patrick.net

swooshn says

If we don’t get a PUBLIC OPTION, I really hope all you Republicans, Bluedogs and Woodwork sickos get sick and die fast.

How about you pay for the "public option" then? hope you have deep pockets and/or a printing press.

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

opm
opium

AdHominem says

How about you pay for the “public option” then? hope you have deep pockets and/or a printing press.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

All evidence to the contrary, of course. Since it's working well in...... well, in every other industrialized nation in the world. Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

tatupu70 says

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

That's actually a demonstrated problem with rentierism, which is present in both as a feature of capitalist and as a bug in collectivist systems. We had to reboot the system several times in the 19th century, the panic of 1907 (no socialism then!), the Soviet Union of course spiralled into wholesale corruption towards the end, only to reemerge with its formerly public assets in the hands of private wealth and not much more functional than before.

There is a middle road. High taxes. High government services. It works pretty well, and the secret AFAIK is that high taxes serve to mainly depress land valuations, which inhibits the the predatory rentiers that do their best to suck all the wealth out of the productive sectors of the economy.

Socialism is like pregnancy. You can't have just a touch of pregnancy. You either have socialism or you don't. And socialism once established, grows like bacteria. Exponentially. We must either kill it or embrace it. There is no middle ground.

tatupu70 says

Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says

Better care at much lower cost. Funny how that works.

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

oh and could you name which of these socialist countries is in the black. Doesn't have massive national debt?

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

100% incorrect. Haven’t you ever been abroad? People are flocking to live in Europe. They have a terrible immigration problem, just like the US. Businesses thrive in Europe, and many of the world’s largest and most profitable companies are found there. I get the impression that you don’t get out much.
AdHominem says

Socialism is like pregnancy. You can’t have just a touch of pregnancy. You either have socialism or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

100% incorrect. By your definition, humans have been under the yoke of socialism since the cave man days. Humans live in societies that, by nature, have socialist elements. I think you have created a boogeyman for yourself. Better hide under the bed.

I assume that this like your other posts is just a satire, and an unfunny one once again.

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

Japan is socialist in your world then? And England? And Canada? Which countries aren't socialist then--by your definition? You're sounding more and more like McCarthy....

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

funny how people are just flocking to live in these socialist countries. Businesses too.

Japan is socialist in your world then? And England? And Canada? Which countries aren’t socialist then–by your definition? You’re sounding more and more like McCarthy….

Japan, is in deflation. Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too.

AdHominem says

Japan, is in debt. Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too

But you didn't answer my last question. Which countries aren't socialist?

AdHominem says

Want to live there? And yes with their massive public works projects socialism is taking over there too.

oh noes! teh sociaizm.

and yes, もう一度日本に住みたい。It's a great place to live. Tokyo is damn near a city in a class of its own. Only needs a Chipotle or two to be perfect :)

elvis says

Capitalism = productive. Socialism = destructive.

Capitalism = self-destructive. Socialism = positive feedback of wealth-creation.

Gee, it's great talking this unfounded BS-talk generalities you guys like so much.

Drilling down, neither capitalism or whatever state socialism you think we liberals want is the final answer. The state exists to curb capitalism's short-term inefficiencies and provide extra-market impetuses -- think of them as sky-cranes -- to redirect the path-dependent nature of private profit-seeking into new areas it would not get into as easily on its own.

Seminal examples of this are government investment in military and aerospace technology in the 1960s that gave private industry the seeds of the PC revolution of the 1970s. Plus gummint socialists in ARPA seeding the early development of the totally non-commercial internet, building the first webserver at CERN and the first web-browser with NCSA money. Private industry in the 80s was jacking around with for-profit walled gardens like CompuServe, GEnie, BIX, AOL, etc).

Private industry with its profit motive -- rent-seeking -- and ability to ignore if not prefer externalities is NOT the most efficient in creating wealth.

Granted, to really screw things up requires a government. Just ask the Germans of the 1930s, Japanese of the 1940s, and Russians of the 1990s - now.

tatupu70 says

Which countries aren’t socialist?

The ones that are fascist I guess. We either see socialism or fascism in most governments today.

But I realize that you are just trying to distract us all from the fact that socialists want more socialism. You are trying to make us all forget that you don't actually pay for the true cost of much of your own medicine. You like most Americans demand more care than you yourself are willing to pay for. And now you want to government (aka taxpayers) to pay for even more care.

The sad fact however is that we are already up to our neck in debt. We can't afford it. We have not only run out of other people's money but we continue to borrow from those stupid enough to lend.

Nomograph says

People flock to Europe for it’s thriving economy,

Germany, Italy, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Russia are all in population DECLINE.

Socialism is working well!

Bummer.

