Kamala's VP?

[All_Pro_Bills]

15 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Were you wanting me to respond to the article, B-Man? I can do that:

 

1. GDP: I have a HUGE problem here with the author’s economic interpretations. According to him, Minnesota’s state GDP (per capita) fell below the national average as a direct consequence of progressive policies. I’m familiar with mountains of international macroeconomic data typically indicating the opposite correlation. Moreover, GDP has clear limitations in its usage for defining economic (and especially societal) health. Let’s dust off our introductory macroeconomics textbooks and recall one of its key operational definitions: [GDP] = [Government Expenditures] + [Private Consumption] + [Private Business Investments] + [Export/Import Differential]. It’s quite easy to imagine how a rare global pandemic can alter this formula for a random, mostly landlocked northern state in ways unrelated to the state’s public policies. Population changes affect this metric, too, and there’s no data specifically supporting a tax flight hypothesis for frigid Minnesota. What was the magnitude of Minnesota’s GDP fall, by the way?? That might also be relevant to the narrative formation…

 

2. George Floyd Protests/General Crime: The only criticism in the article with merit, in my opinion. Walz himself has acknowledged mistakes he has made during his tenure as governor, with respect to law and order in the state of Minnesota. I view such an admission as a sign of character strength. Voters who prioritize this issue are free to hold that against Walz, though I would remind these voters that crime is predominantly the domain of state and local politicians, not that of the POTUS.

 

3. Public School Test Scores: The declines between 2019 and now are part of observed nationwide phenomena not limited to Minnesota. They pretty much have everything to do with COVID and pretty much nothing to do with “woke agendas.” I don’t fault Walz for school closure policies that just about everyone else in the country and world followed.

 

4. Rural Popularity: I didn’t find his “mostly rocks and cows” remark to be an expression of contempt for rural people. Not at all! Rather, I interpreted it as a cute way to describe a basic political strategy. Since I hate arguments of “whataboutism,” I’ll reserve my thoughts on Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” for another time…

 

5. Military Record Controversy: Doesn’t bother me one bit. A middle-aged family man changed his mind and decided to retire, for whatever reason(s), after 24 years of service. Even if we were to assume cowardice as the singular explanation…so what?? The second Iraq War was beyond stupid, deeply immoral, and completely unrelated to our national security. Choosing not to die for the MIC and for corporate oligarchs is a sign of intelligence, as far as I’m concerned! Since I said that I’m against “whaboutism” arguments, I promise not to bring up Trump’s bone spurs…

 

TL;DR Summary: Walz is super awesome. A social democrat’s dream candidate. His pragmatic progressivism is the perfect gateway drug for a potential revolutionary transition into market socialism by mid-century << crosses fingers >>.

I wasn't very familiar with the theoretical definition of Market Socialism. Here's what Wikipedia says (I assume your familiar with the definition):

 

"Market socialism is a type of economic system involving social ownership of the means of production within the framework of a market economy. Various models for such a system exist, usually involving cooperative enterprises and sometimes a mix that includes public or private enterprises.[1][2] In contrast to the majority of historic socialist economies, which have substituted the market mechanism for some form of economic planning, market socialists wish to retain the use of supply and demand signals to guide the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[3][4][5] Under such a system, depending on whether socially owned firms are state-owned or operated as worker cooperatives, profits may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[6]"

 

But I'm not captivated by some Utopian theory. I'm more a details type of person. So under that system what if I want to op out of the market socialism concept and start my own enterprise to compete with the state owned business which are generally inefficient as I believe I can produce a better product, with higher quality, at a lower cost to the consumer along with compensating my workers at a rate higher than the State enterprise can pay? I would attract the best workers and the highest level of talent while providing more value to the economy. My guess is that would be illegal. Opting out would not be allowed. Optimizing individual performance and potential would be subjugated to the concept of social equity. So the government would have some mechanism for enforcing the system? Why enforce a system against businesses that are more efficient and productive? For the sake of equality at a lower standard of living? That doesn't seem like a long term solution to any problem.

 

My concern is freedom. Under "free" market capitalism nobody is forced to participate. If you want to start your own business or a cooperative enterprise you are free to do so. There are examples of cooperatives operating in our market economy in many places (I'm a frequent customer of a farm cooperative a few miles down the road from the house, for example). If you want to do nothing you can do that too. If you want to participate in the corporate world you can do so too. My problem with anything "socialism" is that the system with few and far between exceptions, is forced compliance and participation. 

