Mediaboss Marketing

Learning Objectives

The two major economic systems in modern societies are capitalism and socialism. In practice, no one society is purely capitalist or socialist, so it is helpful to think of capitalism and socialism as lying on opposite ends of a continuum. Societies economies mix elements of both capitalism and socialism but do so in varying degrees, so that some societies lean toward the capitalist end of the continuum, while other societies lean toward the socialist end. For example, the United States is a capitalist nation, but the government still regulates many industries to varying degrees. The industries usually would prefer less regulation, while their critics usually prefer more regulation. The degree of such regulation was the point of controversy after the failure of banks and other financial institutions in 2008 and 2009 and after the BP oil spill in 2010. Lets see how capitalism and socialism differ.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. By means of production, we mean everythingland, tools, technology, and so forththat is needed to produce goods and services. As outlined by famed Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (17231790), widely considered the founder of modern economics, the most important goal of capitalism is the pursuit of personal profit (Smith, 1776/1910). As individuals seek to maximize their own wealth, society as a whole is said to benefit. Goods get produced, services are rendered, people pay for the goods and services they need and desire, and the economy and society as a whole prosper.

One important hallmark of capitalism is competition for profit. This competition is thought to help ensure the best products at the lowest prices, as companies will ordinarily try to keep their prices as low as possible to attract buyers and maximize their sales.

As people pursue personal profit under capitalism, they compete with each other for the greatest profits. Businesses try to attract more demand for their products in many ways, including lowering prices, creating better products, and advertising how wonderful their products are. In capitalist theory, such competition helps ensure the best products at the lowest prices, again benefiting society as a whole. Such competition also helps ensure that no single party controls an entire market. According to Smith, the competition that characterizes capitalism should be left to operate on its own, free of government intervention or control. For this reason, capitalism is often referred to as laissez-faire (French for leave alone) capitalism, and terms to describe capitalism include the free-enterprise system and the free market.

The hallmarks of capitalism, then, are private ownership of the means of production, the pursuit of profit, competition for profit, and the lack of government intervention in this competition.

The features of socialism are the opposite of those just listed for capitalism and were spelled out most famously by Karl Marx. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned, usually by the government. Whereas the United States has several airlines that are owned by airline corporations, a socialist society might have one government-owned airline.

The most important goal of socialism is not the pursuit of personal profit but rather work for the collective good: the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual. Because of this view, individuals do not compete with each other for profit; instead they work together for the good of everyone. If under capitalism the government is supposed to let the economy alone, under socialism the government controls the economy.

The ideal outcome of socialism, said Marx, would be a truly classless or communist society. In such a society all members are equal, and stratification does not exist. Obviously Marxs vision of a communist society was never fulfilled, and nations that called themselves communist departed drastically from his vision of communism.

Recall that societies can be ranked on a continuum ranging from mostly capitalist to mostly socialist. At one end of the continuum, we have societies characterized by a relatively free market, and at the other end we have those characterized by strict government regulation of the economy. Figure 13.1 Capitalism and Socialism Across the Globe depicts the nations of the world along this continuum. Capitalist nations are found primarily in North America and Western Europe but also exist in other parts of the world.

Figure 13.1 Capitalism and Socialism Across the Globe

People have debated the relative merits of capitalism and socialism at least since the time of Marx (Bowles, 2007; Cohen, 2009). Compared to socialism, capitalism seems to have several advantages. It produces greater economic growth and productivity, at least in part because it provides more incentives (i.e., profit) for economic innovation. It also is often characterized by greater political freedom in the form of civil rights and liberties. As an economic system, capitalism seems to lend itself to personal freedom: because its hallmarks include the private ownership of the means of production and the individual pursuit of profit, there is much more emphasis in capitalist societies on the needs and desires of the individual and less emphasis on the need for government intervention in economic and social affairs.

Yet capitalism also has its drawbacks. There is much more economic inequality in capitalism than in socialism. Although capitalism produces economic growth, not all segments of capitalism share this growth equally, and there is a much greater difference between the rich and poor than under socialism. People can become very rich in capitalist nations, but they can also remain quite poor. As we saw in Chapter 9 Global Stratification, several Western European nations that are more socialist than the United States have fewer extremes of wealth and poverty and take better care of their poor.

