Guest Post: The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible

I understand the dream of the common socialist.  I was, after all, once a Democrat.  I understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism, though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same).  I understand the drive and the desire to help other human beings, especially those in dire need, and the tendency to see government as the ultimate solution to all our problems.  That said, let’s be honest; government is in the end just a tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set of principles.  Unfortunately, what most socialists today don’t seem to understand is that no matter what strategies they devise, they will NEVER have control.  And, those they wish to help will be led to suffer, because the establishment does not care about them, or you.  The establishment does not think of what it can give, it thinks about what it can take.  Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game which allows them to quarry the favor of the serfs, and nothing more.

There are other powers at work in this world; powers that have the ability to play both sides of the political spectrum.  The money elite have been wielding the false left/right paradigm for centuries, and to great effect.  Whether socialism or corporatism prevails, they are the final victors, and the game continues onward…

Knowing this fact, I find that my reactions to the entire Obamacare debate rather muddled.  Really, I see the whole event as a kind of circus, a mirage, a distraction.  Perhaps it is because I am first and foremost an economic analyst, and when looking at Obamacare and socialization in general, I see no tangibility.  I see no threat beyond what we as Americans already face.  Let me explain…

Socialism Is Failure

A country that feels the need to socialize has, in my view, already failed culturally.  It is an open admission by the public that they are unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their own prosperity.  If a society is not able to function in a healthy economic manner without the force of government (an abstract entity often manipulated by corrupt ideals) resulting in the creation of artificial and precarious balance using fiat stimulus and overt taxation, then the people of that country are not remotely independent and self sufficient.  That is to say, only a nation filled with pathetic overgrown children would actually need government to enforce mandatory “charity”, welfare, healthcare, etc.  A truly healthy society supported by strong and self sustainable individuals would not beg to be parented by government.  If a country is so unbalanced as to stoop to socialism, then its ailments already extend far beyond anything government (even good government) could ever hope to cure.

Obamacare, its tentative application, and those who blindly support its introduction in the U.S., are an example of a weak people groveling for handouts they do not work for nor deserve.  Socialism is defeat.  It is a waving of the white flag by a society and the trading of that culture’s liberty for the illusion of fiscal security.  It is the act of an adolescent and naïve populace groveling for an allowance from their “motherland”.

If one wants to consider what a socialized America would actually be like, why not examine the track record of the EU, a group of nations which have dabbled extensively in the principles of collective centralization and various levels of socialism, including the extremes of communism and fascism (and yes folks, both are derived from a socialist/collectivist foundation, despite what pseudo-intellectuals and propagandized academics will try and tell you). 

What success have they accomplished in the course of their Utopian endeavors? 

Well, more than half of the states of the European Union have already reached debt to GDP ratios well beyond the limit required to retain membership:

Several countries, including the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, are all in the midst of severe debt crisis.  The Euro itself is on the verge of disintegration, and in all likelihood, the EU charter will be reexamined, and mutated into something completely different to what exists today.  The central bankers will blame European countries and their “insistence” on maintaining sovereign control over their finances, but ultimately, it is not sovereignty that strangles the EU, but its ridiculous supranational status which is entirely misapplied and has created a state of interdependency that has weakened every member nation to the point of disaster.

It should be painfully clear to anyone considering socialism as a viable option for America that this kind of system requires fiscal discipline and a vast amount of SAVINGS.  Notice I say “savings” and not “money”.  Money is a carnival ride; an illusion of wealth that can be printed from thin air.  Savings is an actual concrete storage of real capital, an ongoing surplus of manufacturing and production capability resulting in the stockpiling of working credit and ample employment.  Most of the countries of the EU do not have such savings, and never did.  In fact, most European countries have operated for decades on a loss.  They have never been able to live with the direct and indirect investments of outside players.  Because of this, EU countries are utterly unable to keep up with the grand concepts of socialism, and have buried themselves under the crushing debts generated by entitlement programs.

America is no different.

