[SamuelBRoberts]

Diver, please stop doing that. It's really frustrating when people are trying to have a conversation and we have to suddenly scroll past a wall of text that has nothing to do with the subject. We have threads for stock markets.

[Tail Gunner]

(05-05-2019 11:30 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Yeah, like in Tail Gunner's post above the word "socialism" is also just used as a grab-bag of leftist policies that the speaker dislikes.
You can kinda mentally replace it with "bad democrat stuff" and it'll read just the same.

No, you are objectively wrong. There are several types of socialism. I specifically referred to "democratic socialism," which has a particular definition and which has specific traits and programs. Almost all of the socialist action items that I cited have been practiced or promoted in most democratic socialist countries (aside from those specific to the U.S., e.g., slavery reparations, which is just another type of socialist wealth transfer).

Quote:

Democratic socialism (also known as evolutionary socialism) is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralised planned socialist economy.[2] Democratic socialists espouse that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism


I thought that I was dealing with someone who actually knew something about democratic socialism. Your mention of Soviet Communism should have been a big red flag that you have no clue. American liberalism has always had a strong streak of democratic socialism, just as American conservatism has always had a strong streak of libertarianism. But with the acceptance of Bernie Sanders, and now a dozen equally brazen socialist candidates, the Democratic Party has definitely jumped the shark to full-fledged democratic socialism. There is no question about that. It will be the Party's downfall (shades of '68 and '72).

[TigerMandingo]

Tail Gunner, do you see the Republicans and Donald Trump as a bulwark against “democratic socialism”?

[SamuelBRoberts]

(05-05-2019 11:55 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I thought that I was dealing with someone who actually knew something about democratic socialism. Your mention of Soviet Communism should have been a big red flag that you have no clue. American liberalism has always had a strong streak of democratic socialism, just as American conservatism has always had a strong streak of libertarianism. But with the acceptance of Bernie Sanders, and now a dozen equally brazen socialist candidates, the Democratic Party has definitely jumped the shark to full-fledged democratic socialism. There is no question about that. It will be the Party's downfall (shades of '68 and '72).

Yes, obviously the DSA exists, but when your boomer uncle posts memes like this:




They're not talking about an obscure political faction known only to grognards who hang out on twitter all day.
It's shorthand for "bad leftist stuff".

[captndonk]

(05-05-2019 08:39 AM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  

(05-05-2019 08:33 AM)captndonk Wrote:  

What exactly did Trump achieve?

He bought us at least 4 years to reverse the country's descent into socialist shithole.

I'm disappointed with him in some areas and pleased in others, but on net his presidency was a successful one the instant he won the election.

Ok he slowed down the decline a tiny bit. But that's it.
The real problem as in all western countries is demography.

Nothing changed there. The European American population will shrink further and be replaced.

[Tail Gunner]

(05-06-2019 07:13 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Yes, obviously the DSA exists, but when your boomer uncle posts memes like this:

They're not talking about an obscure political faction known only to grognards who hang out on twitter all day. It's shorthand for "bad leftist stuff".

It seems that you do not know anything about socialism. Do you even bother doing any research at all before writing this stuff? People oppose socialism because they know exactly what it entails. This is not simply "bad leftist stuff." The political positions that I cited are actual socialist positions. I just went to the DSA web site. Here are just a few of its stated goals:

Free universal healthcare

Massive unionization

Electoral Power

Restructure gender and cultural relationships to be more equitable

Gender and racial equality


These are all socialist political positions cited directly from the official DSA web site -- and these goals are no different than those espoused by Democrat politicians today.

And the meme is correct: if you impose a socialist agenda, it will end Western prosperity. In fact, if you are lucky, that is the very least that a socialist agenda will do. If you want to see the usual socialist end game, visit Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998. It took twenty years of creeping socialism to completely destroy one of the most prosperous nations in South America. That is what thinking people truly fear from socialism: the slow loss of freedom and prosperity, followed by the inevitable total loss of freedom and prosperity.