Another possible drawback depends on whether you prefer competition or cooperation. As we saw in Chapter 3 Culture, important values in the United States include competition and individualism, both of which arguably reflect this nations capitalist system. Children in the United States are raised with more of an individual orientation than children in socialist societies, who learn that the needs of their society are more important than the needs of the individual. Whereas U.S. children learn to compete with each other for good grades, success in sports, and other goals, children in socialist societies learn to cooperate to achieve tasks.

More generally, capitalism is said by its critics to encourage selfish and even greedy behavior: if individuals try to maximize their profit, they do so at the expense of others. In competition, someone has to lose. A companys ultimate aim, and one that is generally lauded, is to maximize its profits by driving another company out of the market altogether. If so, that company succeeds even if some other party is hurting. The small Mom-and-Pop grocery stores, drugstores, and hardware stores are almost a thing of the past, as big-box stores open their doors and drive their competition out of business. To its critics, then, capitalism encourages harmful behavior. Yet it is precisely this type of behavior that is taught in business schools.

The economies of Denmark, pictured here, and several other Western European nations feature a combination of capitalism and socialism that is called democratic socialism. In these economies, the government owns important industries, but private property and political freedom remain widespread.

bobthemagicdragon Majestic CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Some nations combine elements of both capitalism and socialism and are called social democracies, while their combination of capitalism and socialism is called democratic socialism. In these nations, which include Denmark, Sweden, and several other Western European nations, the government owns several important industries, but much property remains in private hands, and political freedom is widespread. The government in these nations has extensive programs to help the poor and other people in need. Although these nations have high tax rates to help finance their social programs, their experience indicates it is very possible to combine the best features of capitalism and socialism while avoiding their faults (see the Learning From Other Societies box).

Social Democracy in Scandinavia

The five Scandinavian nations, also called the Nordic nations, are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. These nations differ in many ways, but they also share many similarities. In particular, they are all social democracies, as their governments own important industries while their citizens enjoy much political freedom. Each nation has the three branches of government with which most people are familiarexecutive, judicial, and legislativeand each nation has a national parliament to which people are elected by proportional representation.

Social democracies like the Scandinavian nations are often called controlled capitalist market economies. The word controlled here conveys the idea that their governments either own industries or heavily regulate industries they do not own. According to social scientist Tapio Lappi-Seppl of Finland, a key feature of these social democracies economies is that inequality in wealth and income is not generally tolerated. Employers, employees, and political officials are accustomed to working closely to ensure that poverty and its related problems are addressed as much as possible and in as cooperative a manner as possible.

Underlying this so-called social welfare model is a commitment to universalism. All citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status or family situation, receive various services, such as child care and universal health care, that are free or heavily subsidized. To support this massive provision of benefits, the Scandinavian nations have very high taxes that their citizens generally accept as normal and necessary.

This model has been praised by political scientist Torben Iversen, who lauds its goal of achieving full employment and equality. This attempt has not been entirely free of difficulties but overall has been very successful, as the Scandinavian nations rank at or near the top in international comparisons of health, education, economic well-being, and other measures of quality of life. The Scandinavian experience of social democracy teaches us that it is very possible to have a political and economic model that combines the best features of capitalism and socialism while retaining the political freedom that citizens expect in a democracy. (Berman, 2006; Iversen, 1998; Lappi-Seppl, 2007)

Berman, S. (2006). The primacy of politics: Social democracy and the making of Europes twentieth century. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bowles, P. (2007). Capitalism. New York, NY: Pearson/Longman.

Cohen, G. A. (2009). Why not socialism? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Iversen, T. (1998). The choices for Scandinavian social democracy in comparative perspective. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14, 5975.

Lappi-Seppl, T. (2007). Penal policy in Scandinavia. Crime and Justice, 36, 217296.

Smith, A. (1910). The wealth of nations. London, England: J. M. Dent & Sons; New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published 1776).

Read the rest here:
13.2 Types of Economic Systems Sociology

I was at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, commissioned to head a team studying the domestic and export prospects of Indian machine tools. These were real machine tools not the abstract sector of the Mahalanobis K sector model. I was working with the famous Indian industrial designing company, M N Dastur.

