patrick.net

Kevin says

please use logical arguments. Saying that something is socialism, and is thus automatically “bad” is a shitty way to argue

You can't teach an old dog new tricks. And by the way, it's sacrilege in some circles to suggest that socialism can ever work.

Kevin .... thanks for posting such a volume of liberal dribble. What you fail to realize is that basically all of these programs lead to the ultimate liberal state; pure socialism. Ever wonder why liberals constantly carp about the evils of corporations? Why do you think that is? They want to regulate them out of business to the point that government will have to step in and take the entire industry over .... all to the "benefit" of the working class blah blah blah.

Someone really famous once said that something was best expressed to "the people" by the barrel of a gun? Was it capitalism or socialism? Was it conservative(as viewed today) in nature, or liberal(as viewed today) in nature? Was it spiritual or anti-spiritual? Anyone?

Forced wealth transfer between citizens is either socialism or theft. Socialism is the unaffected elite taking from those below themselves, and then handing that wealth they take to those they deem worthy based on many things ... such as race, creed, color, looks, sexual preference, intelect, family history, ect. Theft is much better than socialism because it is not based on race, sex, age, or anything else. So, for me, I'll choose to deal with theft between citizens rather than theft from those insulated from that which they create.

Bap33 says

Forced wealth transfer between citizens is either socialism or theft.

Thus King George was a socialist? And the first time the chief distributed the kill of one hunter to the tribe?

You guys have a very expansive view of socialism as anything that's not utter Darwinism. Which is funny to me, because so many of the "survival of the fittest" types I encounter don't believe in evolution.

Bap33 says

Socialism is the unaffected elite taking from those below themselves, and then handing that wealth they take to those they deem worthy based on many things

Actually, thats a better definition of capitalism & 'trickle down' economics.

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

"In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximise use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximising exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.

"Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.

"They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation."

Ho hum, facts again. Move along, nothing to see here... much easier to simply drop some cute aphorism that says what you happen to want it be...

International corporations like WalMart leave countless smaller corporations as bloody corpses in its wake.
I'd have a hard time arguing that the carnage is worth it, but there most definitely is a flip side. The striking auto parts workers in China owe a debt to the employment provided by Walmart's suppliers. Is it all worth it (the human and ecological toll)? I'll get back to after I take a call on my iPhone (I joke, I don't own an iPhone...)

EBGuy says

Is it all worth it

Not if the savings we get from Walmart's lower prices just ends up in higher rents and land values here, no.

Modern economics erased the difference between land and capital in the 1910-1930 period. We've been flying blind ever since.

shrekgrinch says

No we don’t. We have the literal view. Theft = theft no matter how you justify the thief’s motives and slavery = is slavery no matter that the ‘good’ that comes of it. Period.

Are you saying that all taxation is theft and should be abolished?

no country on earth is pure capitalist, none pure socialist. every country taxes and most have various types of state funded services, "safety nets", public education, covered health care, pensions, layoff insurance, as well as those things that are better not left up to user pay but are good for the nation to have like roads, an army, municipal buildings and amenities etc so the point is lets all get real, Canada is much like the US is much like Europe is much like Japan, and many others just want to be us, and our differences are more in the mind than anything. The thing that is different is the spin, and the rhetoric, and the philosophy, but when the rubber hits the road the labels break down. Industrialized nations use the market as the main engine, and syphon off some excess juice to accopmlish alot of great things that the market dosent do so well on its own. profit motive is very important, for people to want to invest in themselves, their education, to make a return. All well and good, but the US just puts too much emphasis on the profit motive, and the right to accumulate wealth. In reality, when society helps those born poor succeed a more true meritocracy happens, instead of dominant families and last names.

shrekgrinch says

Theft = theft no matter how you justify the thief’s motives and slavery = is slavery no matter that the ‘good’ that comes of it. Period.

"Socialism" = theft, bah, pure BS, even if you knew what socialism is or what "it" currently does for you. Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about when you say things like that in this context.

How about this as a starter for me then: If it was possible to and if all were willing to kindly let you off the hook for all the advantages you've been provided with up to this point by our culture & society, the safety, the security, the education, etc would you if you could, opt out of paying taxes if it meant that you no longer were eligible to reap any of the benefits?

