rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


why Soshulism is so bad
#1

why Soshulism is so bad

You see the chart below, those rotten bottom 90% haven't give away EVERYTHING yet to their owners.

Because taxation is theft, and those top 10% outworked all those 90% in a free open market, without favoritism from
laws, banks, cops, and everyone else.
Reply
#2

why Soshulism is so bad

What is the point of this thread? That the glorious communist revolution hasn't come yet?

Quote:Old Chinese Man Wrote:  
why you wonder how many man another man bang? why you care who bang who mr high school drama man
Reply
#3

why Soshulism is so bad

The distribution of wealth that OP is referring to is happening as we engage in more and more socialist practices. Money printing has the direct effect of eroding the wealth/spending power of the poor and middle class while boosting the wealth of the very wealthy. Further, we went and bailed out the largest banks, socializing the losses, while the gains were privatized. Note that small companies would never have received this treatment - they are subject to the sharp knife of capitalism.
Reply
#4

why Soshulism is so bad

The ultimate irony about how socialism is thought of in the U.S. is that it's not the ghetto welfare queens who are benefiting the most but the wealthiest who are using tax dollars and various exemptions to bail out their failures while they rob the system. It's billions vs. millions.

This blind spot is why the "doom" or "end times" isn't some half baked conspiracy but a eventuality.
Reply
#5

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-29-2014 01:34 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

The ultimate irony about how socialism is thought of in the U.S. is that it's not the ghetto welfare queens who are benefiting the most but the wealthiest who are using tax dollars and various exemptions to bail out their failures while they rob the system. It's billions vs. millions.

This blind spot is why the "doom" or "end times" isn't some half baked conspiracy but a eventuality.

"Privatize profits, socialize losses," is how it's been put.

Matt Taibbi's Griftopia is a good explanation of the process.

Globalization and financialization of the economy has gutted the U.S. middle class.

Ross Perot warned us.
Reply
#6

why Soshulism is so bad

Here is that glorious socialism in effect:
Venezuela's "21st Century Socialism": Food Lines For The People, New Cars For The Military

"Food lines are part of our daily existence," exclaims one member of the Venezuelan public, as people line up for hours outside state-owned supermarkets to buy regulated staple goods, or, as Bloomberg reports, pay three times as much from street hawkers.

However, on the other side of the fence in Southern Caracas, President Maduro's "21st Century Socialism" looks a little different as Bloomberg notes 100s of brand new (admittedly Chinese) cars await new owners following the Defense Minister's pledge to purchase 20,000 autos for the armed forces. Simply put, in order to maintain the appearance of utopia, Maduro ensures military personnel don't have to contend with the economic chaos in the rest of the country.
Reply
#7

why Soshulism is so bad

That is a stunning graph. Clearly epochal change is happening.

Dr Johnson rumbles with the RawGod. And lives to regret it.
Reply
#8

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 07:51 AM)assman Wrote:  

Here is that glorious socialism in effect:
Venezuela's "21st Century Socialism": Food Lines For The People, New Cars For The Military

It's not like the only choices are our corrupt oligarchical state capitalism and Venezuela's corrupt confiscatory state socialism. There are other choices.

The USA had an unprecedented run of broad-based prosperity growth from 1950 until about 1980, in which workers and owners both received a share of productivity growth in the economy. Since then, ordinary people have become debt slaves to mortgages to bubble-inflated real estate and credit card, while wages have not grown.

[Image: 3210207large.png]

I don't have all of the answers, but restoring Glass Steagall would dampen some of the financial speculation bidding up asset prices and restore banks to a proper role extending credit to worthy businesses and individuals. Some adjustment in tax policy to reward domestic manufacturers and employers over outsourcers. Some restoration of the right to organize and join unions in the private sector.
Reply
#9

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 08:55 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

restoring Glass Steagall

Quoting this just to call attention to it again. Glass-Steagall was 35 pages and worked for decades.

Dodd-Frank is 1200 pages, spawned an entirely new branch of government, and nobody has any idea what it does.
Reply
#10

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 08:55 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (09-30-2014 07:51 AM)assman Wrote:  

Here is that glorious socialism in effect:
Venezuela's "21st Century Socialism": Food Lines For The People, New Cars For The Military

It's not like the only choices are our corrupt oligarchical state capitalism and Venezuela's corrupt confiscatory state socialism. There are other choices.

