The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished

[Ron]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the center ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it –

Interesting article, I don't think most Americans have though through the issue this clearly.

[RevDisk]

Yep. Basically regulated capitalism can't meet socialist cost demands.

[Scout26]

Or as Margaret Thatcher said. "The problem with socialism, is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money."

[MicroBalrog]

The sad truth is - as Thatcher and Reagan proved - is that you can make ends meet without abolishing socialism. Some downsizes here and there and economic growth restarts again. And then you can afford more spending - again, and the scycle continues.

Sadly also, the wealthier we grow as a society, the more government we can afford.

[kgbsquirrel]

Yep. Basically regulated capitalism can't meet socialist cost demands.

So the obvious solution is to dump capitalism all together and go to a structured economy, right? 

[agricola]

As with most Torygraph pieces, the article is only half right.  

The size and cost of government is too big - but the problem is that (over here anyway) where the majority of the money is being lost isnt in the parts of government being criticized in the article.   Overspending usually occurs because the political direction of most departments is (and has been since 1990 in many of them) fundamentally wrong, and the implementation of that direction is usually crap.  

Take the NHS for example, which is - not that you would know that from that article - actually much cheaper to run than Medicare and Medicaid are, despite suffering from a problem of debt loaded on to it by government-mandated PFI schemes, incredibly badly run procurement processes, a vastly over-staffed bureaucracy and a (under the last Labour government) failed attempt to create a market in healthcare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9355452/Ministers-take-over-bankrupt-hospitals.html

[MechAg94]

As with most Torygraph pieces, the article is only half right.  

The size and cost of government is too big - but the problem is that (over here anyway) where the majority of the money is being lost isnt in the parts of government being criticized in the article.   Overspending usually occurs because the political direction of most departments is (and has been since 1990 in many of them) fundamentally wrong, and the implementation of that direction is usually crap.  

Take the NHS for example, which is - not that you would know that from that article - actually much cheaper to run than Medicare and Medicaid are, despite suffering from a problem of debt loaded on to it by government-mandated PFI schemes, incredibly badly run procurement processes, a vastly over-staffed bureaucracy and a (under the last Labour government) failed attempt to create a market in healthcare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9355452/Ministers-take-over-bankrupt-hospitals.html

All those problems are indicative of Govt in general.  Good leadership can limit them but not stop them.  It is part of the human condition.  It is what happens when humans have unlimited resources.

[drewtam]

The sad truth is - as Thatcher and Reagan proved - is that you can make ends meet without abolishing socialism. Some downsizes here and there and economic growth restarts again. And then you can afford more spending - again, and the scycle continues.

Sadly also, the wealthier we grow as a society, the more government we can afford.

Very true.

Think about how much tax is taken today compared to pre-industrial revolution times. The modern tax burden would have been nearly unbearable for ancestors. Yet the industrialization of society is able to produce such a large excess amount of wealth that even large redistribution systems are almost sustainable.

[Tallpine]

As with most Torygraph pieces, the article is only half right.  

The size and cost of government is too big - but the problem is that (over here anyway) where the majority of the money is being lost isnt in the parts of government being criticized in the article.   Overspending usually occurs because the political direction of most departments is (and has been since 1990 in many of them) fundamentally wrong, and the implementation of that direction is usually crap.  

Take the NHS for example, which is - not that you would know that from that article - actually much cheaper to run than Medicare and Medicaid are, despite suffering from a problem of debt loaded on to it by government-mandated PFI schemes, incredibly badly run procurement processes, a vastly over-staffed bureaucracy and a (under the last Labour government) failed attempt to create a market in healthcare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9355452/Ministers-take-over-bankrupt-hospitals.html

So it would work just fine if it wasn't broken 

[Ron]

So it would work just fine if it wasn't broken 

The correct people just haven't been in charge of the system yet.

Once the right folks are in control it will all work fine