I suppose it would mean compulsory military service for your entire family for a few years, and it would mean that you'd pay FULL price for whatever education your kids would need from grade school through university, it would mean if you required fire dept service you'd pay the full costs of the call, it would mean that some form of $ assessment would have to be levied for the use of the roads you use in the city, and I guess someone would have to figure out how you'd pay for the sewer lines and electricity poles/cables/etc that have been run to whatever house you live in... I guess you'd have to wear some form of signage to indicate to the local police that you weren't to be assisted in case of emergency unless you first signed a waiver for all costs etc, or perhaps a better way to do it would be to divide the operating costs for the local police force by the number of citizens it serves and levy you with the amount each year... you'd have to stay out of public parks, stay away from local rec centers, no more visits to National parks, certainly no camping or hunting in the public forests... every highway would be a toll road for you... no employment insurance if you loose your job, no basic retirement plan when you retire, no medicare...

for a start...

your knee jerk reaction will be "hells yeah!" but you obviously can't even begin to understand or appreciate the benefits you've reaped by living in a system thats as well served by even the barest basics of "socialism" as ours is.

A family in Tennessee a few days ago got a heartbreaking taste of a little piece of the kind of world you seem to be proposing as their home burned to the ground for the lack of a $75 fee.

jljoshlee3 says

All well and good, but the US just puts too much emphasis on the profit motive, and the right to accumulate wealth. In reality, when society helps those born poor succeed a more true meritocracy happens, instead of dominant families and last names.

Thats nicely put. I for one look forward to the day when the focus of American life is more than simply 'winning' and turning a 'profit' at the expense of our humanity.

kentm says

I for one look forward to the day when the focus of American life is more than simply ‘winning’ and turning a ‘profit’ at the expense of our humanity.

Never going to happen as long as 30%+ of the electorate is firmly focused on moral issues and the hereafter. O'Donnell has 36% support in DE. That is obviously the base they are working from. 14% more creates their majority -- that's just 1 out of the remaining 5 people.

Bring in a bullshitter like Bush Jr and they can get that 1 person. Bring in a *real* good BSer like Reagan and they can pull in 2.

RayAmerica says

What you fail to realize is that basically all of these programs lead to the ultimate liberal state; pure socialism.

By that same argument, the lack of these programs must lead to feudalism, with corporate-states being the authoritative entity.

Grow the fuck up.

And, yes, monied interests do in fact control the legislative process in America. Even the monied interests say so. Read the recent articles on the topic from Eric Schmidt, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates for some enlightenment. Those are all people with more money than they'll ever need who can freely speak the truth because it won't affect them personally in the slightest.

I won't argue that the smaller businesses who lack lobbying power aren't getting screwed, but it isn't the lower and middle class who is screwing them. Your anger is misdirected. The dishonest half of the monied interests are abusing your anger for their own political agenda.

The *only* thing that matters in economics is outcome. Making life as good as possible for as many people as possible. We tend to express this in simple terms like "Gross Domestic Product" and "Consumer Sentiment" and "Unemployment Rate", but they all amount to the same thing.

If you *believe* that plan X will be better for the overall good than plan Y, then say so, give rational reasoning, and bring some fucking facts and evidence to the table. Economics isn't science, but you can at least analyze individual programs in a scientific way.

So please, drop the bullshit emotional appeal like "Theft" and "Tyranny" and "Slavery". None of those describe taxes, debt, finance, or anything else related to national economics. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with your feudalistic approach to economics a marxist, or using the term "liberal" in a pejorative sense doesn't help your argument, it just annoys people who actually have a brain between their ears.

Alternatively, I could start describing the difficult lives of poor people as "Economic Death Camps", or the "Slavery" bit to refer to the lack of choice that consumers have in so many industries.

Eh, nah, I think I'm just going to be a rational person.

Kevin .... thanks for another .... excuse me .... yawn ... interesting post. You sure are interesting.

The other day I read that our Governments grandiose, Utopian, out of control spending is so huge, and the promises are so big, that it would cost every family in America $31,500 per year for the next 75 years to pay what is currently owed. Gee - Uncle Sam, thanks for your fiscal responsibility.

Yup, its time to drain the swamp!

All you folks so gung-ho on lack of government services, should get ahead of that game. Let us know how you are doing with your efforts to "go Galt!" and live without utilizing any government subsidized services. Of course we may not hear from you after you surrender your internet connection, which benefits from all sorts of government programs.

Honest Abe says

The other day I read that our Governments grandiose, Utopian, out of control spending is so huge, and the promises are so big, that it would cost every family in America $31,500 per year for the next 75 years to pay what is currently owed. Gee - Uncle Sam, thanks for your fiscal responsibility.
Yup, its time to drain the swamp!

Where were you 4 years ago when it was 29,000 per family?