The USA had an unprecedented run of broad-based prosperity growth from 1950 until about 1980, in which workers and owners both received a share of productivity growth in the economy. Since then, ordinary people have become debt slaves to mortgages to bubble-inflated real estate and credit card, while wages have not grown.

[Image: 3210207large.png]

I don't have all of the answers, but restoring Glass Steagall would dampen some of the financial speculation bidding up asset prices and restore banks to a proper role extending credit to worthy businesses and individuals. Some adjustment in tax policy to reward domestic manufacturers and employers over outsourcers. Some restoration of the right to organize and join unions in the private sector.

The key turning point on this graph was when the dollar was taken off the gold standard. Once gold was thrown out, everything becomes fiat and money just gets printed via debt and the FED, allowing those with connections to the gov to make the most money (which are usually giant mega-corporations). For example, huge banks have "special discount lending windows" where they can borrow from the FED at firesale prices (like .5% interest rate) us normal plebs cannot. This has been going on for decades.

Also, iknowexactly really looks foolish, because it has been under our precious democrat, "spread the wealth around," socialist Obama that the wealth gap has grown the highest.

I read somewhere that about 2,300 families own half of the USA's net worth. It's pretty obvious that Obama is one of the worst failures in USA history, just from judging by Obama's own standards.

Contributor at Return of Kings.  I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Reply
#11

why Soshulism is so bad

Everyone has known that over-concentration of wealth at the top, and lack of balanced income distribution, is a big problem in the US. The problem is that no political leaders care enough to do anything about it.

This new Ken Burns documentary about the Roosevelts (Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor) shows that these problems have been faced by us in the past and have been dealt with. The blueprint is already there. Their vision and courage stands in sharp contrast to the laughable spectacle today of a Bush, Clinton, or an Obama. It only remains to be seen whether the current "leaders" have the will to do something.

I am not optimistic.

But those who make peaceful change impossible, as Kennedy said, help make violent change inevitable. One way or another, things are going to have to change.
Reply
#12

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 12:33 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

Everyone has known that over-concentration of wealth at the top, and lack of balanced income distribution, is a big problem in the US. The problem is that no political leaders care enough to do anything about it.

This new Ken Burns documentary about the Roosevelts (Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor) shows that these problems have been faced by us in the past and have been dealt with. The blueprint is already there. Their vision and courage stands in sharp contrast to the laughable spectacle today of a Bush, Clinton, or an Obama. It only remains to be seen whether the current "leaders" have the will to do something.

I am not optimistic.

But those who make peaceful change impossible, as Kennedy said, help make violent change inevitable. One way or another, things are going to have to change.

When the banks can borrow at less than 1%, and are unlimited in what they can do with that money, including buying houses, oil futures, corn futures, stocks, and lending it out to credit card holders at 30%, of course there is going to be a shift in wealth. They make money by bidding up the assets, and other market manipulation. The rest of us pay the prices for those bid-up assets.

That is part of it. The other part is the loss of good employment and the fractionalization of the full time job into part time jobs with ever changing hours and no benefits.

Quote: (09-30-2014 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The key turning point on this graph was when the dollar was taken off the gold standard. Once gold was thrown out, everything becomes fiat and money just gets printed via debt and the FED, allowing those with connections to the gov to make the most money (which are usually giant mega-corporations). For example, huge banks have "special discount lending windows" where they can borrow from the FED at firesale prices (like .5% interest rate) us normal plebs cannot. This has been going on for decades.

Also, iknowexactly really looks foolish, because it has been under our precious democrat, "spread the wealth around," socialist Obama that the wealth gap has grown the highest.

I read somewhere that about 2,300 families own half of the USA's net worth. It's pretty obvious that Obama is one of the worst failures in USA history, just from judging by Obama's own standards.

You have a good point about the divergence beginning with the loss of the gold standard, which also began a big round of inflation in the late 70's. In the current depression, the largely unaccountable Fed chose the route of printing money to give to the banks, rather than printing it and "dropping it from helicopters" as Milton Friedman once said was a remedy for deflation.

