Burlington High
School
Burlington, Kansas
Teacher: Devra Parker
Past and
Present:
America’s Economy Remains the Same
By Keira Masters
12th grade
Eeenie-Meenie-Minee-Mo. Is the United States a capitalistic or socialistic country foe? Being capitalistic means that our economy is one in which the production and distribution of goods is privately or corporately owned. Capitalist countries’ prices of items are determined privately in the free market, not by the state. However, in a socialistic economy, the government controls and owns the industries. I believe that the United States of America’s system of government resembles capitalism more than socialism.
Take a trip to the past and explore the 1930’s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933 and immediately had many ideas in order to help his people overcome the losses they had accumulated with the stock market crash that spiraled into the Great Depression. The name of this plan was the New Deal. There were many diverse programs within the New Deal with the hopes of restarting the economy by giving people jobs and just giving them more hope in the government again. The Civil Works Administration and the Works Progress Administration were two of the main programs that helped Americans get their feet under themselves again. They decreased unemployment by repairing roads, parks, airports, and making dams. Roosevelt also implemented the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Through this, he reactivated a hydroelectric power plant and then provided cheap electric power, flood control, and recreational opportunities to the entire Tennessee River Valley. Many people loved this idea. It left more money in their pocket instead of them paying higher bills for electric power.
However, there was at least one drawback. Many citizens saw this act as what they called creeping socialism. This was a common feeling because it was taking business away from a previously privately owned industry and making it owned by the government, like socialism. Roosevelt even tried to pack the Supreme Court. He wanted to add six members to the original nine, so that the Supreme Court could not keep declaring his bills unconstitutional. The Court Packing Bill did come to a halt, however, when the American people started to voice their opinions on their scare of becoming socialistic.
You might be wondering how the history of Roosevelt’s era has anything to do with why I am convinced our country is of capitalistic nature. If it couldn’t be done then, it won’t be done now. Although Roosevelt pushed with all the powers, he could to get his bills passed; the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped his efforts. The spread of programs such as the TVA was stopped, along with his other efforts of movement toward socialism.
In the 21st Century our nation is much different than it was in the 1930’s, yet in many ways it remains the same. I believe that the country remains capitalistic and this is shown by simply comparing ourselves to Sweden, a very socialistic nation.
One major question that needs to be asked is who controls the industries? Sweden’s people within the socialistic financial system are allowed to own their own stores, farms, and factories just like we can in America, but there is another discrepancy. Their government controls the power plants, railroads, airlines, and banks; whereas, the United States shows no signs of having any government control on transportation, banks, or energy. The TVA is still in operation along the Tennessee River, but it only affects those in the close vicinity, so it isn’t really making a huge effect and acting like socialism. I deem it self-evident that America is not socialistic by owning industries.
Due to Sweden having some government-run commerce, it changes the economic activity. They rely upon the decisions of consumers, citizens’ businesses, and the government. This is far different than our country. We have a stock market that changes prices and our economic activity. It is based solely on the decisions of consumers and business owners. One more solid block of evidence is this: our government is not involved with pricing like Sweden, a socialistic government. We have more of a free market as part of capitalism.
Yet another palpable example is tax rates. Normally in socialist countries, they tax everyone a high amount nearing fifty percent. It seems unjust at first to the outside eye, but it does have some beneficial qualities. If you need to have knee surgery, you can have it done free of charge. This is only because of the higher taxes and everyone has equal health benefits. Is this something you see in our country? Definitely not. Even though many people argue our taxes are high, they are not close to being fifty percent of our income. Plus, it is often taken directly out of the paycheck. Therefore, our taxes also resemble capitalistic economy. Capitalism requires taxes to be paid, but they mainly go toward the government. Our people are required to get their own health insurance. It is unquestionably not equal, like socialism.
Did the terrorists attack the World Trade Towers to try and cause the downfall of socialism? Of course not. True Islamists terrorists believe that capitalism is godless, and they want to get rid of it. To them, since the fall of communism, capitalism is the only factor standing in the way of establishing a true Islamic society. It is apparent that they and others in our world view us as true capitalism. If they didn’t, they would not have been willing to wage a global Jihad to cause the collapse of capitalistic societies. When they attacked on September 11th, they were attacking what they saw as the center of capitalism in the world.
Thus, whether it is by taxing, industry, or economic activity, the United States is inherently more capitalistic than socialistic. From past to present our Constitution has served as a basis for the Supreme Court. It is used to rule over our country and other civil officers to work side by side with it. The Constitution promotes a private, free market, capitalistic society.
Answers To Questions Prompted By The Required Reading
Seven Principles of
Sound Public Policy
Q1- What does Mr.
Reed mean when he says "Equal people are not free."?
When Mr. Reed says equal
people are not free, he means that if everyone had exactly the same status
within the government and had the same exact rank then everyone would have to be
controlled heavily to maintain this equality. The government would literally
have to use force to make people equal. Then, there would be so many rules to
make them equal that they would have no freedom.
Q2- What is the deadly trade-off to reliance upon government, according to
Reed?