Knowledgeable Venezuelans, who knew about socialism, fled after Chavez's first re-election -- just as people in the U.S. and Western Europe are now slowly shifting their assets elsewhere. Only idiots, true believers, and the very poor wait until the inevitable end-game to flee from socialism.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Not sure where the weird condescension is coming from. Yes, obviously socialists exist. Yes, obviously they have policies. Yes, obviously they have a website. Yes, obviously this website has text which can be copy-pasted.

When most people talk about socialists, they just mean "bad democrat dudes" not the socialist party or even the socialist strain within the democratic party.

Here's another example of what I mean.


Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist, she is a corpratist democrat.

[godfather dust]

While SamuelB is being a bit flippant, he has a point.

Most criticism on socialism is along lines of "I am paying for your shit you lazy bastard, get a high paying job you lazy piece of shit!" With no solution offered at all beyond "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" when it becomes harder and harder to do so.

SOMETHING needs to be done about increasing concentration of wealth and wage stagnation (or decline.)

I agree it's not socialism. I thought Trump had great solutions but he has been utterly impotent on acting on them and I don't see anyone picking up the torch, and illegal immigration is getting WORSE under his watch.

[TigerMandingo]

The Democrats are corporate oligarchs in socialist clothing. Playing for the same team as the Republicans and high-fiving each other off camera. Remember that ridiculous spectacle with Trump, Pelosi , and Schumer “arguing” in the Oval Office? That’s when I realized I was being played.

Furthermore, as Sam stated earlier, conservatives have offered exactly ZERO solutions to the growing inequality and oligarchic rule that has been imposed on us. So it looks like socialism-lite will be coming down the road sometime soon because whatever we have now ain’t working (part of the reason trump got elected).

[Tail Gunner]

(05-06-2019 03:01 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Not sure where the weird condescension is coming from.

Nancy Pelosi is not a socialist, she is a corpratist democrat.

The condescension is occurring because while I am carefully reading and responding to everything you are saying, you ignore everything that I say -- even when I repeat myself. I will repeat this a third time:

Quote:

As I already noted in a prior post, the largest contributor to President Obama's first campaign was Goldman Sachs. Why do you think that is? Crony capitalism is not capitalism; it is a form of socialism where those with the most money buy access to, and favors from, the government. The Democrats are masters at deceiving the uneducated foolish masses, while castigating the very same Wall Streeters who provide them with the money to get elected.

You yourself claim that Nancy Pelosi is a corporatist democrat. That is just another way of saying that she is a crony capitalist, which -- as I have pointed out on three different ocassions -- is just another form of socialism. No matter what you name the philosophy (corporatist democrat, crony capitalist, or democratic socialist), these politicians all promote the same policies.

[TigerMandingo]

It’s funny that you call crony capitalism “just another form of socialism”. In other words, not “true” capitalism.

I think Ramzpaul said the other day that communism and capitalism both have in common the fact that when they fail - it’s because the “true” version wasn’t implemented.

[Tail Gunner]

(05-06-2019 06:16 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It’s funny that you call crony capitalism “just another form of socialism”. In other words, not “true” capitalism.

I think Ramzpaul said the other day that communism and capitalism both have in common the fact that when they fail - it’s because the “true” version wasn’t implemented.

You are objectively wrong. Socialism relies on wealth redistribution. That is its one universal hallmark. Capitalism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution, only wealth creation. Read this article by John Stossel, entitled "The “Crony” in Capitalism is Socialism."

Quote:

The biggest funder of this crony capitalism is the Export-Import Bank. The bank says its “financial products enable exporters of all sizes to … protect against the risks of international trade and export with confidence.”

That sounds good, and it’s why most politicians support it. But for the first time in my memory, there is pushback. Many Republicans want to stop this corporate welfare. The chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, points out that most of the government’s export loans go to “Fortune 500 companies like G.E., like Boeing, who could easily finance these things themselves … the Export-Import Bank claims they create American jobs, but when the Export-Import Bank helps Boeing sell a jet to Air India, it hurts Delta Air Lines.”