Somehow it was seen as more morally acceptable to pump money into Big Finance without accountability than just give a few thousand dollars to every American. Because that would be, like socialism. That wouldn't have expanded the Fed's balance sheet or the money supply any more than QE and the series of asset bubbles we've seen since 2008 and the large skimming of Goldman Sachs, B of A, JPM, Citigroup, et al out of all of these transactions. It might have meant people would have bought things. "Cash for clunkers" was the only real distribution to ordinary people, and it wasn't from the Fed, it was fiscal from the government and tiny in comparison to the money printing.

IKE can speak for himself, but I don't think he was endorsing Obama's policies, so there's nothing foolish about what he posted.

I've said that I think Obama was a Manchurian Candidate for Wall Street. How else can you explain the lack of prosecutions for the huge frauds from mortgage securitization?

"Obama the socialist" is a big straw man. The guy never did a program - Obamacare included - that wasn't a big bonanza for the oligarchy (e.g. insurance companies and health care industry).
Reply
#13

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 03:06 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (09-30-2014 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The key turning point on this graph was when the dollar was taken off the gold standard. Once gold was thrown out, everything becomes fiat and money just gets printed via debt and the FED, allowing those with connections to the gov to make the most money (which are usually giant mega-corporations). For example, huge banks have "special discount lending windows" where they can borrow from the FED at firesale prices (like .5% interest rate) us normal plebs cannot. This has been going on for decades.

Also, iknowexactly really looks foolish, because it has been under our precious democrat, "spread the wealth around," socialist Obama that the wealth gap has grown the highest.

I read somewhere that about 2,300 families own half of the USA's net worth. It's pretty obvious that Obama is one of the worst failures in USA history, just from judging by Obama's own standards.

You have a good point about the divergence beginning with the loss of the gold standard, which also began a big round of inflation in the late 70's. In the current depression, the largely unaccountable Fed chose the route of printing money to give to the banks, rather than printing it and "dropping it from helicopters" as Milton Friedman once said was a remedy for deflation.

Somehow it was seen as more morally acceptable to pump money into Big Finance without accountability than just give a few thousand dollars to every American. Because that would be, like socialism. That wouldn't have expanded the Fed's balance sheet or the money supply any more than QE and the series of asset bubbles we've seen since 2008 and the large skimming of Goldman Sachs, B of A, JPM, Citigroup, et al out of all of these transactions. It might have meant people would have bought things. "Cash for clunkers" was the only real distribution to ordinary people, and it wasn't from the Fed, it was fiscal from the government and tiny in comparison to the money printing.

IKE can speak for himself, but I don't think he was endorsing Obama's policies, so there's nothing foolish about what he posted.

I've said that I think Obama was a Manchurian Candidate for Wall Street. How else can you explain the lack of prosecutions for the huge frauds from mortgage securitization?

"Obama the socialist" is a big straw man. The guy never did a program - Obamacare included - that wasn't a big bonanza for the oligarchy (e.g. insurance companies and health care industry).

Don't forget Eric Holder. As the Attorney General that guy should have been all over Wall Street post 2008 crashes and market scams that were going on. He didn't do a damn thing. America has a long history of throwing bankers in jail, and when the biggest fiasco in the last 100 years happens not a single man is held responsible despite causing trillions in damage? Pathetic.

And yes, it would have been better to pump money directly into the hands of the people instead of big banks, although that would have caused serious inflation, but the problem with that there would be nothing to tax, or collect interest on! Our overlords aren't happy with half the country's wealth they need more.

Contributor at Return of Kings.  I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Reply
#14

why Soshulism is so bad

On the subject of a gold standard, timely and relevant article by the ex-"Maestro" of the Fed himself:

Alan Greenspan: Why is China buying gold?
Reply
#15

why Soshulism is so bad

umm...
You misspelled "Socialism"
Just saying...
Reply
#16

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 07:13 PM)Muk Wrote:  

umm...
You misspelled "Socialism"
Just saying...

I think he was being facetious.
Reply
#17

why Soshulism is so bad

Instead of the banks being bailed out I would have loved to see those with students loans bailed out. Not a freebie, mind you, but on the condition that they start up a small business that hires employees. It is the small businesses that make up the backbone of the economy but when you have snakes like Pelosi and Biden and Obama at the helm, there is little point in expanding.
Reply
#18

why Soshulism is so bad

People who talk about free markets were the first people to beg for bailouts.

