RE: American Socialism

RE: American Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ClassIsInSession -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 12:13:51 AM)
The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp.

Real0ne -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 12:17:28 AM)
democracy; 50.1% of the people can vote to fuck yer wife...

Moonhead -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 4:13:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Indeed many creative people of the time thought arts and crafts could be seen as a way of the poor helping themselves to earn a living. William Morris and others among them. Lets not lose sight of the fact that many capitalists of the day also set up philanthropic foundations for the same reason. Elizabeth Gurney (Elizabeth Fry of Gurney/Barclays banking families) started doing much the same even before Victoria came to the throne. It's also worth remembering that John Ruskin came out of the arts world, rather than the political one. he'd spent most of his career prior to publishing Unto This Last blathering about the preraphaelites.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:10:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. Does not capitalism seek market share to the point of monoply? Where has your assessment of socialism ever occured? What has happened,in fact,is that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other. quote: I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp. Are you refering to business v.govt or the false dichotomy of demopubs v.republicrats?

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne democracy; 50.1% of the people can vote to fuck yer wife... Only the simple minded would conflate democracy with constitutional democracy. Would you prefer the tyrany of the minority or the tyrany of the majority?

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 4:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Socialism defined: is govt. ownership of the means of production and that requires a majority ownership to fit. Almost all of these all these answers are incorrect as the govt. Only 'owns' Fannie, Freddie, because the govt. assumed their debt (receivership in bankruotcy...in effect) to the benefit of investors. The treas. never received any profits from them and are described as GSE Govt. sponsored enterprises and in fact socialized (subsidized by guarantee) mortgage investment called warehousing which is what they were and still are. If they are socialism, it is socialism for the rich like TARP. Amtrak is one service that the govt. owns and not much else as owning TVA, a utility and under the same market benefits and burdens as any local utility...is also NOT socialism. Who competes against "local utility"? It is a government monopoly. That is socialism. It is not private enterprise. It is not free enterprise since who is allowed to compete? quote: Govt. agencies are not socialism, govt. sponsor does mean socialism. There exists almost NO socialism in the US as defined. Farming, banking, wall street, ethanol, crops, oil...now there's your socialism. I have read this through a few times and each time it comes out as self contradictory. Wanna try again???? There exists very little govt. involvement in local utilities called natural monopolies that are in fact privately owned, NOT owned by any govt. at least not a single utility of which I am aware, excepting the feds and only a very few there. Govt. regulates rates and mostly rules pertaining to delivery and safety. Govt. guarantees a minimum return on investment and that investment is private...hence NOT socialism. The only money any govt. enjoys from utilities, comes from taxes. Govt. sponsored does NOT mean socialism, unless we use socialism of profits. Govt. sponsored means in actuality...govt. guaranteed profits for PRIVATE investors. With the American govt. or any govt. needing to own outright the means of production being the requirement for the real definition and only recently and partially, America is essentially 99% socialism free...except of course our 'socialism' for the rich and the corporate world and of course, profits, the reason we all exist. BUT, govt. 'socializes' i.e., puts on the backs of taxpayers much of the risk in many markets. Agriculture being a huge $20 billion/yr direct payment or price support for commodities whether or not the marketplace chooses them. Add to that ethanol, TARP is the socializing of wall street risk and there will be a TARP II, for more 'socialism' for the rich. Direct subsidies, subsidize profits and represents the laregst share of corporate welfare. Now there is your socialism...look at the capitalist and most are the richest socialists on the planet. Kinkroids, if we are going to use the words and unlike the lying, political whores American domocracy 'enjoys' then we are stuck with one definition...socialism is 'the govt. ownership of the means of production.' That's it, you have no choice are not allowed to embellish the definition for your argument or political disposition.

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. Does not capitalism seek market share to the point of monoply? Where has your assessment of socialism ever occured? What has happened,in fact,is that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other. quote: I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp. Are you refering to business v.govt or the false dichotomy of demopubs v.republicrats? Actually, the computations for measuring standards of living has been adjusted to accommodate the debt required to reach what would otherwise be a 'rising' standard. Debt service is not counted as a cost of living although it has risen over 500% since the 60's. We are told 60% of Americans own homes when in fact, they...own a mortage which for most has turned into a lifetime of debt. I was once asked how the west in general and America in particular had made such progress. I asked what progress ? In fact public and private debt has reached $50-$60 trillion meaning that almost all of the so-called *'economic growth'* since WWII...hasn't been paid for yet.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:08:11 PM)
quote: There exists very little govt. involvement in local utilities called natural monopolies that are in fact privately owned, NOT owned by any govt. at least not a single utility of which I am aware, excepting the feds and only a very few there. Con ed??? So cal edison??? San diego gas and electric??? Los angeles power and water??? Do you believe these are privately owned? Do you believe you are allowed to compete against them?