The Dastur engineers went to some countries. I went to Czechoslovakia and later joined a Dastur engineer in Africa, where they were buying HMT tools. Czechoslovakia prided itself on being an advanced European country. Bata was their best-known brand, but there were many other firms, especially in the machine tools section. Following Marshal Titos Yugoslavia, which had moved out of the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union earlier, it had overthrown the Bear and was going to be an independent socialist state. Meanwhile, it had an interim government. This was the Prague Spring of 1968.

In the late spring of 1968, everybody and his uncle had landed up in Prague. The Czech capital had around 10,000 hotel rooms but 1,500 people were arriving there daily. My hosts said no rooms were available. But do you have a driving licence, they asked me. I said, yes: My American driving licence was still valid. They were happy with the American licence. A room was arranged for me at Horovice, near Plzen from where Pilsner beer comes, and I was given a Skoda car on daily rent. I was to drive down to Prague every day.

The inn at Horovice was actually a bar with two nicely furnished rooms on the first floor. I was given one. I would go to the bar at around 7 pm and start with a Pilsner. The locals were there a very friendly lot to the visiting Indian. I found it difficult to pay for a round. After eating sausages and goulash, at around 11pm, I would climb up to my room, yearning for some well-earned sleep. When I came down for breakfast early the next morning, looking forward to my toast and black coffee, to get over my hangover, my friends were back for more beer and sausages, before going to work. I would then drive my Skoda through the beautiful Bohemian countryside in lovely weather to Prague, stopping on the way for some fresh strawberries. Everything was fine and the Lord was in his heaven.

In Prague, the men and women I worked with were very proud Czechs. They took great pleasure in explaining to me the countrys industrial and economic history and that their economists, who had migrated to the US, like Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, were referring to the Baltics for examples of backwardness, for the Big Push and Balanced Growth theories, and not Czechoslovakia. They showed me Czech art forms, both in galleries and in public places like parks, railway stations and in their cathedrals, and got passes for tables at overbooked restaurants for gorgeous meals with me.

Their machine tools were still some of the best in the world. I admired the advanced material used, the flexibility built in the design to incorporate additional auxiliaries to take care of what would now be called multi-tasking. They knew HMT and were quite keen to cooperate in joint ventures. They had the confidence to share and prosper, rather than be secretive in IPR tyranny. Again, a characteristic that the teacher in me liked.

I left the country with the cockles of my heart warmed by Horovice, the beauty and warmth of the Prague Spring, and my admiration for good mechanics. When I landed in Calcutta, visualising another visit to the Howrah, the newspapers had headlines, Soviet tanks in Prague. The Prague Spring was over.

One evening with the breeze flowing in, my friend, the economist K N Raj, sitting in his lovely home on a hill in Thiruvananthapuram, built by Laurie Baker with local material, told me how difficult it was to convince our socialist friends of the need to combine freedom and social institutions. Prague then, Kyiv now, another beautiful city where I have stayed. The problems of democratic socialism remain. Also in the Homeland. Everything changes, but nothing really does.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 16, 2022 under the title Prague spring, Kyiv winter. The writer is an economist and a former Union minister

See the original post here:
Prague then, Kyiv now: Problems of democratic socialism - The Indian Express

National Republicans are vowing to go all in to defeat what they see as a weakened opponent either way, forcing Democrats to spend heavily defending turf theyve never worried about heading into a general election. And the headwinds could be in the GOPs favor, with national polling pointing to a GOP takeover of the House and the party making stunning inroads with Latino voters in recent years under former President Donald Trump.

For sure its going to be competitive if shes the nominee, Rep. Filemn Vela (D-Texas) said of Cisneros. And then, frankly, I mean, because of the investigation it will be competitive for him too.

Vela who has endorsed Cuellar and is retiring after five terms representing another Rio Grande Valley district offered a stern warning for Democrats: The national party systems have ignored South Texas since the last election. And I think were in grave danger of losing at least two out of three South Texas seats.