All my Republican, stock market investing, "free market" friends were 100% for the bailouts.

Unemployment insurance, health care, education, transportation, scientific research? That's socialism.

Banksters are straight up thieves, with the government in their pocket.
Reply
#19

why Soshulism is so bad




http://youtu.be/ILwOQV32rHg
Reply
#20

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 04:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And yes, it would have been better to pump money directly into the hands of the people instead of big banks, although that would have caused serious inflation, but the problem with that there would be nothing to tax, or collect interest on! Our overlords aren't happy with half the country's wealth they need more.

Good points, but I think in a downturn where businesses are closing and people are being laid off, putting money directly in the hands of people would've directly led to spending which would've kept businesses intact and people keeping their jobs, thus creating more taxpayers and consumers.
Reply
#21

why Soshulism is so bad

Socialism attracts a lot of leeches.
Reply
#22

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 10:12 PM)L M McCoy Wrote:  

Socialism attracts a lot of leeches.

Socialist leeches want things like a doctor's visit, a pension.

Capitalist leeches want things like, a president in their pocket, a central bank as their private plaything.
Reply
#23

why Soshulism is so bad

America is the most socialist and collectivist nation on earth.

Its a rigged game like football where you get to smash heads for a small chance at millions, but where your most likely to end up broke and a cripple while your "owners" make billions of your back.

Wealth is stolen via taxation and more so via inflation. Your grandpa could work and support a whole family with a stay at home wife with a simple wage and still have enough surplus to save a large stash of wealth. That life is almost impossible these days.
Reply
#24

why Soshulism is so bad

A lot of people seem to forget that America has lots of socialist characteristics and that it needs a little bit of socialism from time to time. The people who are the most vocal against socialism are the first ones who complain about their Social Security Disability check or that Obama is going to take away their medicare (which is socialized medicine by the way). Also many conservative supporters who work the farms complain about socialism yet receive government subsidies for their crops.


One cannot deny that the Social Security Act of 1935 passed by FDR created the nation's first pension system for the elderly and it insured economic security. It got elderly people off the street from dying.

The Servicemen Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill) gave returning WWII vets economic benefits which in turn created the largest middle class this world has ever seen.

Medicare=Health care for old people

To deny that these things weren't needed because its "socialist" is beyond me.
Reply
#25

why Soshulism is so bad

Quote: (09-30-2014 08:55 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The USA had an unprecedented run of broad-based prosperity growth from 1950 until about 1980, in which workers and owners both received a share of productivity growth in the economy. Since then, ordinary people have become debt slaves to mortgages to bubble-inflated real estate and credit card, while wages have not grown.

[Image: 3210207large.png]

This is a misleading plot in a couple of different ways.

First, in the decades following 1970 women have entered the labor force in ever greater numbers, almost doubling its total size. When the supply of a commodity (in this case, labor) grows, the price will decrease. That has put downward pressure on hourly wages (meaning, the price of labor per unit time). The fact that hourly wages have been roughly flat in inflation-adjusted terms while the size of the labor force has increased dramatically actually shows that the wealth generated by our ever-growing productivity has, in fact, flowed back to wage-earners -- it's just that there are more of them now.

Second, looking at household incomes over these decades is misleading in another way, because the size of the average household has shrunk -- there are many more single person "households" now than there were in the past. So again, it's an unfair comparison because the same wealth per household (in inflation adjusted terms) really means more wealth per person.

Here is a plot of something that adjusts for both of these variables, real (meaning inflation adjusted) personal disposable income per capita. It looks like this:

[Image: jpeg&chart_type=line&recession_bars=on&l...sion_date=]

As you see, no indication of a pause after 1980, just steady growth punctuated by occasional recessions. You can also see that, despite the frequent comparisons, the most recent recession is nothing like the Great Depression.

In pointing all this out, I care less about making a particular ideological point, than about showing, once again, that looking at a plot of a particular quantity can be very misleading and can lead to unjustified conclusions if you don't think carefully about whether this quantity makes sense as an indicator, and about possible alternative explanations for why it might be changing.

same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)