AdHominem says

The ones that are fascist I guess. We either see socialism or fascism in most governments today.
But I realize that you are just trying to distract us all from the fact that socialists want more socialism. You are trying to make us all forget that you don’t actually pay for the true cost of much of your own medicine. You like most Americans demand more care than you yourself are willing to pay for. And now you want to government (aka taxpayers) to pay for even more care.
The sad fact however is that we are already up to our neck in debt. We can’t afford it. We have not only run out of other people’s money but we continue to borrow from those stupid enough to lend.

straw man, anyone? It's true that Socialists probably do want more Socialism. But Liberals aren't Socialists. Nor are Democrats. Nor am I. So your argument is moot. And you're missing the point--Universal Health Care has proven to be cheaper in every country that has adopted it. So it would help businesses compete with China and wouldn't increase the debt.

Troy says

state exists to curb capitalism’s short-term inefficiencies

No the state exists to protect the individuals from would be socialists, fascists, etc... I'm sorry you don't understand why America fought for its independence. It is sad really that people have no idea how important freedom is, and that giving up freedom for "security" is a myth. Freedom and security cannot exist in separation.

When those men who signed the Declaration pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, they knew it could cost them everything. For some it did. But it was a risk they were willing to take. They chose freedom over "safety", the "safety" of the British Empire.

I think they made the right choice don't you? And yet less than 200 years later our government began to commit the same acts, Civil war, World War II the long list of offenses by our government is probably greater than what KING GEORGE ever did. And now we have the patriot act and are proposing mandatory health "insurance" purchase? Come on.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

The ones that are fascist I guess. We either see socialism or fascism in most governments today.

But I realize that you are just trying to distract us all from the fact that socialists want more socialism. You are trying to make us all forget that you don’t actually pay for the true cost of much of your own medicine. You like most Americans demand more care than you yourself are willing to pay for. And now you want to government (aka taxpayers) to pay for even more care.

The sad fact however is that we are already up to our neck in debt. We can’t afford it. We have not only run out of other people’s money but we continue to borrow from those stupid enough to lend.

straw man, anyone? It’s true that Socialists probably do want more Socialism. But Liberals aren’t Socialists. Nor are Democrats. Nor am I. So your argument is moot. And you’re missing the point–Universal Health Care has proven to be cheaper in every country that has adopted it. So it would help businesses compete with China and wouldn’t increase the debt.

So do you just want to make a bunch of straw men, or do you want to address whether or not you are for the health care bill mentioned in the article above which calls for a bureaucracy that will determine what is and isn't covered and how much the government will budget for health care each year?

AdHominem says

Socialism is working well!

Population decline is generally a good thing; 2.0 babies per couple should be enough to provide everyone familial bliss.

Less people in a given area reduces stress on the environment. All things being equal, 10% less population means 11% more wealth for everyone. This is why I think Canada and Australia are going to do OK this century, they have continental-size natural resource bases with only 20-30M people each.

Japan may or may not have been socialist in the 20th century -- under LDP rule if anything it was the prototypical industrial-bureaucratic hybrid technocracy -- but regardless I think the population decline it is entering will result in a better society for all, with more worthwhile career opportunities opening for women and other people finding times difficult now.

Japan has horrendous underemployment for young people. Too many people, not enough opportunity for wealth-creation. These were the same demographic pressures that pushed Japan to repeatedly expand onto the continent.

AdHominem says

are for the health care bill mentioned in the article above which calls for a bureaucracy that will determine what is and isn’t covered and how much the government will budget for health care each year?

All for it. Single Payer kicks the mish-mash mess we have now in any metric you care to name, and hopefully this bill is the first (or second) step towards Single Payer, or other government-controlled market, like what the Danish have established.

AdHominem says

When those men who signed the Declaration pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, they knew it could cost them everything. For some it did. But it was a risk they were willing to take. They chose freedom over “safety”, the “safety” of the British Empire.

Oh man you really put your foot into that with that. The men who signed the Declaration were nearly to a man wealthy landowners, and land speculation was the name of the game of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Washington himself was a surveyor-speculator. Land speculation bankrupted the financier of the revolution, Robert Morris, who spent years rotting in a debtors prison at the turn of the century. Daniel Boone was ruined financially speculating in Kentucky land, eventually prompting him to move to Missouri.

What I'm getting at with this is that your infantile ideology simply fails to understand that rentierism exists and thrives in any economic environment, and this rentierism -- getting something for nothing -- is corrupting and the source of great, great injustice.

Rentierism simply sucks all the "freedom" out of any economy, leaving a few haves owning everything and the multitudes as disempowered have-nots.

Nobody but wackaloon history-challenged American-exceptionalist romanticists, and paid AEI propagandists (but I repeat myself) -- think minarchy or libertarianism is any solution or a superior alternative to the modern mildly-socialist successes of eg. N Europe and Asia.

