Hybrid Capitalism or Hybrid Socialism

[Tyler Kiziah]

They are the same thing.

I feel that you have been misleading people on your Blogtv show by telling them you offer an alternative to socialist policies. Instead of agreeing with people when they stay socialism is bad, you should instead explain to them why your policies have socialist roots but are good.

Being a Libertarian and a strong supporter of the Austrian School of Economics I disagree with most of your policies. But I also respect your opinions and your right as an individual to start a political party. My only compliant is that you should let your followers know exactly what they are getting. Don't cover it up in Orwellian rhetoric like Obama did.

Aside from that continue to what you are doing. It's always a good thing to see someone fighting against our current one-party political system.

[Americas Third Party]

Hybrid Capitalism grew out of a response to the monetarists philosophy, who believe that money alone will solve the economic problems. We believe that government intervention is required in certain areas, but there should be no government takeover like in the socialist model. Our economic model involves government competing in the free market system, an approach which has never been tried before in any economic system. I attempted to explain this to Milton Friedman, who did not understand this concept. Our current system is more socialist than anything we propose as the government is subsidizing banking and industry. That model does not subscribe to any laissez faire economic models.

[Tyler Kiziah]

We are currently living under a hybrid capitalist system today. Not by the same definition that you have described but we are far from free market capitalists. Your version of hybrid capitalism is susceptible to many of the same problem our current system faces.

Here are a few problems I have with Hybrid Capitalism:

1. The taxpayer would be forced to subsidize the founding of the GSE even though they would rather support the free-market alternative. The tax money payed to fund the GSE in turn can't be invested in the private sector.

2. Who decides when the government has lost to the private sector? Instead of going bankrupt like a private company would the government owned company could continue to receive government subsidizes in hope that one day it would be able to compete with the the free market. During this process the government owned company is wasting the very same scarce resources that it was founded to preserve. The wasted resources are then no longer available for competitors to use in a more efficient way.

Also many of your polices expand upon socialist polices that are already in place. For instance:

Three-Day Work Week : Six-Day Business - Many labor unions implemented similar policies during The Great Depression. The results were disastrous.

Telecommuting - Only so much Telecommuting is sustainable. We have to produce something. Maybe add this to the responsibilities of a stay at home mom or dad?

Cap Annual Income at $2 Million - Income should always be determined by supply and demand. A good CEO is much harder to find then a typist. If this were to change and there were a surplus of highly qualified CEOs on the market their wage would reflect that.

Crime and Drugs - Most drug related crime is a result of the prohibition of drugs.

Regionalization - The market is already moving in this direction. This is direct results of people choosing to regionalize but the government has no right to force them to.

That's enough for now and thank you for your response to my previous question.

[Americas Third Party]

When I first described Hybrid Capitalism to people, their first reaction was to call it Socialism. It is sad that we live in an age when people think in terms of labels. Even to label my response Orwellian rhetoric is sad. Hybrid capitalism, as I see it, is not government control of production, which, by definition is Socialism. Instead, it is the government competing in the free enterprise system. I tried to explain this simple concept to Milton Friedman in 1978, but even he could not understand it. Many people call it mixed capitalism. But, that too, requires a centralized control mechanism. I simply want to seed capitalism with start up industries that can create a revenue stream for the American taxpayer. An example of this would be to create a Plug In Hybrid Electric Auto(PHEV) that can meet the market demand. Currently, the Prius(PHEV) is slated to sell for over $30,000 in the US in 2010. Most Americans could only afford about $12,000 for such a vehicle. If the US bought up portions of the failing Auto Industry, we could create one type of PHEV in regional factories and export that vehicle worldwide. We would be competing in the free market and spawning new US opportunities in the private sector for Lithium Ion Batteries, for instance. Another example would be a US Generic Pharmaceutical Corporation. This would fill a void in the free market where people don't currently afford medication. It in no way alters the private industry of pill manufacturers. It offers low cost medicine to people that would normally go without it. All of these and other Hybrid Capitalist solutions create a revenue stream for the government. We can begin to rely less on taxation as a way to finance our bureaucracies.

To think that this is socialism is to stigmatize it. The world may be black and white to some people, but I live in a grey zone. As a centrist, I do not try to alienate either side of the political spectrum. I seek tri-partisanship. A socialist agenda like that of Obama, serves to splinter the body politic. Our Nation is being driven toward fascistic socialism at a rapid pace. His solution to nationalize the banking industry will be the end of the US dollar as we know it. His methods are draconian and have little forethought. It is as if America is asleep and he is the nightmare. I am here to offer a bright light of hope for America. This is not Orwellian, it is transcendent. It takes problems and finds workable solutions. It is inventive and transparent. And it offers hope for capitalism. To dispense with Hybrid Capitalism as if it is Socialism in disguise, is wrong. If a Hybrid Capitalist Enterprise fails, it fails. Some other solution will fill its place. If Socialism fails, the taxpayer funds it, and funds it, endlessly. Socialism can take a country down. ~DJS

[Tyler Kiziah]

First of all I never dismissed your idea of hybrid-capitalism as socialism. I was simply pointing out that hybrid implies there being more then one ideology involved. If hybrid-capitalism was purely capitalistic in nature why would you include the term hybrid in it's name? Instead of using an ambiguous term such as hybrid, why not use let people know exactly what they are getting in the title. Hybrid capitalism conforms perfectly to the definition of Orwellian imo.

"It is sad that we live in an age when people think in terms of labels. Even to label my response Orwellian rhetoric is sad."
"A socialist agenda like that of Obama, serves to splinter the body politic. Our Nation is being driven toward fascistic socialism at a rapid pace."
I assume this is a justified use of labels?

"An example of this would be to create a Plug In Hybrid Electric Auto(PHEV) that can meet the market demand. Currently, the Prius(PHEV) is slated to sell for over $30,000 in the US in 2010. Most Americans could only afford about $12,000 for such a vehicle. If the US bought up portions of the failing Auto Industry, we could create one type of PHEV in regional factories and export that vehicle worldwide."

Where is the government going to get the money buy up portions of the auto industry?
1. They could steal money from the masses in the form of taxes.
2. They could steal money from the masses via inflating the money supply.
I personally disagree with both methods of subsidization. If the government wants to compete with the free-market let them. Don't grant them privileges above and beyond the privileges granted to other market entities.

"Another example would be a US Generic Pharmaceutical Corporation. This would fill a void in the free market where people don't currently afford medication. It in no way alters the private industry of pill manufacturers. It offers low cost medicine to people that would normally go without it."

Patents in the pharmaceutical industry creates monopolies thus granting a single drug company monopolistic control over the drugs they develop. Unless the government redacts this destructive patent legislation competition is impossible... Even competition with the government.

After patents run out and competition is permitted unaffordabile drugs quickly become affordable. e.g. 4 dollar generic drugs at wal-mart.

My point is most of the problems you are trying to solve with the use of more government intervention are the direct results of prior government intervention. Instead of looking for innovative ways to prop up the pointless bureaucracies which is our government today, I say we step back reaccess the role of government for tomorrow.