Democrats insist they still hold the advantage in the Cuellar seat, which actually got slightly bluer in redistricting: President Joe Biden would have won it by 7 points. But some in the party are also painfully aware of their partys struggles with Latino voters in the last two elections particularly when the GOP makes central campaign topics out of immigration and border security. Hillary Clinton carried the old version of the district by nearly 30 points in 2016, but four years later, Biden won there by a mere 4.4 points.

We are going to flip this district. Its winnable, said Cassy Garcia, the GOP candidate who finished first in Tuesdays primary. A former staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Garcia will face her own runoff against Sandra Whitten, the GOPs nominee against Cuellar in 2020.

If Garcia wins, shes said she will make border security one of her top issues. In an interview, Garcia touted her endorsement from the border patrol union, the National Border Patrol Council which endorsed her over Cuellar this year.

She said she would be happy to face either Democrat in November, criticizing Cuellars loyalty to Speaker Nancy Pelosiand bashing Cisneros as an open borders advocate tied to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.).

Shes endorsed by AOC, who wants to abolish DHS and support open borders, Garcia said, referring the Department of Homeland Security. Shes anti-oil and gas. Energy equals jobs in our district.

Buoyed by their gains in 2020, Republicans see more Latino districts as possible flips in 2022, especially in Texas. Their party, with Trumps help, continues to hammer Biden and Democrats on the border, which they see as the path to victory here.

By late Wednesday, Cuellar led Cisneros by 807 votes in a close Democratic primary vote count, 48.5 percent to 46.8 percent, with Cisneros excelling in the northern counties near San Antonio and Cuellar running up margins further south around Laredo. Neither cleared the 50 percent threshold to avoid the runoff, which is set for May 24.

Both Cuellar and Cisneros would bring their own unique liabilities into a general election in Texas 28th District, which includes Cuellars home base in Laredo and stretches up north toward San Antonio.

For Cuellar, there has been no clarity on the mysterious FBI raid of his home in January, though he has said he has committed no wrongdoing. Its a significant burden for a 17-year congressman, one of the most conservative in the caucus, who hasnt stared down a serious general election challenge against a Republican since 2002.

Cisneros, who has been embraced by national progressives, has previously taken potentially damaging positions on border and immigration issues, such as her 2019 proposal to split ICE in half as she pushed for more focus on drug and human trafficking.

She has also staked out a pro-abortion rights stance in a heavily Catholic district, which Democrats in the district have warned could be weaponized by Republicans going into November.

If in fact, she were to take it just looking again to possibility she does have a challenge. We are a conservative community. I suspect that the right to choose will become a huge, huge issue, said Sylvia Bruni, chair of the Webb County Democratic Party, which does not endorse in primary races.

She pointed to the heavily distorted ads that pro-Trump coalitions ran in the 2020 election.

If you vote for Biden, theyre killing babies at 9 months, Bruni said, summing up the attacks. And on the Democrats climate change push, she said Republicans generalized the partys positions as: Youre going to be homeless, you wont have food on the table.

Cisneros strongly pushed back on the notion that she couldnt beat a Republican in the general election, arguing that her partys flagging performance in South Texas was less about voters abandoning Democratic ideas and more about the party becoming too complacent with its base: For a very long time, we were taken for granted, she said.

Cuellar, and whatever investigation sparked the raid on his home and office, are the real danger to the party, Cisneros added.

Hes not able to fundraise. Hes under this cloud of mystery, Cisneros said in an interview outside her campaign headquarters just before primary day. What is going on? Hes a sitting member of Congress, like why is this happening?

Speaking to POLITICO by phone last month, Cuellar said Cisneros would struggle to defeat a Republican in a general election, blasting what he called more socialist type of views.

Ive heard some people say they probably wont support her as a Democrat, Cuellar said.

Republicans also plan to contest a neighboring Rio Grande Valley seat that Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez vacated to run in the new version of Velas district. That seat is now the most competitive in the state, and Republicans have nominated Latina businesswoman Monica De La Cruz. On the Democratic side, attorney and Army veteran Ruben Ramirez and business owner Michelle Vallejo will compete in a runoff.

Velas district, meanwhile, morphed into one that Biden would have carried by 16 points.