I mean, really, $10 T was OK but $11T -- HOLY SHIT ITS OUT OF CONTROOOOOOOOOOOOL.

I'm not going to defend the deficits, but claiming that there is some new "grandiose utopian" spending is fucking ridiculous. Our current deficits come primarily from the fact that 40% of the money we spend is for fighting wars with boogeymen in the desert and preparing for wars to come with boogeymen in Asia.

Medicare and Social Security are the only "utopian" spending programs that we have, and they're both running surpluses (at least for now).

Please, please please use your energy to demand an end to the military spending ridiculousness. If you feel so inclined to advocate for tearing down social security and medicare, I'll be right there supporting you. Just don't try to lie and pretend that national parks and food stamps are the source of our financial woes.

Hahaha,you brain dead libs will defend out of control, financial irresponsibility till the bitter end. You are in denial (willful and deliberate ignorance). A 6th grader knows you can't spend more than you have without negative consequences.

And yes, out of control military spending needs to be drastically cut as well. It's not making us safer, its making us less safe...kinda like messing with a hornets nest. Who was it that appointed the US taxpayer as the worlds policeman?

Kevin says

Just don’t try to lie and pretend that national parks and food stamps are the source of our financial woes.

If they agreed with the rest of us, they wouldn't have anything to say. It's easier to blame the libs for everything than it is to accept that this administration inherited the largest economic mess since the great depression, that the housing crash and wall street debacle began long before President Obama took office.

Bush's war pushed us over the economic edge, as did many of the decisions of the past 8 years. To some people, it doesn't matter how we arrived at this place - the only thing that matters is assigning blame to the current head dude in charge.

elliemae says

Kevin says

Just don’t try to lie and pretend that national parks and food stamps are the source of our financial woes.

If they agreed with the rest of us, they wouldn’t have anything to say. It’s easier to blame the libs for everything than it is to accept that this administration inherited the largest economic mess since the great depression, that the housing crash and wall street debacle began long before President Obama took office.
Bush’s war pushed us over the economic edge, as did many of the decisions of the past 8 years. To some people, it doesn’t matter how we arrived at this place - the only thing that matters is assigning blame to the current head dude in charge.

They're already busy claiming that we lost hundreds of billions on TARP, even though right now it looks like we're somewhere between losing $30B and making a $50B profit on the program.

I've come to the conclusion that these people don't care about reality or results, they just care about finding ways to fool dumb people.

That's why 10 years from now we'll have the exact same unresolved problems, only we'll be in an even crappier financial situation.

Meanwhile, the cradle-to-grave socialist welfare state of China will surpass us in GDP and take all of the jobs.

Just to be clear, TARP only represents a small slice (~10%) of the total federal funds disbursed to the financial sector through the bailout. The back door bailouts provided to Wall St by the Fed are where the real action is.

The Wall St Bailout Cost Table by Sourcewatch is worth checking out -- essentially a peer reviewed running tally of the total bailout outlay to date, updated monthly. It notably excludes the automotive bailouts or any initiatives for job creation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Total_Wall_Street_Bailout_Cost

I kinda sorta think people should still be pissed off about this stuff.

elliemae says

that the housing crash and wall street debacle began long before President Obama took office.

I agree 100% ... but, I think it is tied to open lending to unqualified buyers ... and the names I tie to this mess are B.Frank and his boyfriend Franklin over at Fanny.

That whole inheireted thing goes both ways I think, and the 9/11 arab attacks were not Bush II's issue in the same way the economic destruction of AMerica was already underway when Barry hit town.

You may recall, I figured whoever won that last Prez race was just being tossed to the wolves, and that was why Hillary was moved out of the race and a (pretty much) nobody like Barry was tossed to the wolves. Hillary was saved for later. Romney was sat aside for later. Ron Paul was saved for later. Barry was handed the deal and everyone knew it would be complete crap. That may be why he goes on vacation and just plays along, for the most part, because he knows he was placed in a non-winning situation. And I agree with you too, BOTH SIDES are playing this game. Maybe the R's let all of the social spending continue as a paypack for the D's being willing to send in Barry to take the hit for a failing economy. It is like we are watching a soap opera and have to follow along with whatever some writer dreams up. Frustating.

Free Arizona

A big "reset" button is going to be pushed. I do not know when, nor how bad it will be, but my gut feeling says it will not be fun for about 7 years (a biblical thing)

And by the way, you right-wing twits who never respond seriously to any questions or debate - the internet you're posting via was developed with public 'socialist' money.