 

[B-Man]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

The military would do well to eliminate a few of these layers for enlisted men and women.

[Irv]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

The guy is a pathological liar.  Lies about rank.  Lies about deployment to Afghanistan.  Lies about being the head football coach.  Turns his back on his unit when things got tough.  Coward and lair.  What a mess.  

[The Frankish Reich]

7 minutes ago, Irv said:

Coward and lair

Coward? Perhaps.

Layer? As in on a couch, in a compromising position? That's the other guy.

[sherpa]

27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The military would do well to eliminate a few of these layers for enlisted men and women.

 

I think they kind of know what they are doing.

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, sherpa said:

 

I think they kind of know what they are doing.

Do they?

 

This knee-jerk "the military knows best" thing is completely unsupported by the historical record. It is a huge bureaucracy, and anyone who criticizes the federal bureaucracy in general (and yes, there's a lot to criticize) shouldn't exempt the military.

[sherpa]

18 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Do they?

 

This knee-jerk "the military knows best" thing is completely unsupported by the historical record. It is a huge bureaucracy, and anyone who criticizes the federal bureaucracy in general (and yes, there's a lot to criticize) shouldn't exempt the military.

 

I aver that this is a particularly uninformed and ignorant comment.

 

The strength of the US military, and it is extremely noteworthy in the gross failure of the Russian military lies in four components.

1. The professional non commissioned officer capability, which is what you have suggested needs to be changed.

No other non NATO military puts so much on, and is so rewarded by its NCO's, from about the E-4 to E-8 level.

This is being magnified by 1000 by the Russian failure in Ukraine, and is indisputable.

 

2. Officer skills.

 

3. Training. Nobody trains like the US military, from top to bottom.

 

4. Technology, which in a way is related to 1 and 2. NCO's and senior enlisted, as well as officers determine what is needed and are largely listened to, resulting in weapons, systems and training that actually work and allow independent judgement in the heat of battle.  

 

Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it.

 

Edited August 12 by sherpa

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it.

 

Every single DOD employee, military or civilian, is essential?

 

Serious question: I respect JD Vance's active duty service and Tim Walz's reservist service.

From a purely business perspective: did either one's service add net value to the defense of the United States?

[sherpa]

44 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Every single DOD employee, military or civilian, is essential?

 

Serious question: I respect JD Vance's active duty service and Tim Walz's reservist service.

From a purely business perspective: did either one's service add net value to the defense of the United States?

 

You have move the goalposts to Earendel.

I'll save you the google. It is the furthest star detected from Hubble.

 

You started out by stating that the military should eliminate levels in the enlisted ranks.

 

You end up asking if every single employee, DOD or civilian included, is necessary.

 

I don't know a thing about Walz, and I never will, but the US relies on the National Guard far more than it used to, but only those who show up.

Vance's active duty was certainly of value, or that wouldn't have been a position.

 

Either way, the question is silly.

 

I remember sitting five minute alert in a fighter on an aircraft carrier in waters that were in "harms way."

We would have two or three fully armed during periods where we weren't operating normal cycles.

All weapons ready, all we had to do was start and launch.

 

Never launched because no threat was presented.

 

To use your phraseology, "from a purely business perspective," that added no value to the defense of the United States.

Still.....It sure made the 5000 sailors on the carrier and the entire task force rest a bit easier.

Edited August 12 by sherpa

[Irv]

When do the Clinton's whack out Walz?  

[Tiberius]

23 minutes ago, Irv said:

When do the Clinton's whack out Walz?  

You believe that Harris's crowds are just AI generated? 🤣

 

 

[Irv]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You believe that Harris's crowds are just AI generated? 🤣

 

 

No.  But your mom does.  

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Irv said:

No.  But your mom does.  

