[quote]thefederalist wrote:
First of all, I’m not a socialist. Responsible regulation is not socialism. Tell me why it is socialism to call a credit default swap insurance.
Secondly, I don’t believe that anyone with a PhD. in Econ is actually this ignorant about what socialism is. Socialism is almost entirely about controlling markets and always experiences a resurgence after massive failures of capitalism such as the great depression and our latest great recession. Wealth redistribution is a peripheral concept. [/quote]
There can be a big difference between the point or goal of a political/economic philosophy, and the motivations that drive it into power.
The goal of socialism can be to achieve a “fair” distribution of wealth, while individuals may vote it into power because they think they can get something free, or they think it will stabilize markets. The circumstances that surround the application of a philosophy do not define it as you are attempting to.
Please explain to me how socialism is in conflict with human nature (I thought people liked getting paid more for more/better work), and I would also like to know how you reached the conclusion that everyone is equal under socialism.
[/quote]
It is working wonders for Greece and the rest of Europe. Retirement at the age of 50, crazy pension, govt run health care, 6 weeks paid vacation, 1 year paid maternity leave, and you wonder why the country went bankrupt?
Ryan, this is a great time to travel to Europe, the Euro has dropped alot. Go take a trip, close your twisted books and turn off your TV, go walk the streets of some of those countries.
Funny how Poland is the most Capitalist country of Europe and it does not have this same problem?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is an old email , I can not believe any body really believes this, And I do think it is importantant that everyone knows this di not really happen[/quote]
way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter if its real or not.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is what I have been screaming at Ryan P and the Federalist. With Socialism, all productivity comes to a halt, because at the end of the day, no one gives a shit, everyone makes the same money. It is not worth working hard for a raise, because after taxation, you take home 35% of whatever raise you got. [/quote]
But I have told you many times before, that is not socialism. What does any of this have to do with collective ownership of the means of production? Ironically, the situation described here is much closer to capitalism than socialism.[/quote]
I am in Ryans court this email was not socialism it was idiotsy , it would be like the teacher selling grades claiming it to be capitalism[/quote]
If you think that is capitalism, it makes sense now of how you speak. Either you’re dumb, or do not know how capitalism means.
This is why pure socialism doesnt work, not “obama’s” mixture of capitalism and socialism. read a fucking book. Think about it if it was really like “obama’s” political philosophy everybody would be forced to work together, but the grades would still stay seperate.
[quote]lemonman456 wrote:
This is why pure socialism doesnt work, not “obama’s” mixture of capitalism and socialism. read a fucking book. Think about it if it was really like “obama’s” political philosophy everybody would be forced to work together, but the grades would still stay seperate.[/quote]
“spread the wealth” means the grades aren’t entirely separate.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This is what I have been screaming at Ryan P and the Federalist. With Socialism, all productivity comes to a halt, because at the end of the day, no one gives a shit, everyone makes the same money. It is not worth working hard for a raise, because after taxation, you take home 35% of whatever raise you got. [/quote]
But I have told you many times before, that is not socialism. What does any of this have to do with collective ownership of the means of production? Ironically, the situation described here is much closer to capitalism than socialism.[/quote]
I am in Ryans court this email was not socialism it was idiotsy , it would be like the teacher selling grades claiming it to be capitalism[/quote]
If you think that is capitalism, it makes sense now of how you speak. Either you’re dumb, or do not know what capitalism is.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is an old email , I can not believe any body really believes this, And I do think it is importantant that everyone knows this di not really happen[/quote]
How many fables or parables actually occurred, in their entirety, in reality?
Stories like this are meant to bypass one’s initial bias and offer a possibly different perspective than one might otherwise allow themselves.
Thy allow one, if only for a moment, to elevate oneself out of the middle of the trees so that the forest may be seen.
I ask you yet again to explain what this has to do with collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism has nothing to do with welfare, state ownership, or state spending. What part of this is so hard for you to understand?
Furthermore, all of these policies are thanks to your beloved conservatives. The socialists have been the only ones willing to implement fiscally conservative policies.