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:10:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp. But you could imagine that for any model. Models are set-up to find that which fits society and obviously with a feature of being the most 'ethical.' As for ethics in rulers, surely you're dreaming. All back in the day and today are/were whores. The Greeks were whores, the Romans were whores. Lords of the serfdom, masters of all stripes, the 'planter's son' everywhere through history...all whores. Maybe the shortest book in history is the 'History of Ethics.'

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. Does not capitalism seek market share to the point of monoply? Where has your assessment of socialism ever occured? What has happened,in fact,is that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other. quote: I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp. Are you refering to business v.govt or the false dichotomy of demopubs v.republicrats? Actually, the computations for measuring standards of living has been adjusted to accommodate the debt required to reach what would otherwise be a 'rising' standard. Debt service is not counted as a cost of living although it has risen over 500% since the 60's. We are told 60% of Americans own homes when in fact, they...own a mortage which for most has turned into a lifetime of debt. I was once asked how the west in general and America in particular had made such progress. I asked what progress ? In fact public and private debt has reached $50-$60 trillion meaning that almost all of the so-called *'economic growth'* since WWII...hasn't been paid for yet. Were you going to answer my questions or just continue with your talking points?

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: There exists very little govt. involvement in local utilities called natural monopolies that are in fact privately owned, NOT owned by any govt. at least not a single utility of which I am aware, excepting the feds and only a very few there. Con ed??? So cal edison??? San diego gas and electric??? Los angeles power and water??? Do you believe these are privately owned? Do you believe you are allowed to compete against them? Ownership is unrelated and irrelevant to any existence of competition. These natural monoplies are and as a result...legislated monoplies. ConEd: currently about $63/share as a stock corporation with about 292 million shares outstanding. It is publically traded yet privately owned. So Cal Edison, currently about $45/share as a stock corporation with about 325 million shares outstanding, i..e., publically traded but privately owned. SDGE IS a publically regulated...privately owned utitilty. Los Angeles water is owned by the city. There goes the neighborhood, once they become city owned...watch out for that urge to 'socialize.' The city bought it around 1900. I am sure western civilization will now fall and very soon.

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (7/23/2012 5:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession The biggest problem with both capitalism and socialism is not the inherent mechanisms of the models, but in the corruption of people imposing it on others. If you had just, morally upright people running either system, they could either work efficiently. With capitalism, you have "crony capitalism" which is a rigged game to reward those who are "in" the click, with socialism, it's the general reduction of living standards for the individual for the betterment of all, except for the "elite ruling class" who always seem to wind up with more. Does not capitalism seek market share to the point of monoply? Where has your assessment of socialism ever occured? What has happened,in fact,is that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other. quote: I've maintained for a long time that the problems we face are much less about the particular system that is running but more so about the ethics of those running them. And at this point in history, I don't trust most of the leadership enough in either camp. Are you refering to business v.govt or the false dichotomy of demopubs v.republicrats? Actually, the computations for measuring standards of living has been adjusted to accommodate the debt required to reach what would otherwise be a 'rising' standard. Debt service is not counted as a cost of living although it has risen over 500% since the 60's. We are told 60% of Americans own homes when in fact, they...own a mortage which for most has turned into a lifetime of debt. I was once asked how the west in general and America in particular had made such progress. I asked what progress ? In fact public and private debt has reached $50-$60 trillion meaning that almost all of the so-called *'economic growth'* since WWII...hasn't been paid for yet. Were you going to answer my questions or just continue with your talking points? I first went after and quite successfully so, your postulation about our alledged increase in standard of living. Not in wealth but we have modern accomodations and fancy toys but are not richer for it...just further in debt. I was as much addressing [class] talking points where your questions bare little or no relationship to the OP question of just how much 'socialsm' exists in America.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/24/2012 11:13:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: There exists very little govt. involvement in local utilities called natural monopolies that are in fact privately owned, NOT owned by any govt. at least not a single utility of which I am aware, excepting the feds and only a very few there. Con ed??? So cal edison??? San diego gas and electric??? Los angeles power and water??? Do you believe these are privately owned? Do you believe you are allowed to compete against them? Ownership is unrelated and irrelevant to any existence of competition. These natural monoplies are and as a result...legislated monoplies. ConEd: currently about $63/share as a stock corporation with about 292 million shares outstanding. It is publically traded yet privately owned. So Cal Edison, currently about $45/share as a stock corporation with about 325 million shares outstanding, i..e., publically traded but privately owned. SDGE IS a publically regulated...privately owned utitilty. Los Angeles water is owned by the city. There goes the neighborhood, once they become city owned...watch out for that urge to 'socialize.' The city bought it around 1900. I am sure western civilization will now fall and very soon. You seem to feel that because people own stock in a monopoly that makes it something other than a government sanctioned monopoly. Until you agree to use the same dictionary as the rest of the nitrogen/oxygen breathing folks on this planet you and I wont have much to talk about. You are not free to start your own power company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. You are not free to start your own sewage company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. By your line of reaoning the army and navy are private because the taxpayers would be the share holders and the dividends would be continued access to fuel etc. When the government controls it and allows no competition what is the word you use to describe that?