Number one effective way to start living your dream: stop posting.

Just sayin'...

Bap33 says

That may be why he goes on vacation and just plays along, for the most part, because he knows he was placed in a non-winning situation.

That is the line where your bias is most evident.

Bap33 says

names I tie to this mess are B.Frank and his boyfriend Franklin over at Fanny.

It's a fairly small part of it. Barney didn't ask that people be able to walk in and totally lie about their income to get a mortgage. The fraudulent securities, derivatives and shadow banking system didn't evolve to meet the needs of borrowers. They evolved more to exploit the demand for investments. Fraudulent investments were created to meet that demand, and lack of regulation allowed an entire unregulated shadow banking system to develop.

Sure liberal's good intentions added to the demand for real estate, and for mortgage money, and maybe indirectly to the perception that prices can only go up. But how stupid is that ? And how stupid is it not to protect people from predator lending practices. Let the buyer beware ? Sure, but if the lender is implying to a poor guy that he can afford a home that he actually can not (and even the stupid lender is thinking he might be okay because the home will go up another 20 percent in a year), I put at least as much blame on the sptupid lender, who is being told from above, "LEND, LEND."

I do think you're right about the seven years though, maybe somewhat longer.

If I were Troy, there is a particular graph I would would show you now.

Bap33 says

A big “reset” button is going to be pushed. I do not know when, nor how bad it will be, but my gut feeling says it will not be fun for about 7 years (a biblical thing)

Is there a Rapture involved in there somewheres?

I find it much more likely things will just moderately suck, then they'll get better.

There is indeed a certain segment of the population that desires the "Mad Max cleansing" because they think all the impure will be toast, and they of course will thrive. The prospect of the Tea Party Skinhead Bangers plundering their houses and raping their women, they'd not be so thrilled at actualities I think.

Bill Clinton promised back in his 1992 campaign to "make it a high priority of my administration to see to it that EVERY American will own their own home by the year 2000." Obviously, he was playing to those that had the dream of homeownership but didn't have the means. He set into motion, especially when Glass-Steagall was eliminated, policies (via Fannie & Freddie) that, with the Government being the "lender of last resort," helped the liberal lending policies that floated the real estate bubble. Bush enacted the exact same policies, with Congress et all being very happy to go along with the entire unsustainable fraud. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. have a lot of responsibility for this mess because they were in a position to KNOW and do something about it. Instead, they encouraged, from their powerful positions, these policies that led to the collapse.

Now wait a minute there giggles. You've argued repeatedly in the past for LESS gov involvement and less regulation. Now you're saying that gov should have been more involved and fixed everything? Specifically of course the democrats.

Its been said before, but your posts are just a joke. You have no idea what you're saying or what you want to or think should have happened.

Kentm - clearly you're the one who has no idea what happened. Ray simply stated the obvious...big government had no business manipulating the housing industry. If government had kept its nose out of the real estate business, the market would not have reached for the sky, only to collapse in the end.

What needs regulation is the government, beginning with Congress. Its time to drain the swamp. Its time to get rid of Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Barney, Finestein, Waters, Waxman, Finegold, and the other co-conspirators who have driven America to her knees.

Why do you always jump in after I post? Its like you're a grade school kid standing around waiting for me to come out of the doors at recess...

So anyway listen, you can't argue two sides of a point at the same time simply because it favors your argument... So it was the elimination of 'Glass-Steagall ' that created all of this and when 'Glass-Steagall was in effect' things were fine? But 'Glass-Steagall' was government regulation. So what do you want, less or more government regulation?

Also, this is apparently a thread about the evils of Socialism, why post about the origin of the housing bubble?

kentm says

You’ve argued repeatedly in the past for LESS gov involvement and less regulation. Now you’re saying that gov should have been more involved and fixed everything? Specifically of course the democrats.

Please copy & paste any comment I have ever made in which I stated the Government should not have regulated the mortgage business. Furthermore, I have stated a number of times repealing Glass-Steagall was a huge mistake and needs to be reinstated.

Politicians from BOTH parties pressured the lending institutions to loan money to people (primarily minorities) that were marginal borrowers at best. This effectually lowered the bar for all lending practices and underwriting of loans.

Obama's socialistic "bailout" for GE. GE receives almost $25 million stimulus money and responds by laying off 18,000 U.S. workers. Just another fine example of our wonderful government at work.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-gave-general-electr

RayAmerica says

Please copy & paste any comment I have ever made in which I stated the Government should not have regulated the mortgage business.

"Its time to drain the swamp."