AdHominem says

So do you just want to make a bunch of straw men, or do you want to address whether or not you are for the health care bill mentioned in the article above which calls for a bureaucracy that will determine what is and isn’t covered and how much the government will budget for health care each year?

OK--all of the sudden you want to switch topics again? You're pretty good at that--especially when someone tries to pin you down..... But, I'll play along. I agree with Troy. This bill isn't ideal, but I support it as a step along the path to a single payer system.

Actually Italy is growing. So is Greece, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Austria, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Andorra, Macedonia, Bosnia, Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia, Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, Denmark, Herzegovina, Vatican City, Macedonia.

Parts of eastern Europe are declining, along with Russia. Not surprising considering how wrecked these places were left after communism collapsed. Not to mention the Russian winter. They ARE flocking to the aforementioned European countries. Japan is actually about breaking even, also not surprising considering the age of the population and very strict immigration policies.

You really should try to work with something other than a set of carefully selected items selected solely to support your bias once and a while.

bob2356 says

You really should try to work with something other than a set of carefully selected items selected solely to support your bias once and a while.

Funny, seeing as how no one ever does that. Obviously you are not a lawyer. More of an idealist?

tatupu70 says

But, I’ll play along. I agree with Troy. This bill isn’t ideal, but I support it as a step along the path to a single payer system.

Thanks tatu. Nice to have a civilized comment and not just straw man and insults for once.

I disagree with you but I respect your opinion.

Troy says

infantile ideology

Troy says

wackaloon history-challenged American-exceptionalist romanticists

You are pretty good at Ad Hominem too.

This rentierism religion. Who is the god? Tax to break the evil renters? ALL HAIL IRS THE GREAT LEVELER OF PLAYING FIELDS. IF WE ONLY HAD HIGHER TAXES WE ALL WOULD BE FREE.

Higher taxes in 2010!!!!!!!!

Must be the koolade.

Troy says

Washington himself was a surveyor-speculator. Land speculation bankrupted the financier of the revolution, Robert Morris, who spent years rotting in a debtors prison at the turn of the century. Daniel Boone was ruined financially speculating in Kentucky land, eventually prompting him to move to Missouri.

Not that I really wish to go down this road (we are discussing the "health care" boondogle in this thread in case you need reminding), but how do you presume to say that "rentiers" get something for nothing and in the same thread you tell of would be rentiers who lost everything? Extreme risk buying land maybe huh? Maybe that risk deserves a reward now and then? Something for nothing? I think not. Next thing you know Troy will be saying that farmers should pay tax on 75% of their crops because they get something for nothing. All they do is put seed in the ground and wait 4 months. Lazy rich bastards. Then they have the audacity to SELL their food for a profit. What scum.

Does the brain know what the hands are typing?

The current unelected body continues to be our Insurance companies/

AdHominem says

n case you need reminding

you were one who brought up the founding fathers as freedom fighter heroes and why they fought for independence. They fought for independence, and promptly established a federal government to oversee interstate commerce, defense, and economic development. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were having these same debates about the proper level of government interference in the market, and the Federalists basically won. This is a dodge anyway, since the several states had plenary power to enact any freedom-limiting laws they wanted to.

The founding fathers did not set down to establish the Libertarian Paradise. They gaves us the Federal Constitutional Republic we still have now. Franklin's quip ". . . a Republic, if you can keep it!" wasn't directed at loss of liberty from below, but loss of liberty from wealthy interests.

Maybe that risk deserves a reward now and then?

Just because there is risk in buying land usage rights doesn't mean this economic activity doesn't boil down to legalized theft of the commons. John Dillinger didn't deserve any rewards for the risks he was taking robbing banks.

To judge the worthiness of return to capital, one must see what has been produced with that capital. To the extent land titles facilitate construction, then they are not entirely a societal evil, but there are other ways to secure fixed improvements without yielding the ground rents to the landlord. Thomas Paine was a pioneer in this line of thought, as was, I assume, your patron saints Adam Smith and John Locke.

IF WE ONLY HAD HIGHER TAXES WE ALL WOULD BE FREE.

Sounds good to me. Lower taxes just leave more on the table for those who enjoy pricing power to grab. The success of the high tax regimes of the Eurosocialists demostrate that, in the end, all taxes come out of rents. And we have a LOT of rents being extracted from the actual producers of the present economy.

Troy, I am a happy renter. I am content not to own property. Let someone else take the risk and the upkeep. If they are willing to let me use their place then more power to both of us. That is of the benefits of "rentierism." I believe if you examine it closer you will find that it is often a win-win situation. The only time it becomes a problem is when the rentier forces you to pay them (or uses the government to force you to pay them). This is tyranny.

