TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 You are definitely confusing Socialism with Communism. All socialism is regressive, because of the apparatus used to implement and maintain it. And, as GG stated, socialism is incompatible with free will and enterprise, as state dictates replace the first and state policy disincentivizes the second. Finally, Communism is socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 All socialism is regressive, because of the apparatus used to implement and maintain it. And, as GG stated, socialism is incompatible with free will and enterprise, as state dictates replace the first and state policy disincentivizes the second. Finally, Communism is socialism. I think that's exactly right. The impression I get from people who are pro-socialist is that they seem to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked properly is because 'the right people' haven't tried implementing it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 All socialism is regressive, because of the apparatus used to implement and maintain it. And, as GG stated, socialism is incompatible with free will and enterprise, as state dictates replace the first and state policy disincentivizes the second. Finally, Communism is socialism. Free market capitalism is regressive, because of the market forces that ultimately drive it towards monopoly. Rockefeller was as against free markets too. Somewhere there is a happy medium. We are already socialist in so many ways. Capitalism in its current form thrives in a socialistic environment like this. look at health care. Free marketers scream about how big a part of the economy health care is and that the government under Obama is "taking it over." What a joke. If the government, the socialist government, got out of the health care business it would deflate like a balloon letting out air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 You are definitely confusing Socialism with Communism. Just a quick heads up, assuming you don't usually post here under a different username: When you post a comment like you did above, and you get a response like this: He sure is! Everyone here can pretty much assure you that your initial statement is wrong long before GG responds to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Free market capitalism is regressive, because of the market forces that ultimately drive it towards monopoly. Rockefeller was as against free markets too. Somewhere there is a happy medium. We are already socialist in so many ways. Capitalism in its current form thrives in a socialistic environment like this. look at health care. Free marketers scream about how big a part of the economy health care is and that the government under Obama is "taking it over." What a joke. If the government, the socialist government, got out of the health care business it would deflate like a balloon letting out air. The free market has never created monopolies, because markets foster competition. Government intervention into markets is what has created monopolies. Your Rockefeller reference is indicative of this. He wanted government to limit his competition to his own advantage. I'm not even going to bother with your "health care" screed, because it's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Further, you know it's horseshit, you've simply gone back to your old dishonest ways of posting. Edited September 9, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The free market has never created monopolies, because markets foster competition. Government intervention into markets is what has created monopolies. Your Rockefeller reference is indicative of this. He wanted government to limit his competition to his own advantage. You are seriously arguing that Rockefeller didn't use price manipulation, business intimidation and his market share domination to solidify his monopolistic position? And I agree he also he did bribe state governments, but what are you assuming, a perfect market where governments do not exist? WTF? Do you know really anything about John D.? T I'm not even going to bother with your "health care" screed, because it's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Further, you know it's horseshit, you've simply gone back to your old dishonest ways of posting. Just look at the Federal budget for health care. If you think the industry would be any where near as big without all that government dough, you's is crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 You are seriously arguing that Rockefeller didn't use price manipulation, The time Rockefeller spent in cartels was the least productive of his career. Cartels, assuming external competition, reduce profits of the cartel members, and ultimately drive them out of business. Cartels exist to increase profits without a corresponding increase in productivity. One Rockefeller disassociated with cartels, he drove them out of business with lower prices and increased efficiency, or purchased them before they could fail. business intimidation What the hell are you talking about? and his market share domination to solidify his monopolistic position? Department of Redundancy Department. Rockefeller ascended as he did due to a combination of three factors: 1. His ingenuity 2. His ability to run price fixers out of business by competing with them (had his competitors been active in markets rather than attempting to manipulate them, they would have been able to compete.) 