@B-Man @Doc Hey you guys, Irv thinks Trump is lying about Harris's crowds 🤣

 

 

See, that wasn't hard guys 

[Irv]

56 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

@B-Man @Doc Hey you guys, Irv thinks Trump is lying about Harris's crowds 🤣

 

 

See, that wasn't hard guys 

 

No.  I don't give a sh*t.  She's an idiot.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregg]

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/12/2024 at 8:00 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

I wasn't very familiar with the theoretical definition of Market Socialism. Here's what Wikipedia says (I assume your familiar with the definition):

 

"Market socialism is a type of economic system involving social ownership of the means of production within the framework of a market economy. Various models for such a system exist, usually involving cooperative enterprises and sometimes a mix that includes public or private enterprises.[1][2] In contrast to the majority of historic socialist economies, which have substituted the market mechanism for some form of economic planning, market socialists wish to retain the use of supply and demand signals to guide the allocation of capital goods and the means of production.[3][4][5] Under such a system, depending on whether socially owned firms are state-owned or operated as worker cooperatives, profits may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source of public finance, or be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[6]"

 

But I'm not captivated by some Utopian theory. I'm more a details type of person. So under that system what if I want to op out of the market socialism concept and start my own enterprise to compete with the state owned business which are generally inefficient as I believe I can produce a better product, with higher quality, at a lower cost to the consumer along with compensating my workers at a rate higher than the State enterprise can pay? I would attract the best workers and the highest level of talent while providing more value to the economy. My guess is that would be illegal. Opting out would not be allowed. Optimizing individual performance and potential would be subjugated to the concept of social equity. So the government would have some mechanism for enforcing the system? Why enforce a system against businesses that are more efficient and productive? For the sake of equality at a lower standard of living? That doesn't seem like a long term solution to any problem.

 

My concern is freedom. Under "free" market capitalism nobody is forced to participate. If you want to start your own business or a cooperative enterprise you are free to do so. There are examples of cooperatives operating in our market economy in many places (I'm a frequent customer of a farm cooperative a few miles down the road from the house, for example). If you want to do nothing you can do that too. If you want to participate in the corporate world you can do so too. My problem with anything "socialism" is that the system with few and far between exceptions, is forced compliance and participation. 

 

Oh…well that last sentence of mine was actually typed tongue-in-cheek, though your inability to recognize that was a failure of my writing style and not your reading comprehension! I’ll try to answer your questions:

 

When market socialists speak of transitioning beyond the current U.S. mixed economy, they’re usually thinking of models that don’t meaningfully alter the existing ratio of private businesses to public services (well…aside from the health care industry…and maybe also the energy industry…). So all that would really change is the matter of who owns the means of production and the particular way this ownership is distributed. These ownership details, however, would then fall under government regulation.

 

A simple example of what I mean: you want to start a business, but your business model involves you collecting 99.9% of all profits while the rest of your employees split the remaining 0.1% in the form of very low-wage jobs. The market socialist government steps in and tells you that, as founder/CEO, your personal profit collection is to be capped at, say, 51% while the rest of your employees are collectively entitled to the remaining 49%. So you can still make your high-quality products at lower costs to the consumer and with better worker compensation than your competitors. The key difference is that the socialist government more aggressively enforces minimum standards in the worker compensation component of your business plan.

 

In case you’re wondering why I’m just a social democrat and not a full-blown market socialist: for me, it’s much more about data-driven macroeconomic optimization than it is about the restrictions to certain entrepreneurial freedoms. There ARE situations in which I believe supply-side solutions best promote growth (especially if there is greater national oversight of outsourcing, stock buybacks, taxation loopholes, etc.). My reservations with market socialism models are related to potential unintended consequences arising from supply-side market distortions as well as from labor market distortions. At least for the time being, I’d be more than okay with a robust social safety net that includes universal health care and the complete elimination of medical debt.

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

On 8/12/2024 at 12:31 AM, The Frankish Reich said:

Strange dream I had last night.

I had commented that the presidents of the various Ivy League universities made the appropriate decision under the First Amendment and their university policies not to expel pro-Palestinian protesters. I was excoriated by various right wingers here. Of course they should be expelled if not arrested and convicted!

Sounds like either your dream was inaccurate or your memory of it is hazy. Possibly it is your memory of your previous comments that is hazy. You were “excoriated” (I hope you recovered) because you defended the now ex-presidents (wonder why that is) by removing both Jews and the specific questions at the heart of the matter from your comments. Some quality work you put in on that. Shame the ex-presidents couldn’t make your argument and save their jobs. 

[B-Man]