The deadly trade-off that Reed relates to is the fact that the government is necessary, but it can be harmful if looked at in the wrong perspective. Everyone needs a government to provide civil liberties, protection and rights; however, if it is relied upon too much then it can have too much power and take all the people’s freedom away.
The Calf of
Democracy
Q3- Why did the
Founding Fathers assure that the United States became a republic rather than a
pure democracy?
The Founding Fathers knew that if the United States was a pure democracy our nation would not function as smoothly. There would be no limits of what could and could not happen. If over fifty percent wanted something, then, it would become law. However, the Founding Fathers put limits on what laws can be made, especially over individual rights. In our republic it is a form of democracy, but not a pure democracy, because even though people have power to vote on some issues they have an authority with more power than them, to check their decision. This is why it is not a pure democracy.
Q4- What is the saving grace of democracy according to Lawrence Reed?
He thinks that the saving grace of democracy is that it allows for political change without violence. It doesn’t matter whether the majority right or wrong; it is still allowed to occur without a coup de tat or warfare overthrow.
Freedom Is Not a
Doctrine
Q5- Richard Haas
gives two unusual reasons for advocating democracy. What are they?
One unusual reason for advocating democracy, is that it is a useful tool for
fighting terrorism. Democracy involves its citizens more in the government so
they feel more pressed to act and protect our nation. They also feel more
united and are therefore less likely attack targets to get what they want.
Another strange reason democracy is advocated, is to put an end to tyranny.
Bush made this statement at his second inaugural speech. I think he was
thinking that if countries had a democracy in place, then they would no longer
have their ruthless dictators and tyrants ruling.
Q6- Give two reasons
you personally would promote democracy.
I believe in democracy because it is much more peaceful. There is not a
military battle each time the political party is changed. I also think it is a
good idea because it gives everyone the feeling that they play a part in the
government and in most ways is or can be. If someone wants to run for an
office, all they have to do is get a majority to vote for them.
Q7- Comment (any
length) on President Bush's current foreign policy.
President Bush’s
foreign policy has some ups and downs, just like every policy. Bush says that
our vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. It is a good concept,
but I think that it may be a little to extreme. As Haas also said, I think it
should be more of a preference that other nations have a democracy, not a vital
interest.
Internet Activities
Q8- How did you
interpret each of the four different hats ("officials with fine hats")?
I think that the four fine hats symbolize different types of leaders that often
emerge to govern people or that have a large influence on the outcome of
decisions. The crown signifies someone of royalty that governs his/her people
in a country. They also showed a person wearing a fine hat that was a
white top hat. I believe that that represented someone that inherited their
money or position and didn’t have to physically do much to get their control.
The third fine hat was what appeared to be a graduation cap, representing an
individual who gained power by being a top scholar or by having vast knowledge.
Then, there is also a person with a brown top hat. I think that the brown
indicates that this person worked their way up to the top, it may not have been
the easiest.
Q9- How did you interpret the megaphone, baby, knife/gun ("No matter how
officials are selected")?
When I saw the megaphone, baby, knife/gun I interpreted them all as different
ways that officials are selected to lead a nation or group. I interpreted the
megaphone as someone that was elected by some type of campaigning. They
talked directly to the people and tried to persuade them. Then next means
of getting elected was by relation. The baby symbolizes blood relation to past
rulers that directly resulted in the person receiving the position. Then, the
last and most violent means is shown by the knife and gun. It is implied that
someone is loosing life over the political exchange.
Q10- Browse the "Favorite Links" of the Economic Freedom Network
http://www.freetheworld.com/other.html and share one of your favorite
discoveries with us. Make sure you copy the url. Tell us why you chose it.
I read an article that can be found at http://www.econlib.org/library/
Columns/y2005/Robertsmarkets.html. Russell Roberts discussed the reality of
markets. I thought it was especially interesting when he began writing about
phenomena that we experience in the world. The most interesting was the
phenomena that are the product of human action, but not of human design. I had
never considered language to be one of these. However, it is because even
though there are self-appointed officials that attempt to regulate it, the
people still unknowingly choose what words to use everyday and which ones to
ignore. Governments can not stop the people from saying something even though
they can prefer something. I had never looked at language as something that the
people control subconsciously/not by design.
Q11- Once again, go to
www.freetheworld.com and this time note the question asked near the top of
the page: "How much economic freedom exists in your country?" and randomly
choose five countries. List the name of each and their highest and lowest year
for economic freedom.
Australia
– Highest: 2000, Lowest: 1975
Cote d’Ivoire – Highest: 2001, Lowest: 1990
Iran
– Highest: 1970, Lowest: 1980
Tunisia
– Highest: 2001, Lowest: 1970
Senegal
– Highest: 2000, Lowest: 1995
Q12- Which of your
five countries had the greatest degree of economic freedom according to this
exercise?
According to this exercise
Australia had 8.0 out of 10,
which was the largest degree of economic freedom out of the five countries I
chose.
Q13- What was the summary rating and rank in the year it achieved this degree of economic freedom?
In 2000 Australia had a
summary rating of 8.0 and they were ranked 8th in economic freedom.