There is no universal definition of socialism, so it may be helpful to state mine here. It is the idea that individual rights are subordinate to the good of society, as determined by those in power. The varieties of socialism only diverge over the degree of suppression of which particular rights.

The key phrase from the book, one that resonates so clearly today, is “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” When it is all said and done, equality is only for the peons, the lesser folk, the non-intellectual, non-wealthy proletariat. The political leaders, the elite, represented in the book by the pigs, are above equality. They proclaim that they need their wealth and power to do what is good for society. As Dr. Evil of Austin Powers fame would mockingly say, “Riiiiiiiiight.” The most influential promoters of socialist ideals are fabulously wealthy. They have vast opportunities to put their money where their collective mouths are. Yet, those selfless acts of mercy are strangely absent.

Paul Krugman, a high profile New York Times columnist, is a so-called economist who, in spite of being an economics professor, actually rejects all economic principles in favor of demagoguery and ideology. Last year he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics by the unabashedly socialist central bank of the socialist, egalitarian country of Sweden. One of his hot topics is income inequality and he decries the large salaries of corporate executives, yet he has no conscientious objection to accepting $50,000 for a speaking engagement or a million dollar Nobel award. With his salary, consulting, speaking and sales of best selling books, he earns many multiples of the average income. He does not, however, volunteer to donate all of his excess to those who are under the average. Might that call into question his egalitarian motives?

George Soros is a multi-billionaire, who earned his wealth from free market capitalism. He has become a leading voice in international socialism and is putting together a panel of socialist economists to develop a “new economics.” Included on the panel is Joseph Stiglitz, another wealthy Nobel Prize winner in economics. He also happens to be on an advisory board to the Socialist International, called the Commission on Global Financial issues. Soros has committed $50 million to establish the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Rather than donating his billions to the poor all over the world, he instead, finds it appropriate to use his incredible influence to promote redistribution schemes for you and me and anyone not lucky enough to be one of the exalted elite.

Redistributionist President Obama and his wife Michelle both had high paying jobs before the presidency, and made millions on best selling books. Did they redistribute their own excess to the less fortunate? No, they lived instead like wealthy capitalists in their $1.6 million dollar home. At one time, he worked with the radical socialist ACORN organization, learning the Saul Alinsky method of community organizing, igniting division and agitation and fanning the flames of victim mentality. As president, he has a stable full of wealthy socialists and international bankers, who have no qualms about taking away your rights and redistributing your income.

We are at a dangerous crossroads. American government in all branches has become infected with socialists who would like nothing better than to see our nation crumble. They would replace our constitution, based on freedom and the rights of every individual, with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which is an appropriate statement of rights for the former Soviet Union or the present North Korea.

The Orwellian “pigs” are taking over the farm. We, the people, are cheering them on. If we continue down this road, there will come a time when we are disarmed and dependent on benevolent government bureaucrats. Dependency is slavery. That is what socialism is all about. It is no surprise that many influential people tend to support socialism and “spreading the wealth”. They are, after all, the pigs who are “more equal.”

Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts

Michael Spence, the 2001 Nobel prize winner, briefly summarized (link) the main contributions of Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson to the economic theory.

Not surprisingly, critics of central banking – such as the great Ludwig von Mises and his protege Murray Rothbard – were never tapped by the selection committee. In fact, in the nearly four decades since the first “Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics” in 1969, the Swedish central bank has only awarded its top honor to one critic of central banking – Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek – and he had to share the 1974 award with a Swedish socialist.

That the Swedish central bank awards the “Nobel” prize in economics is not well known, but it’s hardly a secret. Wikipedia states plainly: “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize. However, the nomination process, selection criteria, and awards presentation are conducted in a manner similar to the Nobel Prizes.”

So, if I used a “similar nomination process, selection criteria, and awards presentation,” could I establish my own awards for YouTube videos and call them Oscars? Maybe, if I had the power to create money out of thin air like the Sveriges Riksbank.

But what of Krugman? Does he deserve recognition as a great economist? Not according to the Austrian school. Dr. William L. Anderson, an Austrian who teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, says Krugman isn’t an economist at all: “Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics,” says Anderson, “but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics.”

Why does Dr. Anderson feel this way? Well, Krugman is described as an “unreformed Keynesian,” meaning a follower of the economist John Maynard Keynes, whose theories were largely the basis for the massive ramp-up of the U.S. welfare state beginning with the New Deal and lasting through the mid-70s. The problem with Keynes’s theories: they’ve been positively refuted.

For example, Keynesianism teaches there’s a “trade-off” between unemployment and inflation. When there’s low unemployment, says the Keynesian Phillips Curve, there will be high inflation, and vice versa. Therefore, if employment is too high, we can “fix” the problem by expanding the money supply – or so thought Keynes. The problem is that, in response to the gross excesses of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, we had “stagflation” in the late 1970s: high unemployment and high inflation. And we’re likely headed there again, particularly if we follow Krugman’s favored policies.

Krugman is more well known for his criticisms of the Bush administration and Iraq War than for his economics. Bush, of course, deserves as much criticism as any president in history, and the war in Iraq deserves even more. But Krugman, who made his name as a polemicist and now has new gravitas as a “Nobel” Laureate, will likely have a prominent role in the nearly inevitable Obama administration. Sadly, this could make us pine for the good ol’ days of Bush/Cheney.