Forget Universal Healthcare – The U.S. Is Bust

There has been a pervasive delusion amongst pro-socialism movements in the United States that we are the “richest country in the world”.  They claim it is “absurd” that the establishment system does not pay for our healthcare with such riches at its disposal.  They consistently rant about Canadian Healthcare and its record of universal treatment.  The problem is, they ignore the details…

Canada’s national debt stands at around $1.1 Trillion (officially).  Canada’s population sits at around 34 Million.  America’s national debt stands at around $15 Trillion (officially) and our population sits at around 313 Million.  The two countries are entirely different animals.  To clamor for a Canadian style healthcare program for a country with completely opposite economic parameters is idiocy, or lunacy, or both.

Officially, our economy has already broken the 100% debt to GDP threshold.  Unofficially, but more accurately, the U.S. national debt sits closer to $120 Trillion.  This number accounts not only for public debt, but intragovernmental debt, and implicit debt, meaning, the debt obligations the government has committed to for the near future:

I would also like to quickly note that mainstream economists back in 2011 were predicting the U.S. would reach 101% of GDP by 2021.  It is now 2012, only one year later, and we have already crossed the 101% marker.

Add to this the projected costs of Obamacare ($17 Trillion in estimated long term unfunded obligations), and what you get is a broke-ass country:

The only factor which has stayed the tide of a full-blown macro-implosion of the U.S. is the world reserve status of our currency.  The dollar is all we have left.  Period.  But don’t count on that for much longer either.  With multiple nations, including China and Japan (our largest foreign debt holders) quietly forming bilateral trade agreements cutting out the use of the greenback, it will not be long before its world reserve status disappears as well, and then, we are on our own.  The private Federal Reserve can print all they want, but if other countries no longer need dollars to facilitate cross border trade, then what we will get is hyperinflation, or stagflation.  Obamacare only expedites this process by generated even more liabilities we cannot cover, thereby giving the central bank even more excuse to churn out dollars with wild abandon.

To put it plainly, all those people who believe America is the “richest country in the world” are living in mushroom land.  We-are-broke.  Bust.  In the red.  In the hole.  Insolvent.  Our pockets have become lint traps.  We’re switching from fine Belgian beer to Busch Light.  And, we can’t all move back in with our parents like so many Obamacare proponents I have met…

Go Ahead, Try To Enforce Obamacare…

We-have-no-money.  Therefore, the debate over universal socialized medicine is pointless.  It is mathematically and economically impossible to implement.  What the Supreme Court says on the subject of socialization certainly matters in terms of principle, and they have failed Americans spectacularly in that respect (or served their globalist sugar-daddies well; however you want to look at it).  But, in terms of finance, the Supreme Court’s shocking decision means nothing.

One of Ron Paul’s primary arguments against the ongoing wars in the Middle East has always been that whether one agrees with these conflicts or not is irrelevant.  The U.S. does not have the means to fund them.  Eventually, we will break the bank and the dollar to maintain our presence in the region, and thus, the wars WILL end, one way or another.  The same philosophy goes for Obamacare and every other socializing program presented in America.

They will say that taxation will cover the costs; but how do you raise taxes on a populace that is growing more destitute every year.  How do you take money from people if they do not have it?  This tactic doesn’t seem to be working very well for Europe.  Also, keep in mind that as population and inflation grow exponentially, so will costs.  Meaning, the taxation will have to expand as fast, or faster, than the expenditures.  This is why so many opponents of Obamacare voice concerns over population reduction programs and rejected care; they are an inevitable end result.  When you institutionalize health and life under the auspices of bureaucracy, you must also invariably institutionalize death.  Population and life suddenly become a numbers issue to the state, rather than a moral issue.

They will say that the penalties to those who refuse to participate will cover the costs of the rest.  Again, how to you take money from people that do not have it?  What if millions of people simply refuse to participate, AND refuse to pay penalties?

