Assignment #8 K. Tough

Did I hear a Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo at the end of Harold Meyerson’s article in The Washington Post? I think I did. His final note in the article “It’s Not about Socialism, its About Rescuing Capitalism” was a little accusatory; like a parent saying, you got yourself into this mess, now get yourself out. I did not take his tone personally though; I understand that as one of two democratic socialists among so many republican capitalists on the hill Meyerson is just expelling a little frustration. Our government is what we have made it since we elect those that make up our governmental leaders and we do so knowing what they believe in and stand for. Meyerson is wagging his finger at all of us, not just his counterparts on capital hill. In the past we have not seen capitalism as an economic trickle down effect with an unequal distribution of wealth. I believe we have all seen capitalism as our ticket to the American Dream with free enterprise and supply and demand regulating itself. This does not seem to be the case in my life time and I see the author trying to make the point that the capitalist system of our country in present time is not laissez-faire (pure); it has been tainted by the conservatives. The trickle down has stopped at the executive level and the government has had to consistently force this form of capitalism by providing ‘guidelines’ for minimum wage, bonuses, work related expenses, and other areas where the economy stalls before it distributes capital among workers.
If capitalism is in support of a free market with no governmental intervention; than, it has and is failing. If the conservatives fighting for capitalism are just holding back reforms that may resemble socialism in the name of capitalism; then, they are just holding back reforms that may be beneficial to the citizens of the United States. I see President Obama’s reforms as Mr. Meyerson does; he is not socializing our economy, but attempting to invigorate it through stimulating the private market. This is a capitalist move in my view; maybe not the right move. But it is still capitalism, to an extent, since a true capitalist would just leave the economy to itself. I am not sure there is a true socialist government any more than there is a true capitalist government. I had the pleasure of living in Germany for some time in elementary school and even their form of socialism was scattered; for example, they provided higher education for all citizens, but the government determined if you went to University or Gymnasium (technical school). There appeared to be a capitalist government in the days we are studying in the Western world, but I don’t think that was laissez-faire either.
I do not believe Mr. Meyerson is attempting to convert his readers to socialism, yet give them a true understanding of its meaning. If the media and citizens of our country are going to accuse the President and other citizens of being socialists; Meyerson would like them to have the correct definition. Socialists believe that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. I think their point has been made in the past few years. Socialists advocate the creation of a society where wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. This is not to say that a brick layer works harder than a doctor so he should make more money, but rather the brick layers trade is a necessary commodity as is the doctors and her wages should reflect that.
I know Meyerson is speaking out of frustration, as we all are, but he is one of the lucky ones who write for a fairly liberal newspaper that will allow him to state his beliefs for the entire world to consider. That is one of the perks of capitalism; we have numerous newspapers to choose from. If we were a completely socialist society would socialists like Ted Turner be so wealthy or would Mr. Meyerson have written this article, or would their talents be provided by the state instead of free enterprise?

Assignment #8 - C Strickland

In the article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism", Harold Meyerson points out that saving the capitalist system that is currently in place in America, may take actions that appear to be socialist. The government has to step in if Americans do not want large companies to fail. In a true capitalist economy the banking and automotive industries would have already failed due to the economic breakdown that occurred. People screamed for the government to step in and help and some of those same people are accusing the President of being a socialist. I wish they would make up their mind of what they want before they start asking for governmental influence.
I do agree with this author’s point of view, in that our past capitalist actions have lead to somewhat of a socialist input from our government. This should be a lesson that a capitalistic economy needs governmental regulations due to the fact that the motivation of the large companies is greed, which will lead to problems in the future, as we are now witnessing.

Assignment #8 C.Robertson

The article, "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" appeared in the Washington Post and was written by Harold Meyerson. This article explores the actions and opinions of socialists and capitalists in reference to the country's economic past and present. The fact presented in this article, that the Unites States has the highest healthcare costs in the world was startling, seeing as we have spent so much money rescuing banks and other businesses to keep them from plummeting. I think that we need to spend less time criticizing the socialist/capitalist aspects of how we are carrying out economic decisions and spend more time doing what is in the best interest of our country and stick with it, and that is the reason Obama is our president, because our country put faith in him to make the best p0ssible decisions for America. This article was directed towards citizens to present facts and project the author's opinions concerning capitalism and socialism.

