The
title comes from a phrase the extreme left-leaning Marxist acquaintance typed on his Facebook timeline. Of course, he
did so in response to my presentation of facts that proved his opinions
baseless and unfounded. His idea of presenting facts in rebuttal was to
cite rhetoric from Op-Eds that contained no data, just emotive
verbiage. He then threatened me, resorted to using expletives and name
calling, then deleting my comments and blocking me. [Notice, my life
doesn't revolve around who "friends" me on Facebook.]
After
doing so, he continued the usual type of "new tone" conduct you'd
expect from those who debate in such a manner. He referred to me as
"ultra-conservative". Most people who know me will state that I lean
libertarian on many issues. I prefer the label of "Alt-Con" for the most
part. However, the last party card I held said "US Libertarian Party"
on it. Of note, since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I am no
longer apart of any party, though I am registered "Republican" on the
voter rolls in Arizona. He also referred to stating facts as being part
of some "conspiracy theory crowd". This from a guy who holds to outdated
and limited data on global warming to justify his empathy towards
climate-change Chicken Little impersonators. However, according to him,
any facts, history, mathematics, economic formulas, and hard, empirical
data are "conspiracy theory".
That exchange, due to which I am still chuckling, prompted this little essay.
Socialism has worked very well, hasn't it? It really can be a good thing, right?
Let's take a brief look at history.
Germany
from the late 1930s through 1945 was a socialist country under Adolph
Hitler. 11 million people were murdered. The German Economy still
collapsed. The Mark was hyper-inflated by the end of the war making even
a loaf of bread a costly commodity. Sure, socialism worked well, there.
The facts demonstrate it didn't.
The story of Italian Fascism during the same time period is much the same.
The
USSR lasted about 75 years. By the time it dissolved, the unemployment
rate had remained in double digits for decades. McDonald's had finally
opened a franchise in Moscow. The price of a single Big Mac was more
than a day's wages. If you didn't join "the party", you were lucky to
have a job from day to day. People fled in droves (or were killed in the
attempt). I was in Berlin when the wall fell. I was there for German
Reunification day. The infrastructure and standard of living in East
Berlin was so low it was disgraceful. The only reasons they didn't have
open rebellions were that the people were denied weapons and they were
malnourished. The people who thrived were those among the organized
crime syndicates. Most of them were also members of "the party" and had
government jobs as well. Those are facts.
The
former Yugoslavia is a great example of socialism. Tito ruled with
absolute tyranny. After he died, the country fell into civil war,
breaking into several countries. They still have ethnic violence there.
The countries on the map today are Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia,
Montenegro, and Croatia. Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic
went on campaigns of genocide. Rad is still pending trial on 10 of 11
separate counts. Yes, I served in the Balkans at the height of the
violence and saw it first-hand. Isn't socialism grand?
North
Korea is a wonderful example of socialism and its benevolence. The
people are starving. Unemployment is in the double digits. People had
guns pointed at their heads as they were ordered to cry over Kim Jong-Il
or die (or have their kids killed) for treason. Sure, socialism is
benevolent and works well there too.
Vietnam has
transitioned to a more capitalist system. When the NVA took Saigon,
thousands of refugees jumped into boats and headed to Australia,
Thailand, and the US. People flee from tyranny, not liberty. Socialism
worked well there, too.
Greece! Greece is the historic
birthplace of "one citizen, one vote" democracy. The country's socialist
programs have failed and the country is bankrupt. Socialism worked well
there, didn't it?
Iraq
under Saddam Hussein was a form of National Socialism. To own a
business, a citizen had to have two forms of permission. First he had to
have the blessings of his tribal sheik (whom he usually had to pay
tribute) and from the government. If Saddam or his bratlings, Uday and
Qusay, didn't like the sheik, the business stood
a much lower chance of being allowed. Saddam was the ultimate
collectivist. He administrated everything based upon tribe and how well
the sheiks kissed his behind. Even that didn't always matter as he'd
take a good rump-licking, defecate on the sheik, then still say "no, I
don't feel like it". Granted, much of the tribal violence was reduced
under Saddam. That was because he ruled with terror, not leadership. I
watched capitalism rebuild in that country from the days of the initial
invasion through my last tour (ended in 2010). People took control of
their own businesses. It seemed the majority of them were doing very
well when I left. I remember the street vendors who started businesses,
without government interference, right after Baghdad fell. But, the
restrictions and whims of the socialist regime under Saddam's Ba'ath
Party were so loved by the majority of the Iraqi citizens. Socialism
under that tyrant was wonderful.