They will say “tax the corporations”, and we could, but, as the derivatives crisis has proven, most major corporations in the U.S. are on the government take just to survive.  We cannot have corporate bailouts and increased corporate taxation at the same time.  The bailouts would have to end, the companies would collapse (as they should, but that’s besides the point), and we’re right back to where we started.  Just like our government, most corporations also operate on false wealth.  They will not be paying for Obamacare anytime soon.

They will say that it is all for the greater good, but since when has the establishment been qualified to define what the “greater good” is?  Is Obamacare really a matter of conscience?  Or, is it a farce flaunted about as if it is a matter of conscience?

They will say that people must be forced to do what is right for the group.  I say, such hubris has always led to catastrophe.  Usually, it is the select beneficiaries of tyrannical cultures that call for the might of the central government to be wrought upon the rest of the citizenry.  Not to do right by conscience, but to satiate their desire for control.  Men love government as long as it is imposing their particular world view, and as long as the tables never turn.

They will say that current medical practices and costs are terrible and something must be done.  I agree.  However, Obamacare is not the answer.  If there is one thing that wears thin upon my mind it is the one track thinking of the progressive ilk who know that Obama’s healthcare initiative is a stop gap at best, but barrel forward anyway because “at least it is something different”.

“Don’t you want to help the poor”, they say. 

Certainly.  I want to help them by saving them from the disaster that socialism will inevitably lead to.    

Principles and existentialist debates aside, the primary economic question still remains; where is a realistic plan to pay for this monstrosity of a program?  I have yet to see a single grounded solution to the quandary.  How does one pay for something he will never be able to afford?  If there are no means, there will be no Obamacare.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
GeneMarchbanks's picture

"Democracy is the road to socialism" --K.Marx

I understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism, though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same).

They don't. They understand that one is the logical conclusion of the other. It's you who remains foolish and confused.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Whoever downvoted you is a simple minded twit living in the false paradigm that the US is a democracy. 

Nothing To See Here's picture

Got to downvote both of you. Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism, unless you think Mussolini was a capitalist.

Corporatism is the Third Way, the fascist way of running economics under the State's control. It is driven by socialist ideology just like Mussolini was, although it alllows private property as long as the State directs its uses and/or as long as it can be made to help the State. Socialists and fascists always fought each other because they vie for the same votes; they just don't use the same tools nor do they agree on every detail. Bottom line, they're all collectivists and they hate individualism and capitalism.


Manthong's picture

Yes,  and the socialization of America is economically impossible only assuming America is a (U.S.) Constitutional republic with a free capitalist market.

As America is no longer a Constitutional republic, but some type of pseudo democratic authoritarian kleptocracy in transition to totalitarianism, it can and will be “socialized” a great deal more.

It’s the road that has to be followed to get to the serfdom part.

The They's picture

I agree with both Manthong and NTSH.  on another note:

"government is in the end just a tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set of principles."

I completely disagree with this characterization of government.  The government is an interested party in the situation it stands over.  It wants to maintain its own power at the expense of all those who would opose it.  Characterizing it as a mere "tool" is exactly the kind of misunderstanding that leads to socialist thinking in the first place.

francis_sawyer's picture

I'm curious why there weren't any abandoned knapsacks in the area where those people with supporting posters in the foto were demonstrating...

Red Heeler's picture

The woman in the photo is most likely a government employee. Notice that she is well-groomed and clothed and is wearing shades to avoid positive identification. Notice that the sign is manufactured - not hand made. She didn't make the sign, she was given the sign, which was most likely printed with your tax dollars. I would venture to guess that everyone in the photo is on the government dole. 

No need to scare everyone off with a false flag.

francis_sawyer's picture

She's wearing her hook nose like a badge of honor... (but at least she shaves her armpits)...

A Nanny Moose's picture

Governments are The People. Government is the means by which people are able to force their will upon everybody else.

It is completely immoral.

casey13's picture

I have to agree. The response to the problems growing worse will be even more government intervention. The people who promote socialism know that the current government is not working but they still believe if only they can get the right government it will then be ok. It won't but that won't stop them from trying.

