General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
This goes back to the whole socialism thing.. Socialism, the idea, works on the principle that a group of people know more than the sum of everyone else, they know all the facts and can make prudent, unbiased decisions when that is never the case.
What you're defining is collectivism. Socialism is a system where the state owns the means of production.

Quote:
The idea sounds nice, you let the "kids" (capitalism) play around until they get into trouble, then "mommy and daddy" (socialism) comes in and first calms everyone down and then "fixes" what ever is ailing the "kids" (capitalism).. Problem is, as you should know, parents are generally out of touch and have certain expectations of how things should and do work when the reality is far from it... When you start expecting the parents to fix every little problem or argument kids get into, you end up with a bunch of whiners who are then incapable of solving their own problems. After the parents get flustered in dealing with the now whiny brats, the parents finally turn into dictators..
You seem to have some odd idea that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. They are not. For one, socialism isn't necessarily an economic model; you can, for example, have a state corporation - let's say the postal service - exist within a capitalist economy. If you want to sell us these poorly worded and ill conceived "how the world works for dummies" posts, you might want to at least argue against communism or statism - at least that makes some level of sense.
Old 09-13-2010, 09:34 AM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
What you're defining is collectivism. Socialism is a system where the state owns the means of production.


You seem to have some odd idea that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. They are not. For one, socialism isn't necessarily an economic model; you can, for example, have a state corporation - let's say the postal service - exist within a capitalist economy. If you want to sell us these poorly worded and ill conceived "how the world works for dummies" posts, you might want to at least argue against communism or statism - at least that makes some level of sense.

You're actually right, I guess I use the word socialism so often that I've melded it with communism even though communism is a form of socialism.. There are obviously many forms of socialism with communism being one of them, so equating socialism to communism would be disingenuous.
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-13-2010, 12:31 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imzjustplayin View Post
You're actually right, I guess I use the word socialism so often that I've melded it with communism even though communism is a form of socialism.. There are obviously many forms of socialism with communism being one of them, so equating socialism to communism would be disingenuous.
That's not exactly accurate, I'm afraid. In a communist system the means of production is ostensibly owned solely by the laborers; hence, the communal part. (I say ostensibly because this is what Marx & Engles had in mind, although in practice the state usually took up that charge. Marx only intended socialism to be an intermediary step towards dismantling capitalism, with a laborer owned economy as the end goal.) Whereas in socialism the means of production is owned by the state, not the workers. Socialist systems also allow private property and enterprise, while communist systems do not.

The two are similar in a lot of ways, but rather poorly understood by most. Pick up some Marx if you're interested. I hate how modern rhetoric implies that we should hate communism & Marx without even reading his theory. That's not to say that I agree with it, but it's worth understanding for what it is/was intended to be at the very least.
Old 09-13-2010, 01:48 PM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephekt View Post
The two are similar in a lot of ways, but rather poorly understood by most. Pick up some Marx if you're interested. I hate how modern rhetoric implies that we should hate communism & Marx without even reading his theory. That's not to say that I agree with it, but it's worth understanding for what it is/was intended to be at the very least.

You might not be aware of this, about apparently Thomas Sowell (the author of the article) used to be a "marxist" and then changed later on in his life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell#Biography
Quote:
Sowell has stated that he was a Marxist “during the decade of my 20s." His experience working as a federal government intern during the summer of 1960 caused him to reject his so-called Marxism in favor of free market economic theory. His intern work asserted a correlation between the rise of mandated minimum wages for workers in the sugar industry of Puerto Rico and the rise of unemployment in that industry. Studying the patterns led Sowell to allege that the government employees who administered the minimum wage law cared more about their own jobs than the plight of the poor
Love it...
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?
Old 09-13-2010, 09:02 PM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
I read an interesting article today too...

Quote:
By simply bashing government, the GOP ignores a legacy of dynamic federal policy

The American story is not just the Republican version of limited governments threatened by creeping socialism, writes columnist David Brooks. It is instead the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility.

By David Brooks
Syndicated columnist

Every political movement has a story. The surging Republican Party has a story, too. It is a story of virtue betrayed and innocence threatened.

Through most of its history, the GOP narrative begins, the United States was a limited-government nation, with restrained central power and an independent citizenry. But over the years, forces have arisen that seek to change America's essential nature. These forces would replace America's traditional free-enterprise system with a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy.

These forces are more powerful than ever in this age of Obama. So it is the duty for those who believe in the traditional America system to stand up and defend the Constitution. There is no middle ground. Every new government program puts us on the slippery slope toward a smothering nanny state.

As Paul Ryan and Arthur Brooks put it in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, "The road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jackbooted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America's enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship."

Ryan and Brooks are two of the most important conservative thinkers today. Ryan is the leading Republican policy entrepreneur in the House. Brooks is president of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute and a much-cited author. My admiration for both is unbounded.