Troy says

legalized theft of the commons

sounds like some communal bs to me

Private property is one of the foundations of a free society.

AdHominem says

sounds like some communal bs to me

yeah, until late 2003 I thought the world could be only divided into minarchy and socialism, both with their apparent flaws. Finding Georgism, a third way, was quite eye-opening.

Private property is one of the foundations of a free society.

Indeed! However, when there's no more land free for the taking, there's going to be a . . . loss of freedom suffered by somebody -- namely, by the renters to the rentiers.

"A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment.... " -- Thomas Jefferson

"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine

"Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith

"I've run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax. " -- William F Buckley

"In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." -- Milton Friedman

buncha communists there, LOL

One more:

"The Government should at once construct, own, and operate the railways in Alaska. The Government should keep the [ownership] of all the coal-fields and allow them to be operated by lessees with the condition in the lease that non-use shall operate as a forfeit. Telegraph lines should be operated as the railways are. Moreover, it would be well in Alaska to try a system of land taxation which will, so far as possible, remove all the burdens from those who actually use the land, whether for building or for agricultural purposes, and will operate against any man who holds the land for speculation, or derives an income from it based, not on his own exertions, but on the increase in value due to activities not his own." -- The Communist secret agent elected the 26th President

And you clowns have the temerity to call Obama a leftist!

I have temerity? wow

Apologies for the tone. I just get so pissed off writing these defenses of centrist liberalism against really historically ignorant and deeply flawed criticisms and outright repetitions of demagoguery that waft through the corporate press (WSJ/FOXNEWS/ABC) and think tank nexus (Heritage/AEI/Manhattan/Hoover).

Progressive politics *is* centrist politics. Theodore Roosevelt finished second in the race of 2012, running against the somewhat conservative Wilson and the very conservative Taft. Debs, the actual, bona-fide leftist, finished fourth.

Troy says

And you clowns have the temerity to call Obama a leftist!

Actually this BOZO would refer to him as a socialist.

Troy, you might find this interesting. http://www.groundswellusa.org/kyri7802.htm

When it comes to rising property values, in areas where population is sparse, most of the increase in price is nominal only. If the value of money were constant, price would also be relatively constant.

That is why I see the FED and its manipulation of the value and supply of money as the greater threat to freedom. Of course the FED only makes bankers more powerful than they already were. Without the fed, we would still have to deal with the bankers and landowners as you put it. But they are much easier to deal with than legalized counterfeiting which goes on at the FED. In addition to the FED's inflationary policieis, fractional reserve banking drives up the nominal value of land as well (really fractional reserve banking is another form of counterfeiting).

AdHominem says

Actually this BOZO would refer to him as a socialist.

And you would be incorrect. Obama is more closely aligned with the University of Chicago school than Eugene Debs and the Wobblies.

http://www.iseff.com/post/50901421/obamas-economics-and-his-background-from-the

I think Obama fits squarely in the Progressive mold of Theodore Roosevelt. Socialism goes too far to the left -- it is responsible for much of the organized stupidity and mass lethality of the 20th century. Laissez Faire goes to far in the other direction, allowing wealth to trammel everything in its path and loot everything with abandon -- for a recent example one need to just look at the twin lootings accomplished by the first S&L crisis of the 80s and its sequel this decade.

Troy, you might find this interesting. http://www.groundswellusa.org/kyri7802.htm

This: "Another way Georgism can help a Libertarian campaign is by saying we won't need big government as much when we have community collection of ground rent." from the above link is the take-away for me. I am left-libertarian, and like the Progressives, only desire the amount of government that is needed to keep the playing field level for all. I'd like to think community collection of ground rents (to partially fund non-profit local services like parks, libraries, mass transit, lifelong education, medical services, daycare) would be sufficient for this, but I have my doubts. It would certainly be a good start, though.

Troy says

community collection of ground rents

ah yes, the first plank in the communist manifesto.

Troy says

twin lootings accomplished by the first S&L crisis of the 80s and its sequel this decade.

You can thank the FED (its private investors) and their paid off politicians in Congress for that.

AdHominem says

ah yes, the first plank in the communist manifesto.

yes, but that's the end of its cooption by the communist totalitarians. Georgism is generally anarchist in character and attracted minds like Samuel Clemens and Leo Tolstoy as ardent supporters. The community collection of rents is also not a particularly radical proposal:

"Would it be better if we had more taxation of land and natural resource, and more revenue from natural resource management, and I would include atmosphere and spectrum." And less tax on income and savings. And I would say, "Yeah." And I think many economists would agree with that. So, if you want to sell it as a "Single Tax," then, no, you won't get anyone to agree that there's enough revenue there. If you look at is a more "central" tax, then, yes, you will get most economists to agree with you. -- Joseph Stiglitz