SeattleBruce's picture

Trying the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results...what is that?  Oh yes - the definition of insanity.  We need to understand who our enemies are (those that control the debt based monetary system), and then march into action.  There are solutions that would allow us to rebuild the US.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

I agree with you that corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism.  My comment was about the dellusion of democracy.  Downvote be damned. 

Nothing To See Here's picture

To the extent that what you meant was that modern "democracy" leads to socialism, I agree with you. I would only add that modern "democracy" is not what democracy was meant to be by the early philosophers who developped the vision of the democratic ideal (power to the people). It has been turned over its head by the cancer that is socialist thought since Rousseau and his likes...

kridkrid's picture

Even with all of your up votes... what you are saying doesn't necessarily oppose what Richard and Gene were saying... The point that they are making, and a point that I think is worthy of consideration, will capitalism eventually morph into Corporatism or Fascism?  

I will continue to maintain that it's the monetary system gone awry... not any -ism, that has sown the seeds of our pending economic doom.  What we should be considering, humanity in general, is what we want the next thing to look like... if anything is left.

blunderdog's picture

Money overwhelms any political process when it is permitted to.  It doesn't matter if it's the mythically "perfect" capitalism or a mixed system or a full-on fascist system or even state-directed socialist/communist system.

When the relative wealth discrepancy between the "commoner" and the "power-elite" becomes sufficiently great, there's no escape from a virtual feudalism.  "Society" can't operate when the life-long "value" of a man is less than the amount of a drunken bar-bet between the rulers.

I'd expect to be junked to oblivion for pointing this out, but what the hell, if it weren't true, there'd be societies out there in which the ultra-wealthy don't dominate the political process.

Find one.

PonziBeaver's picture

One example would be Cuba. The elites don't live much better than the commoners over there. They are also starting to leverage the benefits of small-scale capitalism too - farmers get to keep some of what they produce and sell it. Free market for milk, tomatoes, mangoes, etc.

Their socialist health care system is somewhat affordable for the government because the don't waste money on big pharma, big insurance, etc. Restless leg syndrome? Acid reflux? Give me a fuckin' break!


blunderdog's picture

Er...I wouldn't qualify anyone in Cuba as "ultra-wealthy," though.

PonziBeaver's picture

You are correct ... an ultra-wealthy class has not evolved there to subvert the political process and practice crony capitalism.

I gave you a thumbs-up, by the way.

I like capitalism because it works, just don't think some things can be trusted to the private sector unless maybe you can remove the evil croneyism (examples: police, fire, healthcare, prisons, armed forces).

Bananamerican's picture

"Even with all of your up votes... what you are saying doesn't necessarily oppose what Richard and Gene were saying... "

Gene & Rich are BOTH unpleasant dickheads...

why are you even trying to legitimize their opinions?

pods's picture

Well for one their opinions seem to be following EXACTLY what is going on today.

Who gives a shit how unpleasant they are?  

Every analysis of "Capitalism" I have done has led to the exact same thing.  Exactly where we are today.

So why the hell should be bowing at the altar of "capitalism?"

Capitalism begets power to the people who can best please their fellow man.  Others will cry at the power obtained.  So rules will be made to limit the power of the wealthy.  But, since capitalism purports to be the best use of capital, the smart people realize that buying influence is their best use of their capital.

And we always end up where we are.

Why are the proponents of Marxism so thoroughly hated?

Because everyone knows that the adage "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" never works in the real world.

My beef is that why the hell can't people use the same sort of scrutiny for our hallowed "capitalist" society.

No, people will act like where we are is some form of fluke or bastardization of capitalism, when in reality, it IS the logical outcome of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love free markets.  But with free markets comes success.  With success comes jealousy and that leads to rules to punish the "capitalists" who realize this and use the public anger/envy to implement rules which further solidify their control over the market.

