In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


1.  No.  See a dictionary.

2.  I know that's what you were arguing.  I was pointing out why it was a bad argument:

a.  Now follow your argument to its logical conclusion - all regulation of business is socialism because it controls business.  You have said socialism is bad.  Therefore you think all regulation of business is bad.

b.  Children were worked to death and/or maimed countless times in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.  Child labor laws and workplace safety laws were passed.  These control business.  Therefore, you think they are socialist and therefore bad.

Keep applying that to any regulation that makes our lives better.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


If the government can determine what a CEO gets paid, what services can be offered, and who can purchase, then the government is the owner.  Everyone else is just a recipient of the "benevolence" of Obama.

A government powerful enough to do this is a governemnt to fear.

But, to your definition point.  Ownership in economic terms refers to control.  that is the standard use of the term in economics.  So, Obama "owns" the means of production, because he is calling the shots.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


Always oversimplifying.

If the government gives money to X on condition that X pays Y $50 instead of $100, then the government is not the owner. 

X has a choice: Take the money and do what the government wants.  Or, leave the money.



The government already does that with states in any number of ways; primarily, by offering funds for maintenance of highways and infastructure, but tying acceptance of the funds to the state's agreement to toe the line on some federal policy or another.  Tax & Spend powers.





If government simply ordered that all CEOs in the country get paid $50 this year, that would not be socialism either.  It would violate any number of constitutional provisions, including contracts clause. But it still wouldn't be socialism.



And you still haven't done this (and I think you realize why):
a.  Now follow your argument to its logical conclusion - all regulation of business is socialism because it controls business.  You have said socialism is bad.  Therefore you think all regulation of business is bad.

b.  Children were worked to death and/or maimed countless times in the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.  Child labor laws and workplace safety laws were passed.  These control business.  Therefore, you think they are socialist and therefore bad.

Keep applying that to any regulation that makes our lives better.



Do you think it is socialist, and thus wrong, to tell corporations they can't run dark factories with open spinning blades everywhere, and then make children work 16 hours a day for cents on the hour? 

(if you do, well, we aren't going to agree on anything.  But that also puts you farther right than anyone I've heard speak.  Even Limbaugh supports child labor laws, I'm sure).

And if you don't agree with this analysis, well then you're going to have to develop a more nuanced argument than what you've currently got going: "socialism bad, socialism is control, obama controls, obama socialist, obama bad" -- even the choir might not swallow that song.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


Socialism just reflects who owns the means of production. As long as Socialism relies on the free market to determine prices, then it's as efficient an economic "system" as capitalism.  Regardless of who owns the means of production, the government can have an impact on the allocation of resources.  Taxes and subsidies and regualtions (which is a form of taxation) has an impact on the "prices" in the market place and can change the allocation of resources and make the allocation more efficient or less efficient.

People get too hung up on lables with fully understanding what's going on.

We've had government interference in the market place for a long, long time.  Anti-trust laws prevent the creation of Oligopolies and Monopolies, which are needed to insure that the Market works are intended.  

We all agree that Monopolies are bad because they control the market.  They would manipulate output to maximize earnings, producing less than if there was "perfect competition".  And that's the key phrase - perfect competition.  It's a concept used to explain a theory, but it doesn't actually exist.  And without Perfect Competition, notions of the "invisible hand" regulating the market is bit of nonsense.  The law of supply and demand work, but they don't always work in a way that is best for society.

Socialism can act like unregulated capitalism - see China.  And Capitalism can exist in a centrally planned economy - much as we had during WWII.

The real argument should be around the correct level or effective government regulation.  People want to blame BP for the oil spill, but BP is just acting like it is expected to act - maximize profit.  It could be argued that the failure was with the Federal Government not having the correct regulations in place or maybe not enforcing existing regulations.

So far, the collapse of the US auto industry, the collapse of the banking system, and the BP debacle were results of unfettered capitalism.

I haven't really seen any debacles caused by socialism or over regulation.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:

whatever helps you sleep at night...because you sir, have not the slightest idea what evil is if you say its Obama

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


I'm so sick of the misguided acting like the high and mighty.

This country has gone through periods in which the government had more say in the allocations of resources and less say.  During WWII, the government was very involved in the means of production.  Every aspect of the economy was planned.