Assignment #8 S Alt

The article "It's not about socialism, it's about rescuing capitalism" was written for the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson. Whenever you turn on the TV and a Republican is speaking, all they do is shout socialism. It sounds like the title of a book: "The Republican who cried 'Socialist!' " Considering how the Republicans were in control of the country for the majority of when the beginning of this crisis was starting and did absolutely nothing, I really don't see how their alternative solution can be anything positive. And like the article said, actual socialists have not been voicing their support of Obama. Plus, given how absolutely terrible this nation's healthcare system is, why does the idiotic idea of a $5000 tax credit sound preferrable to universal healthcare? This isn't Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, we don't have to try and keep the little kids out of the big kids' pool. Starving and suffering people looking to the government for help are hardly what anyone would call "moochers." If wanting a sensible, sustainable and equal America is what deems the article's author and I a raging, flaming Leninist, then count me in. I'd rather see an America where the poor and downtrodden are treated as human beings and people are willing to sacrifice for the good of the team than an authoritarian, Darwinian society where only the strongest survive. Are we not able as people to overcome Darwinian law and a corrupt form of capitalism?

jplyler Assignment#8

The article is entitled "Who You Calling Socialist?", and is written by Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post. This was a good article about socialist. They speak about our economy and our health care situation. Which is very true, health care should be our main prority not bailing out car dealerships but putting that money into healthcare. Obama and Roosevelt were both attack for being socialist they were not trying to creat socialism they were trying to reboot it. Really no one will ever fix this economy; obama is trying and i give him credit for that but our nation is in some much debt we will never regain what we lost. Maybe when roosvelt was in office he could have done something then. It has gone to far, so who do we really need to call socalists.

Assignment #6 - C Strickland

This was a very interesting article, and I have to agree with pretty much all of it. This article points out one of the very obvious reasons for this economical decline, greed. Greed is what motivated bankers and investment consultants to hide risk and fool investors. This in turn caused an ill affect on the manufacturing industry, by which I am currently employed.

I also have wondered how we, as a group, will overcome this situation, given the fact that everyone that I know is currently doing everything that they can to cut there cost. This seems to be driving us further into decline. What will it take to create change?

Any audience would, or should, appreciate this article published in the NY Times.

Assignment #6 K.Tough

This article, “Revenge of the Glut” is very similar in content to the President’s recent address to Congress. President Obama pointed out, as did Mr. Krugman, that American’s are gluts. Mr. Krugman is targeting our past and present saving mode, yet President Obama pointed out our glutens behavior in living above our means. The subprime crisis Mr. Krugman mentioned from the ‘good old days’ was a direct result of Americans choosing to live above their means. In the late ‘80’s and 1990’s we purchased homes that were out of our financial grasp, but acquired mortgages that were below the subprime allowing us to live above our means. There is no real blame mentioned in this article, nor in the President’s speech. There is no blame cast on the mortgage companies, banks, realtors, or home buyers; yet there is an explanation for all of this downward economic spiraling. There is the influx of foreign monies mentioned in Mr. Bernanke’s speech, and the American dollars that went to other countries also; but none of this was enough to offset the gluten of American homebuyers.
The author is definitely addressing the average citizen, and his terminology and language exemplify that. He has not actually shown a specific side as I can determine from his wording, yet he does appear to have a view. Krugman sounds as disappointed in the slump as everyone else in the country. He sees the mess we have created clearly, but like the rest of us he does not have a solution. We continue to save due to our fears of the economy, we continue to live above our means, and we may have taken on an attitude of thrift, but it is still one of living above our means and saving for fear of not having a future.
Krugman wants us to see what is going on in the world and how we have repeated the same mistakes as our parent’s generation. He has laid it out, but not given us a solution. Is there a solution? Have we learned from history?