3. Governments partnering with Rockefeller, granting him special favor paid for with bribes, which helped anoint him winner. And I agree he also he did bribe state governments, but what are you assuming, a perfect market where governments do not exist? WTF? I'm not assuming anything at all. I'm pointing out that fact that Rockefeller's monopoly was not the direct result of capitalism, but rather the result of non-capitalistic forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) The time Rockefeller spent in cartels was the least productive of his career. Cartels, assuming external competition, reduce profits of the cartel members, and ultimately drive them out of business. Cartels exist to increase profits without a corresponding increase in productivity. One Rockefeller disassociated with cartels, he drove them out of business with lower prices and increased efficiency, or purchased them before they could fail. This sounds like pure balderdash, but assuming you are on to something, what years in John D's career are you referring to? What the hell are you talking about? They would go to retailers are tell them to sell Standard oil or their competitors would get super cheap kerosene to sell. Good luck selling lighting oil then! This basic practice also was used to force other refiners to sell. The time Rockefeller spent in cartels was the least productive of his career. Cartels, assuming external competition, reduce profits of the cartel members, and ultimately drive them out of business. Cartels exist to increase profits without a corresponding increase in productivity. One Rockefeller disassociated with cartels, he drove them out of business with lower prices and increased efficiency, or purchased them before they could fail. What the hell are you talking about? Department of Redundancy Department. Rockefeller ascended as he did due to a combination of three factors: 1. His ingenuity 2. His ability to run price fixers out of business by competing with them (had his competitors been active in markets rather than attempting to manipulate them, they would have been able to compete.) 3. Governments partnering with Rockefeller, granting him special favor paid for with bribes, which helped anoint him winner. No, you really missed the key--the capitalistic key--to the whole thing. He was the largest shipper of crude and kerosene and told the railways--like the Erie Railroad that runs across southern NY--that if they didn't discount his shipments AND give him a rebate for the oil shipped for OTHER companies--yes, he was paid for oil shipped for other companies--he wouldn't ship on the Erie. What could the Erie do but give into his demands. this allowed him to under sell all his competitors and drive them into his arms. And I'm not saying he was evil or anything. I agree he was a genius and a positive good to the country, but he was a monopoly and greatly limited competition. State governments had to move in and bar Standard from competing in Texas and California. Did you get that, government restarted competition in that industry. Edited September 9, 2015 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Bernie Sanders Has an Inconvenient Message for the Democratic Party Currently, there is a 2016 presidential candidate barnstorming his way across the country to hyped-up, adoring crowds while caterwauling about the establishment failures of the ruling political class, claiming to be the candidate of the people and the only one in the running that cannot be bought by Washington special interests. His blustery non-conformities are reverberating throughout the fringe base of the party and captivating the media’s attention. I am of course referring to (*ahem* Democratic) socialist Bernie Sanders, who one day out of the blue seemingly just decided to get up and run for president after giving up on the New York Times crossword and Sudoku. Sanders was never meant to be anything more than a disgruntled tomato can on the path to the coronation of Queen BAE Hillary, a useful sparring partner whose job was to jab her just enough without hurting her in preparation for the actual main event. The only problem for Hillary and the DNC is that Sanders’s special brand of Grampa Simpson relativism is catching on, and Hillary hasn’t been too great at dodging punches. {snip} He’s just common enough for people to ignore his status as a congressional insider for the past thirty years. And that’s exactly what makes him so politically dangerous. It’s why his legions of Internet fans on Facebook and Reddit are willing to overlook his underreported kooky theories on why women fantasize about being sexually assaulted and the causes of cervical cancer (lack of orgasms — science!). Sanders is echoing the populist, anti-corporatist sentiment that has made Chief Elizabeth Warren, a senator for barely two years, a kingmaker of her party. Sanders’s socialist diatribes have pushed even the limits of what Barack Obama knew he could get away with in 2008. But this isn’t 2008 anymore and our ears have grown accustomed to populist theatrics masquerading as policy solutions to a middle class who sees their income shrinking. But the biggest mystery seems to be how Sanders is able to get away with it after seven years of a president whom he ideologically agrees with almost point for point. If a “political revolution,” which Sanders often likes to declare is the goal of his candidacy, depends on the working poor or unemployed, then by definition it needs as many of those people as possible to carry it out. The key to this kind of messaging is mobilization, and in particular the mobilization of the angry and disenfranchised (See Black Lives Matter and the Occupy movement). Saul Alinksy once referred to this dynamic as receiving power in reaction to a threat. If your goal is to get elected on the backs of the young, angry, poor, and unemployed, then the means to your end is not to create less of those kinds of voters, it’s to create more and keep them angry. Beyond this, Sanders’s hyper-populist message is dependent on the media reporting on how popular it seems. At Bernie campaign rallies, media almost always report crowd sizes like they’re reporting on a U2 concert, but the second he opens his mouth the tweets and the stenographing magically stop. There is little to no curiosity among our media elite about how a Democratic candidate for president is able to campaign on a shrinking middle class, record highs of unemployment, record lows of workforce participation, record wage stagnation, and record entitlement dependency, while a Democratic president simultaneously travels around the country touting his economic success on all counts. How is it allowed to go unnoticed that this candidate suggests that economic growth was better under Richard Nixon than under Barack Obama?Sanders may not necessarily be the perfect post-Obama messenger, but anyone who doesn’t think he can carry that message past Grandma and to the Democrat nomination hasn’t been paying attention to what that party has become over the past seven years. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423793/bernie-sanders-message-inconvenient-democrats-hillary-clinton Edited September 10, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 But the biggest mystery seems to be how Sanders is able to get away with it after seven years of a president whom he ideologically agrees with almost point for point. I Good point! He just uses a different title and everyone turns into mouth breathing, incredulous, outraged defenders of all that is sacred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Bernie Sanders Has an Inconvenient Message for the Democratic Party Currently, there is a 2016 presidential candidate barnstorming his way across the country to hyped-up, adoring crowds while caterwauling about the establishment failures of the ruling political class, claiming to be the candidate of the people and the only one in the running that cannot be bought by Washington special interests. His blustery non-conformities are reverberating throughout the fringe base of the party and captivating the media’s attention. I am of course referring to (*ahem* Democratic) socialist Bernie Sanders, who one day out of the blue seemingly just decided to get up and run for president after giving up on the New York Times crossword and Sudoku. Now if he gives up on something so easy, what's he going to do when faced with a real challenge in the White House? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 TWO MONTHS OF MISLABELING: ABC, NBC Evening News Shows Haven’t Called Bernie Sanders ‘Socialist’ Since July 3. Because if they did, the networks might have to define the term, its history, and how his ideology impacts both Hillary and Obama, which could mean bad news for Democrats. And the networks are also reluctant to quote from Sanders’ fire and brimstone speeches, which are focused on how poorly the economy has been performing for the last six and a half years with a Democrat in the White House, as Glenn has noted in USA Today: Sanders recently went after the Obama administration on inequality and unemployment, noting that although the official government unemployment is at 5.4%, the real unemployment figure, including those who have given up looking for work or who are involuntarily working part-time, is 10.5%, almost double. What’s more, he notes, youth unemployment is even worse. For young high school graduates, unemployment is 33% for whites, 36% for Hispanics and 51% for blacks. Never mind that Sanders’ proposed minimum-wage increase would make that worse. The point is that he’s speaking to a concern that is evident to ordinary Democrats around the country, but that is concealed by the Obama administration’s gauzy proclamations of economic recovery. All of which makes Bernie so problematic, as the kids like to say these days, to the MSM. But then, this is the media whose biggest names were proudly proclaiming “I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is” on the eve of the 2008 election, so don’t expect them to tell their viewers what Bernie’s worldview is anytime soon, either. RELATED: Democrats seem to forget who ‘owns’ this sad economy. Well, they’ll certainly want presidential voters to forget next year. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/214128/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) (My apologies to Christopher Lloyd) Edited September 12, 2015 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-11/human-cost-socialism-power But yeah, this time it will be different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-11/human-cost-socialism-power But yeah, this time it will be different Antibiotics as a tool of socialist punishment. Sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Free market capitalism is regressive, because of the market forces that ultimately drive it towards monopoly. Rockefeller was as against free markets too. Somewhere there is a happy medium. We are already socialist in so many ways. Capitalism in its current form thrives in a socialistic environment like this. look at health care. Free marketers scream about how big a part of the economy health care is and that the government under Obama is "taking it over." What a joke. If the government, the socialist government, got out of the health care business it would deflate like a balloon letting out air. absolutely. stick to your guns. big parma, big insurance and big hospital systems all suck hard on the govt teat. not to mention doctors. we'd all be living a lot less large without gov't involvement. but hell, it's only like 20% of the entire economy or so. and govt provides about 1/2 of all us healthcare dollars: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-13/health-care-spending-to-reach-20-of-u-s-economy-by-2021. so let's see how the cons counter these numbers shall we? anybody that makes a living in health care should stop complaining about socialized medicine. that]'s what's gassing up their luxury vehicles and paying their restaurant and bar tabs. "Federal, state and local governments are projected to spend $2.4 trillion on health care in 2021, half of all U.S. medical expenditures, according to the analysis in Health Affairs by actuaries and economists from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Government accounted for about 46 percent of health spending through 2013." Edited September 13, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Yup. Price fixing always makes things cheaper. /eyeroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Yup. Price fixing always makes things cheaper. /eyeroll Only because the resulting transactions outside the controlled market drive up the prices. This is why controlled economies always have to crack down on the black markets. In other words...it won't be too much time before paying your doctor directly will be considered "black market medicine" and made illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Only because the resulting transactions outside the controlled market drive up the prices. This is why controlled economies always have to crack down on the black markets. In other words...it won't be too much time before paying your doctor directly will be considered "black market medicine" and made illegal. It also leads to Inelastic "pricing" controlled by beuracratic cartels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts