To the Editor,
Re: Motley assortment of socialism offered, Letters, June 30.
There are too many issues covered so blithely by the letter writer for me to go over without writing my own small novel on the ways in which he is confusing socialism with capitalism.
The assumption that it was socialism driving the decision to have banks loaning money to people they know can’t pay it back is false.
The writer seems to be confused as to what socialism is. Let’s go over it.
Socialism can mean many things, but it generally manifests as a desire to take care of all people regardless of their ability to take care of themselves. From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.
Banks loaning money to people who can’t possibly pay it back is not socialism. That’s actually a risky form of capitalism.
People who do pay their mortgages often buy houses far more expensive than they can afford because the bank is approving their mortgage.
People who default have their house repossessed and the house is sold again, effectively turning the bank into a glorified rental service where they don’t have to repair anything and charge rates far more than any rental could ever go for. No contracts, no regulation, pure profit … until the banks got greedy.
Too many people were defaulting and that caused a crisis. Still not socialism. Socialism is about taking care of people, the sub-prime mortgage crisis was about taking advantage of people.
When socialists loot the monetary system, the money goes back into the economy because it goes to the poor who do things with it.
When capitalists loot the monetary system, the money disappears into the coffers of the top 10 per cent of the population.
Considering that 40 per cent of the world’s wealth is held by one per cent of the population, you’re lying to yourself if you say it was the socialists who looted the system.