There are no socialist countries in Europe. What could it teach me except how bankrupt global capitalism is?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is an old email , I can not believe any body really believes this, And I do think it is importantant that everyone knows this di not really happen[/quote]
How many fables or parables actually occurred, in their entirety, in reality?
Stories like this are meant to bypass one’s initial bias and offer a possibly different perspective than one might otherwise allow themselves.
Thy allow one, if only for a moment, to elevate oneself out of the middle of the trees so that the forest may be seen. [/quote]
My analogy about selling grades being an acurate potraiale of capitalism would give just as clear veiw of reality
Please explain to me how socialism is in conflict with human nature (I thought people liked getting paid more for more/better work), and I would also like to know how you reached the conclusion that everyone is equal under socialism.
[/quote]
It is in conflict with human nature becuase not all humans are the same. Some are leeches and prefer to get something for nothing, taking as much as possible while doing as little as possible. This naturally breeds resentment in humans who value work, do work hard and want to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Except much of their efforts go to the leeches.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
First of all, I’m not a socialist. Responsible regulation is not socialism. Tell me why it is socialism to call a credit default swap insurance.
Secondly, I don’t believe that anyone with a PhD. in Econ is actually this ignorant about what socialism is. Socialism is almost entirely about controlling markets and always experiences a resurgence after massive failures of capitalism such as the great depression and our latest great recession. Wealth redistribution is a peripheral concept. [/quote]
You’re right. It’s not socialism at all. Socialism has become a ‘tar and feather word’ much as people who don’t believe in abstinence-only education and intelligent design automatically get pegged with the ‘liberal’ label in some cirles.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this is an old email , I can not believe any body really believes this, And I do think it is importantant that everyone knows this di not really happen[/quote]
How many fables or parables actually occurred, in their entirety, in reality?
Stories like this are meant to bypass one’s initial bias and offer a possibly different perspective than one might otherwise allow themselves.
Thy allow one, if only for a moment, to elevate oneself out of the middle of the trees so that the forest may be seen. [/quote]
My analogy about selling grades being an acurate potraiale of capitalism would give just as clear veiw of reality[/quote]
Really clear view, your analogy was closer to fascism (or mercantilism, &c.), not capitalism.
From the state right? Coerced control = ownership, and since the state is a collective power under democracy, guess what? When the state puts regulations on a company, then they are effectively coercing their ownership on the company even if it is marginal.
It is lovely isn’t it, now if there was a private company that had regulatory terms and standards for a company to operate under its stamp of approval, then I have no problem with those regulations.
Or, if a fair liberal Rule of Law is applied, and one is allowed to use their private property as long as one do not hurt another person’s private property I have no problem with regulations that do not violate that, but obviously from America’s history that is difficult even in a country that starts out free when people are not educated properly.
Such a process cannot be adopted by a government, for it is not an artificial construct. Capital accumulation, exchange and investment are all naturally occurring. Although these actions are oftentimes grouped under the title of “capitalism,” it is important to note that capitalism is nothing but the mechanisms of a voluntary society and a web of individual human actions.
So, far from being something a government can adopt, it is a concept the government must respect. It is something innate in all societies, and so governments can only become burdens upon this web of naturally occurring human actions.
From the state right? Coerced control = ownership, and since the state is a collective power under democracy, guess what? When the state puts regulations on a company, then they are effectively coercing their ownership on the company even if it is marginal.
It is lovely isn’t it, now if there was a private company that had regulatory terms and standards for a company to operate under its stamp of approval, then I have no problem with those regulations.
Or, if a fair liberal Rule of Law is applied, and one is allowed to use their private property as long as one do not hurt another person’s private property I have no problem with regulations that do not violate that, but obviously from America’s history that is difficult even in a country that starts out free when people are not educated properly.[/quote]
You’re missing the point. I wasn’t making a theoretical argument. Credit default swaps were sold through Goldman by AIG to Goldman clients. These agreements effectively mitigate the risk of losses due to the failure of a particular instrument. They are, for all intents and purposes, a form of insurance; however if they are NOT considered insurance, even though they very clearly are, no capital reserves available for payout are required to be held by the issuing institution. This means that in the event of failure of a CDO or other securities “insured” by a CDS, everyone is fucked including us.
