Orlando Buffalo Posted March 31 Posted March 31 On 3/29/2024 at 7:38 PM, 4th&long said: Believe me I would rather invest my money also, but I’m am not going to jail for not paying SS. It will only be out of money because the politicians that everyone worships are stealing from it! And that goes for both sides!! Social Security is welfare, it is not presented as welfare but it is complete welfare. You take from those who are producing and give to those who are not producing by force. Discussing what it was "supposed" to be is assinine and unproductive unless you feel politicians will start separating the money at some point. 1
4th&long Posted March 31 Posted March 31 4 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Social Security is welfare, it is not presented as welfare but it is complete welfare. You take from those who are producing and give to those who are not producing by force. Discussing what it was "supposed" to be is assinine and unproductive unless you feel politicians will start separating the money at some point. You don’t get it if you don’t put into it. Go ahead and try. If you put in a small amount that is all you get out of it. The more you put in the more you get out. Welfare? No. What it was intended to be? No. The politicians you worship can’t keep their hands off it. 1
Steve O Posted March 31 Posted March 31 On 3/29/2024 at 5:26 PM, ComradeKayAdams said: I think much of this is incorrect. A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, with the implication here being it to be true for a large majority of industries, if not the entirety of them. A democratic socialist is a specific type of socialist who wants to achieve this type of economic system peacefully, often gradually, and from the bottom up…i.e. via democracy. Under this definition, we don’t see a single socialist in the U.S. government at the national level. Bernie and The Squad are social democrats who occasionally use democratic socialist rhetoric for strategic reasons. Liz Warren is a liberal, not a progressive…let alone a socialist. Hmmm…perhaps I should go over a few more definitions?? A liberal is someone who believes in the necessity of wealth redistribution under the auspices of the social contract, but that this redistribution should come via taxation and free market-based solutions. A social democrat differs from a liberal in that more aggressive and direct intrusions into free market capitalism (and its guiding political system) are argued to be necessary so to achieve this wealth redistribution. A social democrat will therefore advocate for full nationalization and/or forced market interventions into industries related to the welfare state (health care, housing, education, etc.). The two main features distinguishing a social democrat from a liberal are probably advocacy for universal health care and not accepting corporate/big-money campaign donations. In terms of the political spectrum line: you can think of social democracy as the extreme right-wing limit of socialism, but it is not traditionally considered socialism unless industries beyond the social safety net are to be nationalized (such as energy industries). Social democracy, democratic socialism, all other types of socialism, and communism (so basically everything to the left of liberalism) are all technically subsumed into progressivism even though progressivism is considered synonymous with social democracy in the United States vernacular. Social democracy politics are considered far-left in the United States but center-right in many European countries. All of the aforementioned differ from American right-wingers (classical liberals, libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.) in their belief that, at least in some very general sense, Marx’s labor theory of value has merit. That is to say: capitalists inherently steal labor-based wealth from their workers in order to turn a profit, as the theory goes, and so at least some degree of wealth redistribution is needed to return at least some of that wealth. Glaring example: any successful CEO with his or her low-wage employees subsisting below the poverty threshold. Colloquially speaking, I guess you could say many of these dividing lines are arbitrary. All nations in the West have embraced mixed economies of some varying form. Moreover, nearly all right-wingers believe in nationalizing service industries like a national defense, police protection, fire protection, a postal service, and civil infrastructure usage. As others have already mentioned, by the way: Social Security is not an example of socialism. There really isn’t even a wealth redistribution element to it…it’s more like a specific kind of government-mandated wealth management. Let's start with your definition of a socialist: A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, Actually, a socialist is simply a person who advocates or practices socialism. What then is socialism? According to your definition it is an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives Actually, socialism has more to do with government owned means of production than worker owned. It is defined as follows: :any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state : a stage of society in Marxist theory that is transitional between capitalism and communism and is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done There's much more to break down in your post, it's Easter, have to start cooking, I'm going to end it here but add that there is a lot of area we agree on, or at least find middle ground. I recently watched a 7 part documentary on John Adams from 2008. Something that stuck with me was a scene from the first Continental Congress. In it, Ben Franklin shouts that "There is no room for anyone here that isn't willing to compromise." We don't see much compromise from our politicians these days. 2
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 31 Posted March 31 3 hours ago, 4th&long said: You don’t get it if you don’t put into it. Go ahead and try. If you put in a small amount that is all you get out of it. The more you put in the more you get out. Welfare? No. What it was intended to be? No. The politicians you worship can’t keep their hands off it. You can get SS even without putting any money in, look at all of the people who are on SS disability. The fact that they give more to the rich in some situations is not proof it is not welfare. Secondly I want all politicians to lower the budget, I can't imagine who you think I worship but you seem to think anyone smarter than you loves Trump while I simply despise Biden. 