Right. When government picks winners, it pats itself on the back — and gains crony friends in industry. But it creates losers at the same time.

“When Export-Import Bank helps G.E., and others build an oil refinery in Turkey, it hurts the domestic refining industry,” says Hensarling. “For every job Export-Import creates in exports, they kill an American job domestically. It’s not helping us.”

But few of us bother to complain. Benefits of government spending go to a concentrated few — who fight to keep the program going. When taxpayers and domestic businesses suffer because of resources transferred to the well-connected Ex-Im Bank-linked businesses, we each lose just a few bucks. We will never hire as many lobbyists to criticize the bank as the beneficiaries do to keep it going. Like every other government program, Ex-Im Bank creates a vocal constituency that never wants to see the program die.

And that time and energy spent lobbying is time that companies might have devoted to improving their product or making their business more efficient. Gifts from government get companies to focus on lobbying instead of innovation. Government favoritism creates bad incentives.

Before he was president, Barack Obama agreed with me. He said, “I’m not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it’s there. There are some that don’t work, like … the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

Yes! Candidate Obama understood. But now, instead of getting rid of the Ex-Im Bank, he wants the bank to loan out even more of your money.

Does America need “export assistance,” as well as “small business support,” an “energy policy” and so on?

No! We already have a time-tested policy for deciding, without government interference, where resources should go. It’s called the free market. It works much better than government does.

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2014/...socialism/


This is exactly what I have been saying. Candidate Obama pretended to stand up for the little guy and rightly declared that "the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." Once elected, President Obama, placating his masters on Wall Street, then lobbied to keep the Bank.

This is the reality of the Democratic Party and Democratic socialism. It is all about enriching itself and its Wall Street donors on the backs of middle-class, while claiming to help the poor and the middle class. The ignorant poor are mere pawns who are too stupid and uneducated to see it. No one else has an excuse. In fact, the working poor and the middle class are now beginning to see it, which explains the historically unlikely Trump phenomenon.

[911]

(05-06-2019 08:15 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

...

You are objectively wrong. Socialism relies on wealth redistribution. That is its one universal hallmark. Capitalism has nothing to do with wealth redistribution, only wealth creation. Read this article by John Stossel, entitled "The “Crony” in Capitalism is Socialism."

...

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2014/...socialism/


This is exactly what I have been saying. Candidate Obama pretended to stand up for the little guy and rightly declared that "the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare." Once elected, President Obama, placating his masters on Wall Street, then lobbied to keep the Bank.

This is the reality of the Democratic Party and Democratic socialism. It is all about enriching itself and its Wall Street donors on the backs of middle-class, while claiming to help the poor and the middle class. The ignorant poor are mere pawns who are too stupid and uneducated to see it. No one else has an excuse. In fact, the working poor and the middle class are now beginning to see it, which explains the historically unlikely Trump phenomenon.

Here are a couple of American socialistic items that BoomerCon toadie Stossel would never cover:

1- The world's largest annual wealth redistribution plan is the US "defense" budget, a $1 trillion redistribution process from the taxpayers to the military-security industrial complex. On top of that, you have endless mideast wars for Israel, with a big one right around the corner in Iran.

2- The Federal Reserve racket, where its owner print money out of thin air and loan it to the taxpayers at interest. And if the banksters threaten to crash the system, as they did in 2008, you have to throw more taxpayer trillions in their coffers.

The mideast wars ($6 trillions and counting) and the 2008 bailout handout ($9 trillion stolen from the taxpayers to the banksters, the greatest wealth transfer in the history of mankind) - these two items account for most of the US debt, nailing every American household with over $150,000 of debt.


Compare with Norway, where the state provides nearly every social service you can think of (free college, free healthcare, free daycare, maternity leave etc). In that socialistic country the state has squirreled away over $100,000 for each man, woman and child citizen in their $5 trillion fund.