National Republicans were most excited about Garcias candidacy out of the crowded field vying to take on Cuellar. She also had more than $100,000 in the bank as of mid-February.

Cassy is a really strong candidate, said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who has endorsed her. I hired her to work for Sen. Cruz, when I was chief of staff we all worked together. Shes very well liked, very well respected in the valley. She knows Border Patrol really well.

The South Texas Democrats also know Garcia from her time working for Cruz. Vela said he has a good personal relationship with her even if he disagrees with some of her politics.

Shes going to be a damn good candidate for Republicans in that district, Vela said.

See the original post:
'Corruption' or 'socialism': GOP takes aim at South Texas either way - POLITICO

The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) in Australia is holding an online meeting via Zoom at 4 p.m. (AEDT) Saturday, March 12 to discuss the urgent need to build an international anti-war movement of youth, students and workers as the danger of nuclear war heightens amid the escalating crisis in Ukraine.

The IYSSE urges students and young people in Australia, New Zealand, throughout the region and internationally, to participate in the meeting, which will examine questions of life and death for billions of people around the world. Register for the meeting by clicking this link.

At no point since the Second World War, has the threat of a nuclear exchange been so present. Despite the provocations by the US and NATO powers, Russias invasion of Ukraine must be opposed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin took the unprecedented post-Cold War action of placing the countrys nuclear deterrent forces on alert. Putin, and the section of the Russian capitalist class he represents, cling to the delusion that they can shift US-NATO foreign policy and recognise Russian security interests in Ukraine through threats.

The catastrophe that was set in motion by the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 cannot be averted through the reactionary ideology of Russian nationalism which serves the interests of the countrys oligarchs represented by Putin.

Despite the reckless actions of Putin and the Russian ruling elite, principal responsibility for the present crisis and the threat of nuclear war lies with US imperialism and its NATO allies. For decades, the US and NATO have been engaged in provocative militarist and economic intrigues in Eastern Europe and throughout the globe.

In 2014, a US-backed coup placed an anti-Russian government in power in Ukraine. NATO has been engaged since 1991 in a relentless expansion into Eastern Europe. The United States took the lead in planning for the use of nuclear weapons by withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, stationing offensive missiles in Romania and Poland, and undertaking a multitrillion-dollar expansion of US nuclear forces.

In the last week, bellicose war rhetoric of politicians and officials in the US, Britain, Germany, Australia and other imperialist nations have accompanied economic warfare and the sending of NATO weaponry to Ukraine. All of this points to a de facto NATO war against Russia.

The present crisis has emerged out of a very definite context: the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. COVID has exacerbated the social and political crisis globally and has led to nearly one million deaths in the US alone according to official figures. The Omicron variant of Sars-Cov-2 has seen over 2,000 Americans die every day over the past month.

Around the world, governments are dispensing with scientifically-guided measures to stem the viruss spread because they cut across the profit-making ability of the tiny, wealthy capitalist oligarchy. For the ultra-rich, who have gorged themselves during the pandemic, the lives and livelihoods of workers and their families are sacrifices that must be made in order for their continued domination over the worlds resources.

In the face of this mounting social polarisation, the administration of US President Joe Biden aims to manufacture unity at home and project conflict outward through war. Emerging out of the Second World War as the dominant superpower in the world, the United States is now experiencing massive economic, political and social turmoil. It sees Russia and the economic rise of China as the main threats to its plans to retain its position as the global hegemon. As Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution with Vladmir Lenin and founder of the Fourth International, said in 1934:

US capitalism is up against the same problems that pushed Germany in 1914 on the path of war. The world is divided? It must be redivided. For Germany it was a question of organising Europe. The United States must organise the world. History is bringing mankind face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism.

But the crisis in the United States is only the most extreme manifestation of the crisis of world capitalism.

In order to understand how to fight against war, youth and students must understand the objective conditions which lead to war. Militarism and armed conflict do not arise out of the minds of individual capitalist politicians. These are merely the reflections of a far deeper process which emerges necessarily out of the contradictions of the capitalist profit system itself. Above all, war emerges because of the division of the world economy into competing nation states, whose ruling capitalist elites vie for control over resources, markets, and spheres of influence.