This kneejerk defense of capitalism therefore enters the realm of belief, which cannot be argued.


kridkrid's picture

Good post.  The opposition to these ideas is part of our our conditioning.  We are conditioned to pray at the alter of "capitalism" without giving it much critical thought.  What it everyone's critique of what is wrong with the other thing is right, while the solution that they may prefer is no better?  It could be.  Maybe only the nihilists are right.

kridkrid's picture

Such an odd statement/question.  Do you evaluate a position based on how you feel about the person presenting it?

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism, unless you think Mussolini was a capitalist.

Mussonlin was no capitalist, true, but he was no corporatist either. Fascism is not 'corporatism' as you understand it, and the Fascist government of Italy was not run by big business cartels nor had it any love for them - National Socialist Germany even less so.

they're all collectivists and they hate individualism and capitalism.

You present these as the only two possibilities, much like 'capitalism' and 'socialism', 'right' and 'left' and all the other stale old classifications of one-dimensional post-French Revolutionary political discourse. Collectivism and individualism are both of them artificial phenomena of the state.

Ghordius's picture


three completely different concepts, all with the same word

Corporativism in the Middle Ages: tradesmen of the same trade banding together and forming something that resembles more our modern trade unions which rule the (city-) state.

Corporativism in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the ruling party banging the capitalist's and worker's representative's heads together until they agree to function for the "glory of" the state.

Corporativism today: "private" MegaCorporations unleashing legions of lobbyists to buy political support for laws that make the triumph of the MegaCorporation possible, that of course squeezes everything that is "little".


Lebensphilosoph, your last phrase is really, really thought provoking, my compliments. I have no answer to that, yet.

Creepy Lurker's picture

"I have no answer to that, yet."

I'd like to take a crack at it; I believe he's refering to the stateless society - anarchism. For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for the idea. I'd like nothing better than to have the governemnt out of my life and be left alone, the real meaning of lassez-faire.

Having said that, I don't think its a realistic possibility. No matter how many mechanisms you concoct that rely on the preservation of "your good name" there will always be enough people who don't give a damn about thier good name and will dominate others. Unless someone comes up with a way to breed this out of the human species, anarchism won't work. It will just end up with some huge portion of the population being sold like cattle and agreeing to it "voluntarily" because the alternative is starvation.

Now look at all the "isms." Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, Feudalism, and Theocracy. You can come up with more, but they are subsets of the above. All of them, including Theocracy, end up as a type of Fuedalism, just with different groups as the aristocracy.

By all means, pick this apart, because I don't really want it to be true. But no solution can be found or proposed until reality is fully understood.

kridkrid's picture

that is also a great post... good work down here.  

"But no solution can be found or proposed until reality is fully understood"... and perhaps, no solution can be found, at all.  It's likely cyclical and inevitable.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Unless someone comes up with a way to breed this out of the human species, anarchism won't work.

May I recommend "The Bomb in the Brain" and other similar work by Stefan Molyneaux. His theory being that this is not hereditary, but environmental. Mostly the result of how we treat children during their formative years. Spanking, verbal/emotional abuse, etc. Simplistically, this results in kids growing up with the understanding that force is the way to get what you want. Interesting stuff.

No matter how many mechanisms you concoct that rely on the preservation of "your good name" there will always be enough people who don't give a damn about thier good name and will dominate others.....It will just end up with some huge portion of the population being sold like cattle and agreeing to it "voluntarily" because the alternative is starvation.

In other words, we end up right back where we are. Where do I sign up? I am willing to give it a try, because this shit isn't working.

Cathartes Aura's picture

making my way down this part of the thread, up voting great points made - couldn't up vote yours due to the bug that block quote as first line creates,

but wanted to let you know yours is also a great point, of how environ-mental/culture creates the participants, and certainly treating children as unruly animals instead of humans that are wanted/loved results in skewed adults that are still acting out their emotional rebellion.

many of the amrkns I have come into contact with are emotionally stunted around their teen years, with little desire to explore anything outside their comfort zone of "me, first!" bragging rights, and bullying tones in conversations, which suggests they've been defending their turf for a long, long time. . .

there has been much cultural upheaval these past couple of decades, and "traditional" roles are under scrutiny, including partnerships/marriage and parenting in particular. . . as it should be, things were stultified for so long, to no one's benefit.