The difference between Norway and the US is that in the former, socialism works for its citizens, whereas in the US, a hidden, bigger form of crony socialism fleeces taxpayers with very little to show for.

[Tail Gunner]

(05-06-2019 08:49 PM)911 Wrote:  

Compare with Norway, where the state provides nearly every social service you can think of (free college, free healthcare, free daycare, maternity leave etc). In that socialistic country the state has squirreled away over $100,000 for each man, woman and child citizen in their $5 trillion fund.

The difference between Norway and the US is that in the former, socialism works for its citizens, whereas in the US, a hidden, bigger form of crony socialism fleeces taxpayers with very little to show for.

The Norway system is not socialism (i.e., the redistribution of wealth). It is a social welfare system that operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, officially known as The Government Pension Fund Global, which was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, which averages to about $200,000 per person.

The fund was not built by confiscating wealth through socialism, but simply by placing excess reserves from the nation's natural resources into a fund to reduce taxes and pay for public services. That is a huge difference.

Quote:

Through sheer luck, Norway has some of the world’s largest oil and gas resources; To build a domestic energy industry, the Norwegian government created a partially private company that is run by wealthy oil industry executives; This company is publicly traded, operates on the profit motive, and deposits its surplus revenues into a trillion-dollar wealth fund that mostly invests abroad, including in the largest of American corporations.

Moreover, as the very same WIR report the Bruenigs drew their data from states, the Norwegian public wealth fund protects the country against fluctuations in oil prices: “Norwegian public property has therefore largely been accumulated for fiscal and financial purposes.” The study also noted that “Norway’s large positive net public wealth generates capital income that is mostly used to finance further foreign capital accumulation, which in the long-run can be used to reduce taxes and to finance more public spending.”

In other words, unlike in Venezuela, where the government used taxes on oil to fund social programs, the Norwegians use their sovereign wealth to accumulate more capital and cut taxes. Which of the two sounds more socialist to you?

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/deb...ely-owned/

[911]

(05-06-2019 10:14 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 08:49 PM)911 Wrote:  

Compare with Norway, where the state provides nearly every social service you can think of (free college, free healthcare, free daycare, maternity leave etc). In that socialistic country the state has squirreled away over $100,000 for each man, woman and child citizen in their $5 trillion fund.

The difference between Norway and the US is that in the former, socialism works for its citizens, whereas in the US, a hidden, bigger form of crony socialism fleeces taxpayers with very little to show for.

The Norway system is not socialism (i.e., the redistribution of wealth). It is a social welfare system that operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, officially known as The Government Pension Fund Global, which was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, which averages to about $200,000 per person.

The fund was not built by confiscating wealth through socialism, but simply by placing excess reserves from the nation's natural resources into a fund to reduce taxes and pay for public services. That is a huge difference.

In other words, Norway nationalizes its natural resources, meaning, their big bad socialist gubmint monopolizes all the oil, and takes all the profits.

In the US, it's the multinational corporations that get all the oil, and on top of that, they don't get taxed much, because they usually run public policy and own/control the media and academia (Rockefellers). And on top of that, they get massive taxpayer subsidies...



US taxpayers have paid $170 billion in subsidies for big oil since 1968.

https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-...overview1/

Once again, no contest here, the socialists come ahead. Norway's model should be implemented in Canada for sure.

Some of that socialism would be good for the US too, the difference though is that American oil is too fragmented (shale). The US should however tax its resources and do away with subsidies in times when oil prices aren't too low.

[Tail Gunner]

(05-06-2019 10:45 PM)911 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 10:14 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 08:49 PM)911 Wrote:  

Compare with Norway, where the state provides nearly every social service you can think of (free college, free healthcare, free daycare, maternity leave etc). In that socialistic country the state has squirreled away over $100,000 for each man, woman and child citizen in their $5 trillion fund.

The difference between Norway and the US is that in the former, socialism works for its citizens, whereas in the US, a hidden, bigger form of crony socialism fleeces taxpayers with very little to show for.

