

This assertion is one fruit of a sort of Christian preaching that fails to apply the Word of God to every area of life, in favor of focusing exclusively on the warm fuzzies you have in your heart because of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for warm fuzzies, but the Bible is about more than that.

In fact, the Scripture assumes free markets, and that is practically the only economic arrangement we see in action throughout its narratives. We see private individuals engaged in open, unhindered trade, buying and selling their own possessions, free from government interference.

There are a couple of odd exceptions, but we'll save those for later articles, as they do nothing to argue with this thesis.

For now, it's important to note that the Bible outlaws all forms of mandatory collectivism, including the "soft socialism" that we live with today. It does this with one, simple commandment: the Eighth. "Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)

How does the Eighth Commandment outlaw socialism? By establishing a right to private property.

You can't steal from your neighbor unless he actually owns stuff. Contrarily, collectivist theories (including our homegrown socialism) assume government ownership of all money and means of production.

The government may let you keep some stuff (and thanks be to government) but in a pinch, it just passes a new law and confiscates it.

Am I exaggerating? Try not paying your property taxes on that home that you "own," and you will eventually be shown in no uncertain terms who actually owns it.

But God has said, "Thou shalt not steal." Now, you wouldn't know it from listening to many modern pulpits, or the 24-hour news channels, but this is also talking about government. The king wasn't allowed to break the laws that you and I have to keep. (See for instance the rules for kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.)

Government can't do immoral things just because it is the government, including immoral things like thieving.

Am I a radical in any of this? No, I'm a Christian and an American. I recommend re-reading the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence if it's been a while. Note where the founders thought our rights come from, and what the job of the government is regarding those rights.

Government should preserve God-given liberties, not destroy them.

Socialism can't happen without theft and coercion through threat of unjust violence. It is therefore anti-God and should get no hearing among us.

Gordan Runyan is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Tucumcari. Contact him at:

reformnm@yahoo.com

Go here to read the rest:
Bible outlaws all 'soft socialism' - Quay County Sun