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Feudalism, however, is a construct of historians which is out of fashion with today's medievalists. And certainly no 'Feudalism' was never planned out by intellectuals as some ideological system!

Cloud9.5's picture


Run the full circle on either fascism or communism and you wind up in the same place on your knees in front of a ditch with a gun to the back of your head.  The only difference is the size of the bullet, either nine millimeter parabellum or thirty caliber Tokarev.


Equality is a mirage.  We are inherently unequal.  We come into the world naked and screaming and we go out pretty much the same way.  Those two points in our existence are the only times that we as a species are even remotely equal.  Our disparity is the product of infinite combinations of environment and genetics.  These two factors in constant struggle with each other produce the individual.  Statists deny the individual.  In so doing they deny nature.  Efforts to deny nature always fail.  The only time you have perfect order and symmetry is in the cemetery.  


A Nanny Moose's picture

Allow me to lend you my /sarcasm flag.


sgt_doom's picture

Exactly, and thanks, Dr. Head!

"..quarry the favor of the serfs..."

I think he meant, "curry" not "quarry" --- but he may speak a funky dialect.

Myself, I am a strong supporter for economic democracy, something we've yet to experience.


El's picture

The U.S. is not a democracy. Although our dear leaders have forgotten, it is a republic based upon the Constitution. I wish we would remind them.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Hard to drop a duece with a big red, white, and blue dick up our asses.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

The U.S. is not a democracy.

A republic? OK that makes sense. Why is the author complaining about 'socialism'?

AchtungAffen's picture

And you know what a Republic is? It's the Res Publica, the PUBLIC THING. That which is owned by everyone but nobody in particular. Quite socialist, right?

tarsubil's picture

I want a federation. With starships.

falak pema's picture

would an earthship made of mud and recycled glass bottles suffice?

earthship : les maisons extraordinaires de michael Reynolds - Le blog de

See the youtube on the house built by a Brit in France.

Cloud9.5's picture


Democracies are ruled by the passion of the populace. As a result, they fall victim to charismatics. Our republic was supposed to be ruled by virtue.  What separated it from the rest, what chained the Leviathan and checked the dictatorship of the majority was the Bill of Rights.  It is no small thing these rights have been eviscerated.

AchtungAffen's picture

Ruled by virtue? Like the king-philosopher of ancient Greece times?

I love it how ZH Americans love democracy. Rule by virtue... Aristocracy you mean? You kinda got that already. In order to enter congress you need to be a 1% (it's not like that in all countries, be sure of that). And there are several dynasties going around there too. That's modern aristocratic rule for you, republic non democratic boy...

mess nonster's picture

Sorry, the US is NO LONGER a republic based on the Constitution. If you don't believe me, stand on your fourth amendment rights the next time a policeman hassles you- when (if) you wake up from your taser-induced coma, you'll realize that yesterday was a commemoration exercise, not a celebration of current realities.

AGuy's picture

"Although our dear leaders have forgotten, it is a republic based upon the Constitution."

It was once a republic at this point it would be difficult to call it a republic. Our "elected" representitves only listen to the people (or corporations) with the biggest pocketbooks. The name of the game is to remove wealth from the middle class.

CH1's picture

For a brief time, it WAS a republic based upon the Constitution.

Fixed it for ya.

aerojet's picture

You're living in la-la land if you think the US is not a democracy.  It is one, as much as voting even matters when both sides are captured, all despite whatever the Constitution says.  It is 2012, the Constitution is dead--we just saw an unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court to favor socialized medicine by any means necessary.  The Constitution does not constrain state power, it never has.  So, please, live in that reality.

blunderdog's picture

A program to require health-insurance is not "socialized medicine" by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

Umh's picture

When I think about the way obamacare is being implemented I keep coming to the idea that it's the worst of private & socialized cobbled together to sound fair while screwing people over.