Socialism no better today than in '30s
Some thoughts expanding on your recent printing of a column headlined "Globalization cutting a destructive swath through the U.S." by Cynthia Tucker.
I was glad to see on CSPAN this past weekend that Heritage Foundation is promoting a new professorial treatment of Friedrich Hayek, hopefully to acquaint new generations with counter-arguments to socialism made at a time -- mid-1930s -- when socialism was a relatively newly manifested form of governance.
In "The Road To Serfdom," I recall Hayek observed that until the advent of Soviet communism, all the world had known as a civilization format was free marketing; he argued that people had come to distrust it largely because they had been hunter-gatherers, at best forming small tribes by nature, and didn't like market forces constraining survival of the fittest. The new concept of socialism therefore offered people a collectivist basis wherein all were equal and all were provided for equally according to their willingness to work and meet needs of the collective.
Sounded like a sure thing, especially in times most people weren't seasoned economists, jurists, and the like. And as the Soviet communist model, inter alia, pointed out over the then next 70 years or so, such collectivism has many flaws and in fact is far worse than free market theory...diminishing even those with the first professional degrees, as the individual is always last behind the collective.
Collectivists view the world as the prime collective, with stewardship of subprime collectives minstered by columns of leaders appointed or designated by the majority prime council. Then, each subprime sets about collectivizing persons and groups into special categories, on understanding the irresponsible are as entitled as the responsible, and the result usually is this collective is designated bad de facto; this collective is above reproach de facto; today this collective shall receive more at the reduction to the others but it's fair since then that creates new need in the reduced from which the previously accommodated then get less to equalize...and so it goes, sort of the ultimate in profiling for need of the state.
For me, yes, of course, any civilization whatsoever is a departure from our humble, ancient beginnings as hunter-gatherer cavemen; but if given a choice between capitalism driven by collectivism or capitalism driven by free-market theories, all "From a culture of corruption to Katrina, Caesar should do it if Priscus won't" malarkey aside, I'll take free-market theories as same have stood far more people in good stead than collectivism ever has, does, or will.
In closing, I defer to Mexico's president at the moment, for example of how capitalism driven by collectivism creates multitudes having to do without, and which can't maintain itself without expanding resources for its column of the prime collective -- same problems for which the Soviets, Mao, and all other collectivists still haven't found the slightest other answers.
Daniel C. Arendt
Wadsworth
Macy's does not merit our sympathy
We should feel sorry for Macy's? Oh, please. Their sales are down - way down - and for good reason. Macy's eliminated the world famous Marshall Field's by dropping the name plate, discontinuing the unique merchandise, pushing poorly made and overpriced house brands and downgrading customer service. With excellent retailers such as J.C. Penney, Kohl's, Carson's, and Lord & Taylor in Chicagoland, there just is no reason to put up with all of Macy's nonsense.
Jim McCormack
Lincolnshire