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted April 2 Posted April 2 On 3/30/2024 at 12:35 PM, The Frankish Reich said: This is getting close to Picketty's argument, which I find pretty compelling on its surface, but so far not really supported by most good examinations of economic history. Oh, well yeah it’s definitely very close to his argument! Piketty’s critiques stem from the Marxist family of economic philosophies, which all call for wealth redistribution to correct inherent flaws in unfettered capitalism: namely, the return of labor-based wealth stolen from workers. This is something in which I very much believe: laissez-faire capitalism inevitably leads to gross wealth inequalities, oligarchies, and massive social instability. It somewhat boils down to passive income vs. active income (time is money, as they say, and is quite limited), as well as all the major themes you’ll find in Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” and Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent.” I’m not well-versed in international economics history, nor have I carefully read Piketty’s two books, “Capital in the 21st Century” and “Capital and Ideology.” What I can confidently say, however, is that we have excellent American economics data at least since the World Wars. The Neoliberal Era (~1980-now) and Piketty’s golden outlier era, ~1945-1970, do at least seem to support his thesis that inequality skyrockets when capital investment growth outpaces technology-driven macroeconomic growth. Right before the Progressive Era, we also know that the Gilded Age had absurd levels of wealth concentration, poor labor relations, terrible worker conditions, and rampant business/political corruption. In my layman’s opinion, for what it’s worth to you, I do find the solutions component of Piketty’s argument to be seriously lacking. Estate and inheritance taxes don’t do much to lift socioeconomic mobility. Combined with Piketty’s extremely progressive income tax proposals, all of this diminishes the capital resource pools we know can be critical for rapid macroeconomic growth. I’d rather focus on what’s happening at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder: improving labor negotiating power, addressing education and housing costs, eliminating medical debt, various consumer protections, etc. On 3/31/2024 at 10:06 AM, Steve O said: Let's start with your definition of a socialist: A socialist is simply someone who advocates for an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives, Actually, a socialist is simply a person who advocates or practices socialism. What then is socialism? According to your definition it is an economic system in which the workers own the means of production through mandated worker cooperatives Actually, socialism has more to do with government owned means of production than worker owned. It is defined as follows: :any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state : a stage of society in Marxist theory that is transitional between capitalism and communism and is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done There's much more to break down in your post, it's Easter, have to start cooking, I'm going to end it here but add that there is a lot of area we agree on, or at least find middle ground. I recently watched a 7 part documentary on John Adams from 2008. Something that stuck with me was a scene from the first Continental Congress. In it, Ben Franklin shouts that "There is no room for anyone here that isn't willing to compromise." We don't see much compromise from our politicians these days. See clarification #1 in my follow-up post. We are technically not disagreeing with each other on the definition. Contemporary first world socialists, however, do emphasize mandatory worker cooperative models way more so than government ownership models. The exceptions are select economic services, such as health care or (often) energy, to which every citizen is supposed to have equal access and collective ownership. In other words, most contemporary socialists don’t advocate for the government owning and micromanaging the widget company; they’d rather the collective workers at the company be in that position. Also, be mindful of the distinction between ownership and control/management (see: dirigisme market economies as an example). In conversations like these, also be mindful of the distinction between private property (company buildings, production machines, tracts of land, raw materials, etc.) and personal property (such as the various economic goods you own in your house). Lastly, I would qualify the capitalism-to-communism transition component of socialism’s definition as a historical anachronism. While it CAN be true, most contemporary socialists are not aspiring communists. 2 1
Tommy Callahan Posted April 3 Posted April 3 For the folks without x. 40 billion in debt created just today.
Irv Posted April 3 Posted April 3 17 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Biden and Third Term Obammy have totally ***** up the economy. What a mess. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 3 Posted April 3 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: It is urgent but nobody in Washington on either side of the isle is going to do anything about it because its political suicide to cut off all the goodies and pork the Federal government hands out funding big social programs and income transfer schemes, funneling money to big NGO's motivated by political and social issues, and perks to large corporations and major donors to political parties. All done through massive amounts of debt. Interest on the national debt is about to become the single biggest item in the fiscal budget. They'll be a lot of talk but no major action. What can be done about this? Nothing other than protecting yourself from the coming financial Armageddon. I've moved a much of my meager investment funds out of the over-valued and hyped up tech and S&P 500 stocks into resource stocks like oil producers and gold miners. When the economy tanks, the Fed lowers rates, then runs massive QE programs to support more and bigger Federal debt offerings in an attempt to keep the party going which leads to higher inflation and a devaluation of the dollar as confidence is lost in the US dollar. Everybody's standard of living falls. Let's say gold 5000, oil 200. Edited April 3 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Doc Posted April 3 Posted April 3 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: Wait until later on this month when they're quietly revised down. By a lot. 3
Tommy Callahan Posted April 3 Posted April 3 4 minutes ago, Doc said: Wait until later on this month when they're quietly revised down. By a lot. Every month they fall for the same exact thing. And on the topic of socialism as being defined above. any examples of this working? anywhere? 1
Tiberius Posted April 4 Posted April 4 17 hours ago, Doc said: Wait until later on this month when they're quietly revised down. By a lot. Nope, job growth is real. Doc, all those immigrants are filling jobs and helping this economy hum like a nicely tuned Ford 302! Why do Conservatives hate immigrants? 1 1
Irv Posted April 4 Posted April 4 10 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Nope, job growth is real. Doc, all those immigrants are filling jobs and helping this economy hum like a nicely tuned Ford 302! Why do Conservatives hate immigrants? OK Pinocchio. Keep lying. 1
4th&long Posted April 4 Posted April 4 24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Oh no we’re doomed, what shall we ever do? LOL 1
Recommended Posts