World war, therefore, can only be averted by the action of the international working class overthrowing the predatory capitalist system and replacing it with world socialism. Youth and students must reject all attempts to divide young people and workers on the basis of nationality. The international working class must adopt an independent position in response to the escalating crisis. It is necessary to oppose imperialism without adapting to Russian nationalism, and to oppose Russian nationalism without adapting to imperialism.

Young people must turn to the worlds working class as the only social force capable of ending capitalism and, hence, ending the war and social misery that it brings. As the youth and student arm of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the IYSSE insists that a Marxist revolutionary party must be built to politically lead the working class to resolve the crisis of capitalism through the establishment of a socialist system based on social need, not private profit.

This perspective and the historical questions that arise out of itincluding around the key strategic experience of the 1917 Russian Revolution which ended the First World Warwill be discussed at the IYSSEs upcoming online meeting. To learn more about the IYSSEs program to build an international anti-war movement of workers and youth and find out how you can join in this struggle, attend our meeting on Saturday, March 12 at 4 p.m.!

Join the fight against imperialist war and for socialist revolution!

Register for the online meeting here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BcVL0fDVTDyHObXC5yJgZA

Foreword to the German edition of David Norths Quarter Century of War

Johannes Stern, 5 October 2020

After three decades of US-led wars, the outbreak of a third world war, which would be fought with nuclear weapons, is an imminent and concrete danger.

Excerpt from:
The threat of world war looms: Take up the fight against imperialism and for international socialism! - WSWS

In a Guest Columnist article that appeared in the Sylva Herald Feb. 17, Ron Robinson gave his version of what he heard in a conversation from which he eavesdropped while drinking a beer in the Crazy Biker Brewery. Ron claimed he heard a conversation between a young lady and a bearded fellow called Joe.

According to Robinson, the young lady said she had attended the Republican debate between eight candidates in Franklin. Ron claimed the young lady conveyed the following comments: (1) The Republican debate in Franklin was a contest to broadcast their radical right agendas ... and opposed Build Back Better funding for our states infrastructure. (2) The Republican candidates will keep your neighbor from going back to work by opposing lower cost of child care provided by Build Back Better.

Regarding item #1 above, some consider quoting hearsay irresponsible due to the lack of verification of the information from first hand witness.

My wife and I attended that debate. We heard no radical right agenda expressed by the Republican candidates. Perhaps the mistake is the quality of Rons source who might have been perverted by a radical left agenda.

One thing is clear: the Infrastructure Bill and the Build Back Better Bill are two different bills. For the young lady to say Build Back Better funding for our states infrastructure indicates a lack of understanding that the two bills are not the same. This should have been a red flag to a reasonable person as to the credibility of the young lady.

Regarding item #2 above, the Republican candidates are not the ones keeping ones neighbor from going back to work.

What the young lady, if Ron heard her correctly, is saying is that the government is responsible for financing the care of our children. That was one of the objectives of the Build Back Better bill that did not pass the Senate, government financed child care.

The definition of a Socialist government is the following according to Websters dictionary: advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production.

Going to work is a means of production. Therefore, what the young lady was advocating was a more socialistic government, as is advocated in President Bidens Build Back Better Bill.

Therefore, Joe was correct in labeling Joe Bidens administration as a socialist government ... giving away millions and billions to those that need the governments help in order to go to work. The revised Build Back Better Bill is valued at $1.9 trillion. Yes, most would call that millions, billions, and even almost $2 trillion!

Last, as to the question Ron Robinson said the young lady raised regarding who do you consider patriots in our country?

A good answer to that question was given to us by President Kennedy on 20 January 1961: Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country. The Build Back Better Bill is full of what your country can do for you, which sure sounds like Websters definition of Socialism.

Robinson stated that he could not hear Joes answer to what constitutes a Socialist government. Is that because Ron did not want to hear Joes answer?

Michael Padgett is a retired Army Colonel having commanded units through Brigade level command. He currently teaches federal government employees. He and his wife, Sheila, reside in Sylva.

Read the rest here:
Differing thoughts on BBB and defining socialism - The Sylva Herald