Yet the story Republicans are telling each other, which Ryan and Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending Ќ demanding work in exchange for dollars.

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire Ќ a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn't build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn't.

If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom, then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the GOP.

That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats' lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the GOP after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again.

It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom, then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy.

It would also be a policy tragedy. Republicans are right to oppose the current concentration of power in Washington. But once that is halted, America faces a series of problems that can't be addressed simply by getting government out of the way.

The social fabric is fraying. Human capital is being squandered. Society is segmenting. The labor markets are ill. Wages are lagging. Inequality is increasing. The nation is overconsuming and underinnovating. China and India are surging. Not all of these challenges can be addressed by the spontaneous healing powers of the market.

Most important, it would be an intellectual tragedy. Conservatism is supposed to be nonideological and context-driven. If all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi socialist, then there is no need to think. A pall of dogmatism will settle over the right.

Republicans are riding a wave of revulsion about what is happening in Washington. But it is also time to start talking about the day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted. I hope that as Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan lead a resurgent conservatism, they'll think about the limited-but-energetic government tradition, which stands between Barry Goldwater and Francois Mitterrand, but at the heart of the American experience.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-15-2010, 04:26 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

Gibonius
 
Also, Greenspan came out today and said that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. He didn't say "or cut spending," he said that we need to let those taxes go back to their old higher levels. I'm not a big Greenspan fan after his role in creating the modern crisis, but this is the first time he's ever supported any kind of tax increase and he's probably on to something.
Old 09-15-2010, 07:04 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
The problem is that the government uses tax money like crack. Even if the tax rates were bumped up to 95% across the board they would find a a way to spend it all and scream for more. Maybe I'm crazy, but spending your way out of debt seems a tad counterproductive to me..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-15-2010, 08:00 PM joemama is online now  
Reply With Quote
#22  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
The problem is that the government uses tax money like crack. Even if the tax rates were bumped up to 95% across the board they would find a a way to spend it all and scream for more. Maybe I'm crazy, but spending your way out of debt seems a tad counterproductive to me..

We need to raise taxes and cut some programs. Neither would work alone. We're going to have to do it eventually, be interesting to see which party bites the bullet and actually does it. Neither seems willing of late.
Old 09-15-2010, 08:32 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
We need to raise taxes and cut some programs. Neither would work alone. We're going to have to do it eventually, be interesting to see which party bites the bullet and actually does it. Neither seems willing of late.

We may need to raise *some types* of taxes and lower some other types.
__________________
09 F9
Old 09-15-2010, 09:03 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
None of this will work until politicians learn that "more" money coming in than the year before doesn't mean more money they can piss away on programs that they use to show their constituents they are "doing something" for their state..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 09-15-2010, 09:14 PM joemama is online now  
Reply With Quote
#25  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
The problem is that the government uses tax money like crack. Even if the tax rates were bumped up to 95% across the board they would find a a way to spend it all and scream for more. Maybe I'm crazy, but spending your way out of debt seems a tad counterproductive to me..

we're not spending our way out of debt, we are spending money to artificially inflate the economy until the shit picks up again, because without a vibrant and working economy we are never going to be able to pay off our debt.

and it's nice for us to be spending a trillion dollars on america, because we need it, instead of spending it invading and rebuilding other countries that didn't need it...
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-15-2010, 11:11 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
None of this will work until politicians learn that "more" money coming in than the year before doesn't mean more money they can piss away on programs that they use to show their constituents they are "doing something" for their state..

__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 09-15-2010, 11:16 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post

Damn, it's that cut and dried.

I mean we always suspected it to be this way but a picture really is worth a thousand words.
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 09-16-2010, 01:43 AM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

imzjustplayin
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post

All that proves is that states with a predominately rural population produce very little wealth while all the "urban" states produce the majority of the income. Urban populations tend to be "Blue" and rural populations tend to be "red". It also so happens that you have more red states in the south and in the middle of the country than you do on the coasts. Further more, all of those "wealthy states" tend to be in the north while a lot of the "red" coastal states are in the south. In an essence, there is no exacting correlation between federal taxation, redistribution, and the political party. What you're not seeing is that the government, all the way to the federal level, top-down, has a tendency in "spreading the wealth". At the state level, state taxes pay for social services used by people who aren't paying for them, with the same being true at the federal level. Our government has a problem with continuously trying to buy votes in order to maintain elected office.
__________________
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmicist.
Is hindsight 20/20 for someone who is legally blind?

Last edited by imzjustplayin; 09-16-2010 at 02:42 AM..
Old 09-16-2010, 02:34 AM imzjustplayin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

ephekt
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
We may need to raise *some types* of taxes and lower some other types.
Regardless, we can't continue spending ~50% of GDP on 'defense' without raising SOMETHING and cutting spending. The demagogues, especially the 'hard on terror' security theater types, don't seem to realize this.
Old 09-16-2010, 07:42 AM ephekt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.