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (7/24/2012 11:16:03 AM)
quote: I first went after and quite successfully so, your postulation about our alledged increase in standard of living. Where did I postulate such?

MrRodgers -> RE: American Socialism (8/1/2012 11:53:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: There exists very little govt. involvement in local utilities called natural monopolies that are in fact privately owned, NOT owned by any govt. at least not a single utility of which I am aware, excepting the feds and only a very few there. Con ed??? So cal edison??? San diego gas and electric??? Los angeles power and water??? Do you believe these are privately owned? Do you believe you are allowed to compete against them? Ownership is unrelated and irrelevant to any existence of competition. These natural monoplies are and as a result...legislated monoplies. ConEd: currently about $63/share as a stock corporation with about 292 million shares outstanding. It is publically traded yet privately owned. So Cal Edison, currently about $45/share as a stock corporation with about 325 million shares outstanding, i..e., publically traded but privately owned. SDGE IS a publically regulated...privately owned utitilty. Los Angeles water is owned by the city. There goes the neighborhood, once they become city owned...watch out for that urge to 'socialize.' The city bought it around 1900. I am sure western civilization will now fall and very soon. You seem to feel that because people own stock in a monopoly that makes it something other than a government sanctioned monopoly. Until you agree to use the same dictionary as the rest of the nitrogen/oxygen breathing folks on this planet you and I wont have much to talk about. You are not free to start your own power company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. You are not free to start your own sewage company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. By your line of reaoning the army and navy are private because the taxpayers would be the share holders and the dividends would be continued access to fuel etc. When the government controls it and allows no competition what is the word you use to describe that? I wasn't avoiding the topic, I have been very busy...again finally. The dictionary is my friend here. Socialism: *govt. ownership of the means of production.* Whether or not competition is allowed, a govt. legislated monopoly, or by any other means or as I wrote, 'natural' monoploies, i.e., those that require $billions in local infastructure to build...is NOT socialism. If it were, then taxpayers or govt. would enjoy ALL of the profits...they don't enjoy any, the govt. would own all of the shares and they own none and there wouldn't be ANY private investment and thats ALL there is. On the contrary, you wish to adjust definitions to suit your argument and govt. performing legitimate govt. functions, i.e. defense, law enforcement etc. which are strictly govt. operated and have or enjoy no private investment...is NOT socialism no matter how one tries to imply that it is. Was MA Bell socialism ? NO !! Private, legislated monopoly. Is Sirius Radio socialism ? NO !! It is a govt. legislated monopoly. Investment in either and ownership of either...was or is private...NOT govt. and represents not a bit of socialism. BTW...that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other The standard of living of more than 50% of the US working population is going down or maintained only with an increase in debt...not from rising wages or increases in net worth. Productivity for example has risen well over 30% since Reagan while net buying power for most of the middle class has gone down.

thompsonx -> RE: American Socialism (8/3/2012 10:23:07 AM)
quote: You seem to feel that because people own stock in a monopoly that makes it something other than a government sanctioned monopoly. Until you agree to use the same dictionary as the rest of the nitrogen/oxygen breathing folks on this planet you and I wont have much to talk about. You are not free to start your own power company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. You are not free to start your own sewage company in competition with a government sanctioned monopoly. By your line of reaoning the army and navy are private because the taxpayers would be the share holders and the dividends would be continued access to fuel etc. When the government controls it and allows no competition what is the word you use to describe that? I wasn't avoiding the topic, I have been very busy...again finally. The dictionary is my friend here. Socialism: govt. ownership of the means of production. Whether or not competition is allowed, a govt. legislated monopoly, or by any other means or as I wrote, 'natural' monoploies, i.e., those that require $billions in local infastructure to build...is NOT socialism. Your opinion is wrong. I am not going to play "yes it is -no it isn't" with you. quote: If it were, then taxpayers or govt. would enjoy ALL of the profits...they don't enjoy any, the govt. would own all of the shares and they own none and there wouldn't be ANY private investment and thats ALL there is. Are you really going to try to tell us that the tva,niagra falls power, the cental valley water projecrt in ca. had no tax money used to create them? The profits of a govt controled monopoly are limited by the govt. quote: On the contrary, you wish to adjust definitions to suit your argument and govt. performing legitimate govt. functions, i.e. defense, law enforcement etc. which are strictly govt. operated and have or enjoy no private investment... Blackwater performs defense functions and they are private. quote: BTW...that the living standard of the individual has risen to the detriment of the elite ruling class and no other The standard of living of more than 50% of the US working population is going down or maintained only with an increase in debt...not from rising wages or increases in net worth. Productivity for example has risen well over 30% since Reagan while net buying power for most of the middle class has gone down. Since socialism in the u.s. is the exception and not the rule it should be clear that I was not refering to the u.s.. Think russia,china,cuba,venezuela.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875