What do you mean by statements like that if not that you want less gov regulation? Dude, you just talk around yourself...

So what do you want, more or less gov involvement?

EDIT

RayAmerica says

Obama’s socialistic “bailout

AND the bailout was NOT Socialism. JHC. Socialism is an economic theory where workers - you and me, buddy - control the means and flow of the labour and divide the profits based on merit. In the societal sense its effectively a distribution of benefits in an equal and orderly manner to ALL of the members of that society. Police, Fire dept, public education, highways, etc. It has NOTHING to do with gov giving money to corporations. Damn, if you're going to argue against something at least know what you're saying.

AND the bailout was begun by Bush...

The Japanese often use a little emoticon that we don't see much over here, "orz". Its intended to symbolize a little man on their hands & knees banging their head on the ground in frustration. Thats me right now.

RayAmerica says

Please copy & paste any comment I have ever made in which I stated the Government should not have regulated the mortgage business.

Kentm's answer: ZERO .... nothing copied & pasted because it doesn't exist. LOL

orz

kentm says

Socialism is an economic theory where workers - you and me, buddy - control the means and flow of the labour and divide the profits based on merit.

Eh, what? Employee-owned companies, cooperatives, ? Or more like GM's Saturn experiment which the unions hated and ultimately destroyed? Not sure what you are attempting to describe here.

kentm says

In the societal sense its effectively a distribution of benefits in an equal and orderly manner to ALL of the members of that society.

You are missing the central planning, which requires "central planners", which typically involves a privileged class of individuals which inevitably leads to tyranny. . Socialism means many things to many people. It means state-owned-everything to some people (borderline communism) on one end and activist central planning/regulation with a free market living within centrally controlled parameters (borderline capitalism) on the other. The most effective socialist countries are the latter not the former if I remember correctly.

I think you more accurately described "communism" with your second statement but you left out the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This is where your particular version of socialism causes knee jerk reactions as it smacks of communism. We know how well that works...

We should all get our "isms" correctly defined - Ray seems to think uncontrolled capitalism is the answer while you appear to be pushing towards communism. I prefer the middle-ism ;)

I like the -ism where a committee of overpaid fools take a turn at running a company. Every few years they play musical chairs and move to committees at other companies, so they never have to live with the long-term impact of their decisions. This seems to be working swimmingly! Can we apply it to countries too?

EightBall says

Eh, what? ...

I was describing 'socialism' as its defined in a basic dictionary sense... I agree it would be nice to agree on what socialism is as a starting point to a chat on socialism, but it seems like every time someone uses the world here it has a different meaning. Whatever implications it may have to one person or another, and certainly there are various levels & applications of it, there is a definable idea/theory at the core of the word.

A while ago I'd have thought one thing at least we ought to easily agree on that its not is a government giving money to large banks & corporations. I'm actually honestly amazed at how that has been so easily linked with the word 'socialism' when its almost exactly the direct opposite of a socialist action.

EightBall says

You are missing the central planning

Well... as I understand it the monolithic 'central planning' aspect is a part of one political theory on a way to implement socialist ideas. I was only talking about the basic economic aspect...

But all countries/systems are built on mishmashes of various philosophies and ideologies and the US actually currently has a lot of socialist ideas built into its current system. The police, the fire dept, public parks, public education etc, are all examples of socialist political philosophy in action.

But I think I understand what you mean by 'central planning', you mean a state run production system that makes decisions and gives directives to the entire system it directs, unconnected from supply and demands.

EightBall says

you appear to be pushing towards communism

My ideal is actually something close to Canada, a country which seems to work quite well.

kentm says

I was describing ’socialism’ as its defined in a basic dictionary sense

No you weren't. You were a lot closer than Ray, but socialism does not mean "owned by the workers" It means "owned by the state for the benefit of the people". Owned by the collective, with no state, would be real communism (which has *never* been tried in a population of more than a few hundred. The only places where it exists is in pockets of tribal communities and, well, communes).

All you've described is employee ownership, which is still a form of capitalism, the kind that left libertarians would love. That's not a coop either -- that's "customer owned", which is a little different.

kentm says

My ideal is actually something close to Canada, a country which seems to work quite well.

???

Canada has a basic economy more or less identical to the US. The key differences are:

- Canada doesn't spend much on its military, because it is under the US defense umbrella
- Instead, canada puts its tax money into health care and education
- Canada uses much less oil than it produces, allowing for significant revenue.

Take away that oil, and canada is in the same financial situation as every other country with a high standard of living.