In the 80s, 90s, and 00's the Government became less involved in planning the economy.  It allowed banks to become more competitive.  It relaxed regulations on the airline industry.  The pendulum swings back and forth.  Too much regulation can choke an idustry.  Too little regulation can result in things like the collapse of the banking sector and big oil spills.

Obama has not been President long enough for his regulations to have much of an impact.  It's been 18 months since the financial sector melted down and still no new regulations.

Socialism?  Show me socialism and I'll comment on it.

Why must there be only one way? The intelligent thing is to weight various solutions to a problem and pick the best one.

The problem with economic or political dogma is that nothing is weighted. The "solution" is always automatic.

Socialism is not just an economic system, it's also a political system -- and not an all or nothing one. Government intervention in the economic system might be termed a form of socialism, but's what's wrong with that? Unbridled capitalism is great for the people who control the capital, but bad for the majority who don't.

We've always had a certain amount of socialism in this country, at least from the building of the Cumberland Road in 1811. Do we sell all the highways and allow private businesses to charge whatever they can get in tolls?

The purpose of government since the ancient Egyptians was and is to make the people more secure. We should approach that task intelligently -- not by blindly applying abstract theories, but by having open minds and evaluating the possibilities.

"So far, the collapse of the US auto industry, the collapse of the banking system, and the BP debacle were results of unfettered capitalism.
I haven't really seen any debacles caused by socialism or over regulation'
 
How are those rose colored glasses working for you?
The auto industry collapsed largely because of leftwing unions, which ruined the great  capitalist success of the auto industry.
The collapse of the banking system was due largely to government forcing banks to give toxic loans to those who had no ability, or more to the point, no intention of paying the loan back..

Those who oppose Obama's failed leftwing policies are not anarchists; there is a role for government; smaller the better; so whatisit's argument is weak..
Shall we ask you moonbat statists what limits you put on the Nanny state government? answer: none. "Regulations" must exist to limit success; success is known to leftists as 'obscene profits', which must be confiscated and redistributed....

Bob, you deliberately misread my argument.  It's simple, but spelled out in length with the intention of making it harder to deliberately misread it (oops).

Argument:  Skeeter is wrong to say (1) that control via regulation = socialism, and therefore inherently bad.

Example:  Child labor laws control industry, and are indisputably good to have.  So if they're socialism, then not all socialism is bad.  Of course., such regulation is not socialism - which was the point of the argument.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


I thought the Auto industry collapsed because they were making SUVs and nobody wanted to buy them when gas went to $5 gallon.  The unions didn't seem to be a problem when gas was $2 and people were buying SUVs.  Unless of course it was the unions fault that gas was $5 a gallon or the unions were forcing the auto makers to make SUVs.  And Ford seems to have done Ok and they had the same Unions as GM and Chrysler.

Sorry to burst your self esteem bubble, but it was the financing of long term debt with obscenely short term loans that caused the financial sector to go under.  Even you should realize the stupidity of financing 30 year debt with over night loans.

I used to work for a large bank and it was my job to set lending goals for CRA.  We got an outstanding rating by the OCC, so you could say we were one of the best banks in the country at making loans to low and moderate income borrowers.  The Bank was located in New England but the mortgage company owned by the bank was national.  We only had to make the CRA loans in New England so I guarantee you we didn't make any outside of New England.  And rest assured, the volume in New England was hardly a burden.

Most of the subprime mortgages were made by mortgage companies - not banks.  CountryWide, who was forced to sell to BOA, was a mortgage company and was not under any federal obligation to make subprime loans, and yet they were one of the biggest lenders in the sub prime market.

Nope, the primary factor in the undoing of the Auto industry and mortgage industry good old short term greed.

And the banking industry collapsed because they had made overnight loans to the investment banks and the investment banks couldn't pay off the loans.  The investment banks couldn't pay off the loans because no one would loan them money on the mortgage backed securities.

And what made up the mortgage backed securities?  Sub prime mortgages mixed with prime mortgages so that when the sub prime mortages went sour, it took the securities for the prime mortgages down with them.  Amazing, people who pay themsleves hundreds of millions of dollars each year thought it was smart to mix sub prime mortgages with prime mortgages.  Isn't that like mixing old moldy meat with prime chuck to make ground beef, thereby spoiling the whole lot?

And you know that the meat packing industry used to mix old moldy meat with good meat when they were making sausages?  And who was it that made them stop?  Could it have been the Federal Government? 

