I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Responsible regulation[/quote]
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.
You’re making an impractical, radical argument. [/quote]
And the problems is what excactly?
If you are insured by someone who cannot back that up with some real assets you are an idiot. Those banks that did that are not Mom and Pop shops but multi billion corporations themselves and apparently they have no business doing banking.
Let them fail, the new owners will be more careful.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Responsible regulation[/quote]
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.
You’re making an impractical, radical argument. [/quote]
I am not sure how I pay for this (besides the government deciding I should) when a company fails. I actually gain, because someone more effective takes their spot.
But the new owners are never more careful.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]
How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.
Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]
How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.
Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.[/quote]
But what if the lazy are the majority?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Responsible regulation[/quote]
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]
starts out free?
hm what about slavery? can a slave society be free?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]
How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.
Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.[/quote]
But what if the lazy are the majority?[/quote]
If the majority in a society is lazy ( dont produce anything ) then it breaksdown regardless if its socialisme or capitalisme. the irony is that in a capitalist society, hig productivity leeds to economic crisis. called “overproduction crisis”
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]
How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.
Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.[/quote]
But what if the lazy are the majority?[/quote]
If the majority in a society is lazy ( dont produce anything ) then it breaksdown regardless if its socialisme or capitalisme. the irony is that in a capitalist society, hig productivity leeds to economic crisis. called “overproduction crisis”[/quote]
I agree with your first sentence. The second one I can see your point, but I really have to think about this one. I think we might have seen this in America during the Housing boom. There are now more houses than people who need them. In capitalism only a few companies will fail because of overproduction. In socialism, our only example would be Russia, look at how much military equipment they produced. That overproduction is now rusting away after the fall of the country. I know Ryan you do not think that Russia was Socialistic.
I think we are about to see China go through this. A lot of people are thinking China is at a presipous and is about to fall down. They are so concerned with keeping people employed that they do not care what they are making as long as they are employed. You are employed you can not get into trouble. I know Ryan you do not think China is Socialistic either.
Ryan is there actually an example on planet Earth that you would consider a Socialistic society that fits your definition of Socialism? Since this thread is called Socialism in Action you would be able to give us an example.
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Socialism is a fail, obviously.
But calling Democrats Socialists is absolutely no different than calling Republicans Fascists. Non whatsoever, and I am willing to defend that statement.
Alot of people push for Social Democracy, and I feel it works. Its country’s (most Western nations fall into this category) where two parties (one left and one right) are consecutively elected, that fall into the vicious cycle of cutting taxes AND creating social programs. By the very nature of democracy people will vote for the programs, increasing costs, then when the subsequent tax increases follow, a shift to the right will occur. Right party will cut taxes, then begin cutting programs, too many people are currently effected by said cuts, then the left party will return to power.
This bi-partisan cycle basically results in what were seeing around the world with 2 party democracies: ballooning debts from tax cuts + “sacred cow” social programs.[/quote]
You’ve bought the socialism hook line and sinker . . . The modern democrat party has become the socialist party of America - this change over from classical liberalism to socialism began in the beginningof the 20th century among the elite of New York democrats. BTW - it might surprise you to know that our founding fathers were classical liberalist - you should research the term and philosophy.
Thoughout the last century, the socialist movement continued to gain traction among the democratic party as the “social progressives” (ie - socialists) began to drag the party to the far left of the political spectrum. To describe modern democratic/liberal political thought as socialist is factually accurate. It would not be accurate to call modern republican/conservative fascist or nazi - since these are both variations on the socialist theme. (please remember it was the National SOCIALIST Workers Party = NAZI)
America was not founded as a Social Democracy (more leftist trype) - it was founded as a democratic REPUBLIC - HUGE difference. bare minimum government with major protection of and promotion of individual RESPONSIBILITIES and RIGHTS - not derived from the government, but protected from the government by a robust system of checks and balances.
The problem with your comments was that the focus was on GOVERNMENT doing for the individual, when it ought to be focused on the freedom of the individual with restraints placed upon that government - classic liberalism is the new conservatism and I’ll be danged if I am going to continue to let people who don’t under true liberalism make a mockery of this philosophy!
[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]
ahem . . . and I quote “responsible regulation” . . . and I quote again “socialism is almost entirely about controling markets” . . .and I rest my case . . . .
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There are no socialist countries in Europe. What could it teach me except how bankrupt global capitalism is?
[/quote]
LMAO - brilliant!! ahem . . .Thus beginnineth the lecture . . .no nation in Europe is identified constitutionally (IE, in their own constitutions) as a Socialist nation. This makes Ryan TECHNICALLY correct and yet so far short of the mark. Defined by policy and practice, every nation in Europe can now be classified as socialist. . . .Thus endeth the lecture . . . (kept it short in case Eli was reading)
It is the “regulation” (ie government controls) and the socialist welfare state (“social equality”) that are causing the financial crises in Europe - not capitalism - capitalism would have corrected these errors decades ago had it been allowed to operate in its actual structure. Europe has never seen a truly free capitalistic system.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There are no socialist countries in Europe. What could it teach me except how bankrupt global capitalism is?