Now let's look at
socialism at home. First, economists have studied the impacts of FDR's
"New Deal". Economic models based upon a couple of centuries of data
indicate that the "New Deal" extended the recovery from the great
depression. If the market had been allowed to self-recover, some studies
indicate it would have been corrected in less than 4 years. However,
the "New Deal" extended the recovery from 1932 until well after World
War II. Socialist policies worked great, didn't they? They took over a
decade to accomplish what free-market capitalism most likely would have
done in far less time. UCLA states the recovery took more than 15 years, a minimum of 7 years longer
than a self-correcting cyclical free-market (Adam Smith style)
capitalist system would have. Wall Street Journal economist Andrew
Wilson wrote this great study about many misconceptions regarding the "New Deal" and the Great Depression.
One
"good" thing that came out of the "New Deal" was social security,
right? That has to be a great bit of socialism, correct? That is a great
debate subject. However, the first thing you have to consider is that
Social Security, as it exists now and has since its creation, was not
meant to be permanent. It was designed to last as a public trust fund
for one generation only. During that generation, the next generation was
supposed to establish individual retirement accounts that the
government would oversee, guarantee, and protect. That is not what
happened. Instead, it was kept a Ponzi scheme.
To
catch a glimpse at what it was intended to become, look at the case of
Galveston County, Texas. They switched to private accounts as an
experiment. The benefits, as opposed to what regular SSI recipients
receive in monthly payments, is remarkable. Instead, most Americans are
stuck with a bankrupt mandatory retirement fund that cannot afford to
pay out what it owes. It is unsustainable.
However,
let's use me as a little case study. I started working for a real
paycheck with all applied payroll taxes at age 16. Let's say I made $10k
that first year. (I made less than that, but the math gets too hard for
some people if I quote my actual income). For argument's sake, let's
say the SS tax was 10%. So, I put $1k into that "retirement fund" that
first year. If I had been given the option to place that $1k into an
individual account that yielded an average of 6% ROI over the years from
16 to 66 (50 years), we'll see what that $1k from that first year's
work would be worth. An average ROI of 6% will double the principle
every 12 years (rule of 72).
So, at age 28, it was worth $2k. At 40, it was worth $4k. At 52, it is
worth $8k. At 64 (close enough to 66), that first year's investment
would be worth $16k. Let's say my second year of work yielded the same
income. At age 65, I'd have $32k. At age 18, let's say I worked more
hours and doubled my income (therefore my mandatory payments). $2k at
age 30 is $4k, age 42 is $8k, at 54, $16k, and at age 66, $32k. So, my
first 3 years yielded $64k for my first year of retirement, just on
their own.
The successive years of work would then
supply the additional years of retirement. My average life expectancy is
a realistic 76 total years. So, I'd have to earn 10 years worth of
retirement living expenses in 50 years of work. It took my first 3 years
to save/invest to earn that first semi-comfortable year. At that rate, I
would have 47 years to accrue an additional 9 years of retirement
funding. By that rate, I could do 15+ more years. THAT is under a
reasonable, average individual retirement account. Of course, that is
under the assumption that my income will increase mostly by just annual
cost of living adjustments. It doesn't take into account promotions,
changing careers to something more lucrative, gaining a degree and going
into a profession that starts at an average of $40k a year (double that
$20k per year barely-over-minimum-wage-job I held as a teen doing stock
work at a local liquor store).
At a 4% average ROI,
the principle doubles every 18 years. So it may take 5 years of work to
get a first year of retirement at about $40k per annum goal.
By the way, the average monthly SSI payment is $1,233.21 a month,
or $14,798.52 a year, currently. That $64k a year goal is over $5k a
month. You do the math. I see the private individual account that grants
a low 6% average annual ROI as a much better deal. But that socialism
thing isn't such a bad thing, now, is it?
A collection of articles, columns, news, commentary and journal entries ranging in topics from life, government, politics, philosophy, and creative writings from conservative and libertarian-minded people seeking truth beyond the veils of obfuscation. We seek the one-point, the foundation of balance, the truth.
Labels
- About Me (20)
- Book Reviews (20)
- Community Outreach (27)
- Economy and Finance (159)
- Education (112)
- Fiction (7)
- He Said -- She Said (15)
- Humor (9)
- Memoirs (71)
- Mouth of Matuszak Radio Show (57)
- News (487)
- Philosophy (52)
- Poetry (5)
- Political Essays (615)
- Political Foodie (18)
- Royka's Ramblings (1)
- Science Geek (14)
- Second Amendment (130)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.