Oh Bobbin, when are you going to turn off the rhetoric.  You come across like that loon Grimfandango.

One last thing - the reason for CRA was because the Federal Government wanted to get out of the housing business.  Istead of the Governemtn creating projects, they wanted to incent banks to loan money to developers to create affordable housing.  And the reason for the below market loans to low and moderate income people was because people who own their own home are more likely to take care of it and because neighborhoods with a high proportion of owner occupied housing have lower crime rates.

CRA is exactly the type of programs that the federal government should be doing.  The problem was shaddy lenders took the mechanisms created for CRA and went crazy with them.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:

 
My sister in law thought mccain palin was bad due to palin having no experince, when i pointed out Obama had none either, she said he had enough.

Today my sister in law is starting to like Palin.

Throw in the fact the chris mattaws seems to be figuring out that Obama is not much of a leader, and we have some problems.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


Name one what?  Economic rights are not considered as valuable as political rights.  Your economic right to discriminate in your business practices gives way to my political right to be free of said discrimination.  Your right to pollute the environment gives way to my right to have clean air.  The rights are interrelated and only government can balance the competing needs and rights.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


No matter how you define it, socialism is an economic system achieved through political means.  There is no confusion, the political and the economic are closely connected.  There has been a long history of government intervening in the economic world to reduce the harm it can cause.  That history will continue.  Unfettered capitalism (if it ever truly existed) is long gone.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


You are just making stuff up.  The "bitter, vindictive, and hateful little man" is actually you.

I guess citizens of the USA should just cower as usual to corporate opportunism and tax avoidance as usual.   Ah, the glory of deregulation. 

Oh yea, history shows that big business will self regulate, self correct and self punish. 

Need proof?  Just look to the catastrophic events of the last 10 years in major USA industries. 

Banking, financiers, stock markets, energy brokers, mortgagers, big oil, big insurance and  job outsourcers have all had their day in the center ring and are responsible for the collapse of the USA marketplace and unemployment.  They have given the USA history of a free marketplace a black eye.

Socialism?  Whoey.  Look in your own back yard first.


The truth hurts no matter what your politial views may be.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


Again, "ownership" in economic theory parlance means "control".  that is how economists use the word.

In Response to Re: How is that socialism working for ya?:


Yah, I'm with you, markeboy.  Let's make every company, big or small, every transaction, go through Washington.  Let them decide what I need, what I can buy, what I can do with my company.  I think Washington needs to set prices, conditions of purchase for everything.

Medic !!!

If we are a socialist country now, it hasn't affected me in the least. But Im not sure we are socialist.

Right now, BP is handing out cash to the tune of hundreds of millions to the "small people" of the Gulf Coast whose livelihoods their negligence has destroyed.

The GOP philosophy, as stated by the Republican Study Committee, is that this represents a "shakedown" of BP by the Obama Administration.  They evidently favor the rights of the corporation (and its owners,. the shareholders) over the rights of the people.

So, who is in control?  BP?  The Gov't?  The people getting paid??  In other words, who's zooming who??

Im thinkin' BP was the problem. And the GOP is fine with it.

Skeeter20-

Falling on your sword is supposed to be fatal.  How can you live with yourself having cat like 9 lives?   Failed consumerism is sometimes a direct result of lack of corporate business regulation.  Recent history has painfully revealed the failed businesses that were the cause for ah...hem "financial disasters" both corporate and personal.   

Of course if you idolize the way Matt Dillion protected Miss Kitty at the Long Branch then the view is always less than foreshortened and  flat world simple.   

Corporate greed, corporate opportunism, scamming citizen consumers and lack of regulation is not the foundation of free enterprise. 

No, gov. involvement should not be suffocating.  However, its involvement in free enterprise should protect consumers from monopolies, hidden abstract financial risk taking and ponzie dodges by corporations at the very least.  

Of course I should lastly add that it is all Bush's fault.  After 8 years I will pound on Obama if he fails to remedy an abandoned Bush war (Afghanistan), fails to wrap up a then 15 year old unnecessary Bush war (Iraq), and can't wrap up the worst financial/banking crisis in USA history (inherited from the Bush 8 years).  These three headliners are but a part of the signature of George Bush as president.  Yes, lets stop blaming Bush.  Lets confirm written history and allow George Bush to take FULL responsibility for 8 years as president of the United States of America.  God Bless America.