[/quote]
LMAO - brilliant!! ahem . . .Thus beginnineth the lecture . . .no nation in Europe is identified constitutionally (IE, in their own constitutions) as a Socialist nation. This makes Ryan TECHNICALLY correct and yet so far short of the mark. Defined by policy and practice, every nation in Europe can now be classified as socialist. . . .Thus endeth the lecture . . . (kept it short in case Eli was reading)
It is the “regulation” (ie government controls) and the socialist welfare state (“social equality”) that are causing the financial crises in Europe - not capitalism - capitalism would have corrected these errors decades ago had it been allowed to operate in its actual structure. Europe has never seen a truly free capitalistic system.
[/quote]
What caused this? Is it unions that no longer care about the welfare of the worker, but care more about increasing their dues at the expense of the Workers? I really have no clue and I am just speculating.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[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. [/quote]
Thanks for your analysis oh wise one
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Responsible regulation[/quote]
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.
You’re making an impractical, radical argument. [/quote]
He is taking an email with the mentality of a bumper sticker and trying to defend it
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There are no socialist countries in Europe. What could it teach me except how bankrupt global capitalism is?
[/quote]
LMAO - brilliant!! ahem . . .Thus beginnineth the lecture . . .no nation in Europe is identified constitutionally (IE, in their own constitutions) as a Socialist nation. This makes Ryan TECHNICALLY correct and yet so far short of the mark. Defined by policy and practice, every nation in Europe can now be classified as socialist. . . .Thus endeth the lecture . . . (kept it short in case Eli was reading)
It is the “regulation” (ie government controls) and the socialist welfare state (“social equality”) that are causing the financial crises in Europe - not capitalism - capitalism would have corrected these errors decades ago had it been allowed to operate in its actual structure. Europe has never seen a truly free capitalistic system.
[/quote]
What caused this? Is it unions that no longer care about the welfare of the worker, but care more about increasing their dues at the expense of the Workers? I really have no clue and I am just speculating.[/quote]
Not just unions, also social security systems, companies and farmers that receive subsidies, people who want their meagre pensions and so on.
A lot of these entities would not survive without the state.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]
How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.
Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.[/quote]
Equal obligation of all to work. Your participation in society means you must participate, i.e., work. This is not a new idea.
Not at the present time. There have been sporadic examples, such as the communes and “newly liberated” industrial zones during the Spanish Civil War. The Paris Commune was a good example. The Soviet example started off with some promise, but when the actual soviets lost control to a centralized bureaucracy, this marked the end of their experiment with socialism.
Socialism is inherently an internationalist system. It cannot survive in one country.
I see, and so you have identified those nations in which productive resources have been collectivized and production is now planned? Which are they? Otherwise, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Keep repeating that to yourself, you’re going to need it in the coming days.
The welfare state IS capitalism. The means of production are private and operated for profit. No amount of hand-waving on your part disguises the fact that Europe is capitalist through-and-through. The test: is there private investment there?
These juvenile fantasies you invent do not comport in the least to reality. If capitalism was half as effective as you say it is, the solution would be easy, and everyone would know what to do, and they would do it. What motive would they have to do more work for a worse outcome, if the market really would take care of it?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
There are no socialist countries in Europe. What could it teach me except how bankrupt global capitalism is?
[/quote]
LMAO - brilliant!! ahem . . .Thus beginnineth the lecture . . .no nation in Europe is identified constitutionally (IE, in their own constitutions) as a Socialist nation. This makes Ryan TECHNICALLY correct and yet so far short of the mark. Defined by policy and practice, every nation in Europe can now be classified as socialist. . . .Thus endeth the lecture . . . (kept it short in case Eli was reading)
It is the “regulation” (ie government controls) and the socialist welfare state (“social equality”) that are causing the financial crises in Europe - not capitalism - capitalism would have corrected these errors decades ago had it been allowed to operate in its actual structure. Europe has never seen a truly free capitalistic system.
[/quote]
What caused this? Is it unions that no longer care about the welfare of the worker, but care more about increasing their dues at the expense of the Workers? I really have no clue and I am just speculating.[/quote]
Not just unions, also social security systems, companies and farmers that receive subsidies, people who want their meagre pensions and so on.
A lot of these entities would not survive without the state.[/quote]
Which means that capitalism would not survive without the state. Without this “padding” against the sharp corners of the market, the people would rebel, as frequently happened before their institution.