The Norway system is not socialism (i.e., the redistribution of wealth). It is a social welfare system that operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, officially known as The Government Pension Fund Global, which was established in 1990 to invest the surplus revenues of the Norwegian petroleum sector. It has over US$1 trillion in assets, which averages to about $200,000 per person.

The fund was not built by confiscating wealth through socialism, but simply by placing excess reserves from the nation's natural resources into a fund to reduce taxes and pay for public services. That is a huge difference.

In other words, Norway nationalizes its natural resources, meaning, their big bad socialist gubmint monopolizes all the oil, and takes all the profits.

No, nationalization is taking private property away from people or companies who do not wish to sell. You need to read the definition of nationalization: "the transfer of a major branch of industry or commerce from private to state ownership or control."

I have no problem with a national government exploiting its own national resources (i.e., public property) for the good of its people, especially if the program is run in conjunction with private sector management who can maximize the revenue (instead of wasteful government bureaucrats). That is not nationalization and it is not socialism.

Read it again: "To build a domestic energy industry, the Norwegian government created a partially private company that is run by wealthy oil industry executives." That is a public-private partnership of publicly-owed assets never owned by private parties, never nationalized, and never confiscated.

Nor do I have a problem with the Alaskan oil fund, which is also not socialism, because it involves "state oil revenues" not wealth redistribution:

Quote:

Alaska’s Permanent Fund was established by a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1976 requiring a portion of state oil revenues to be put into a savings account to be available for the distant future, when North Slope oil fields are tapped out.

The problem is that few people know the definition of socialism, which largely involves the redistribution of wealth. If a government owns its own natural resources, and does not confiscate (nationalize) those natural resources that is not socialism. That was very clear from the information that I posted. People always want to make up their own "facts" rather than accept the truth. Michael Lewis’s book "The Big Short" opens with this quote from Leo Tolstoy:

Quote:

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.

I have explained this stuff over-and-over again. People would rather argue than learn. All this thread proves is that most Americans are not educated enough to vote, which explains why the nation has so many problems. In a Republic, the people get the government that they deserve. And indeed, Americans have gotten exactly what they deserve. This thread certainly proves it. Unfortunately, a small minority of innocents must also suffer.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Quote:

I have explained this stuff over-and-over again. People would rather argue than learn. All this thread proves is that most Americans are not educated enough to vote, which explains why the nation has so many problems. In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. And indeed, Americans have what they deserve. This thread certainly proves it.

This is textbook "Why conservatives lose". Dude's more interested in convincing people of his own intellect than persuading anybody or talking about anything.

You can read wiki. Amazing. We're all in awe of your ability to copy/paste definitions from websites.

When you're ready to take a break from solving differential equations written in backwards sanskrit, maybe use your giant brain to try and figure out why the other side keeps winning and nobody is interested in your arguments.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I've learned the long way that the perilous perils of dreaded socialism are generally a mental crutch for race blind civic nationalists who are desperate to avoid some pretty obvious truths.

How many well-travelled members do we have here who screech about Venezuela while building a mental wall around Germany or Sweden? I mean, the latter two may be turning into shitholes but only because their demographics are being, shall we say, Venezuelanised?

But we can all memory-hole that because it's off limits. You're allowed to say you don't want more Mexicans in your country but you're not allowed to say why, except that they vote socialist which is as plausible an excuse as the closet race realists can manage.

I suppose in the meanwhile we can console ourselves that US war veterans killing themselves by the dozen because of shitty, underfunded treatment can at least feel proud to have hung themselves in a capitalist nation rather than a shithole like Austria.

[SamuelBRoberts]

That's a good theory. I hadn't thought of that.

[partyfowl]

(05-06-2019 06:16 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

It’s funny that you call crony capitalism “just another form of socialism”. In other words, not “true” capitalism.

I think Ramzpaul said the other day that communism and capitalism both have in common the fact that when they fail - it’s because the “true” version wasn’t implemented.

You're not really wrong. Since, crony capitalism can be summed up as "socialism for the rich" which is still socialism.