An Analogy of America’s Path to Socialism

[Dr Grump]

Politically, it's an oligarchy maquarading as a democratic republic, if anything.

Economically, we live in a mixed economy.

Mixed as in socialistic for the wealthiest 1/10th of 1%, and dog-eat-dog- capitalism for the working classes, and some kind of twisted welfare state for the bottom 1% or 2% of us.

That's pretty much how I see it too. And it ain't gonna change any time soon...

 

[Mr. Capitalism]

We are NOT a democracy or a capitalist country anymore. We ceased being such with the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton Administration? Please do explain.

 

[editec]

We are NOT a democracy or a capitalist country anymore. We ceased being such with the Clinton Administration.

The Clinton Administration? Please do explain.

Probably that's when he finally woke up and realized that SHAMocracy isn't DEMocracy.

This is what happens when people don't read enough history to understand how complex our society really is, I suppose.

have we EVER been that democratic Republic and capitalistic society that some of these people imagine we once were?

Of course not.

Now admittedly things re changing, and the changes are even less that ideal than they once were.

But the thought that one can pinpoint when we ceased being that mythical cpaitalist Camelot that these people believe once existed gives us at least some idea of how we continue to FAIL to teach most people anything REAL about American history.

 

[bourne87]

I hate to say this but I am convinced there is no stopping America’s transition to Socialism. I will continue to argue against it and vote against it, but too many today are pushing towards it.

I understand that there is much more to Socialism than what I will discuss here; however, I would like to provide an analogy about how we are moving towards socialism and see how many of you agree with it.

Imagine with me for a moment that the free market system is like a large giant with the capability to accomplish much work and growth. Unrestrained, the giant can also create much destruction. So, America initially placed a long rope to give the giant enough freedom to accomplish work. Gradually, the American government has continued to shorten this rope and this has not necessarily been a bad thing to a degree. The problem is that now the balance of how long to make the rope is lost and the shortening of the rope because “the free market needs more controls” has become similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I mean by this is that those who ask for more controls are also saying the free market cannot function on its own and needs help, while they continually make it difficult for the free market to accomplish work by shortening the rope. It is almost like a trainer prodding an elephant to reach all the peanuts or hay when the trainer does not allow enough rope/chain to do so. As the elephant becomes more hysterical to reach the food, the trainer will say, “What is wrong with you? Why are you acting this way? There must be something wrong with the elephant and it needs more of my control. I’m going to shorten its chain so I can watch it more closely.” Eventually, the elephant will die and the trainer will ironically say “See, it needed my help all along”.

Now imagine that the giant is actually made up of all those individuals that are in the market, the small businesses, the investors, large corporations, etc. and each of these individuals or entities has a similar rope that keeps shortening. As the balance between being able to accomplish enough to be profitable with the short rope shifts towards unprofitability, each individual will begin to see other options. Some will say “The government is giving out ‘free’ pay with no effort and I cannot seem to make ends meet” and decide to get out of the market. Others will say “I can do better just working for the group at the end of this rope” or “it’s not worth the effort” and will get a job working for the government. What this also does is put more strain on those still making efforts against the short rope and intensifies the problem, since less individuals per capita are working in the free market and more individuals go on government support which have to be paid by increased taxes of the free market. All we have to do is consider the percent of government spending as a percent of GDP to see this.

Eventually, as more and more continue to rely on either “free” support from the government or a paycheck from the government, the “free market” will be “morphed” into one much larger, monopolized, and more destructive giant with little or no restraint: the government.

Who wrote this? Glenn Beck?

 

[Ringel05]

Newsflash!!!!!!!!

We ARE already a socialist country. We are NOT a democracy or a capitalist country anymore. We ceased being such with the Clinton Administration. Too bad for guys like you and me. The takeover of communism is next.

Alarmist pap. you wouldn't know socialism if it kicked you in your arse...

Politically, it's an oligarchy maquarading as a democratic republic, if anything.

Economically, we live in a mixed economy.

Mixed as in socialistic for the wealthiest 1/10th of 1%, and dog-eat-dog- capitalism for the working classes, and some kind of twisted welfare state for the bottom 1% or 2% of us.

Actually if this were truly the case politicians wouldn't be listening to polls or having town hall meetings. The so called robber barons would have never allowed employee protection laws to be enacted or the unions to have been formed. (Yes, they did try to stop these - unsuccessfully).
Your premise seems to be derived from the old (trite) class warfare mantra that unfortunately is still alive and well.
I sure would like to know how you came to believe the wealthiest aren't also involved in the so called dog-eat-dog capitalist system but are socialistic instead. This should be interesting.

 

[editec]

Alarmist pap. you wouldn't know socialism if it kicked you in your arse...

Politically, it's an oligarchy maquarading as a democratic republic, if anything.

Economically, we live in a mixed economy.

Mixed as in socialistic for the wealthiest 1/10th of 1%, and dog-eat-dog- capitalism for the working classes, and some kind of twisted welfare state for the bottom 1% or 2% of us.

Actually if this were truly the case politicians wouldn't be listening to polls or having town hall meetings.

Silly person.

In order to have a SHAM one must go through the steps that make one's victim believe that what they think matters.

The so called robber barons would have never allowed employee protection laws to be enacted or the unions to have been formed. (Yes, they did try to stop these - unsuccessfully).

How many times did the Feds send in troops to kill those "dirty anarchists"? Who do you suppose the FEDS were listening to, the robber barons or the trade unionists?

American damned near had a socialist revolution because the government was tipping its classist hand as the labor movement was developing during the industrial revolution.

The masters aren't entirely fools, you know?

They knew that a strategic retreat that still allowed them the vast majority of the industrial pie, beat the workers' revolution that would have happened had they not retreated somewhat. And thank GOD they did understand that, too. The Romanovs didn't understand that, and look what the Russian people got as a result of the master class's complete failure to understand that the people will only take so much shit before things get real ugly.

They saw what happened to the masters of France when they refused to give an inch.

These people damned smart, amigo.

They know that the class struggle isn't won or lost in a day, or a week, or a decade or a generation. They know that the struggle will be with us as long as civilizations continue to exist.

Your premise seems to be derived from the old (trite) class warfare mantra that unfortunately is still alive and well.

Old truths get to become old truths because they continue to resonate their fundamental truisms over time, chum.

Civilization is bound to ever have a struggle between them what has in that cicilization, and then what has not.

The class struggle is merely bad monkeyism writ large in each society.

I sure would like to know how you came to believe the wealthiest aren't also involved in the so called dog-eat-dog capitalist system

Some of those stupendously wealthy most certainly are involved in the honest battle that we call capitalism, of course.

but are socialistic instead. This should be interesting.

Google up the most recent bailout of the banks.

Have you heard word one about how the people who screwed up so badly are being forced to pay for it? Most of them weren't even fired for the mess they made of things.

That's what I mean by socialism for the rich.

We've been bailing out extremely wealthy banks (and the insiders who manage them) for decades, now, kiddo.

This latest round (started by Bush II and continued now by Obama) isn't anything new. We did similar socialistic things in the 80s and 90s too.

Add to that reality, many of this nation's most stupendously wealthy got that way by servicing our government, and THAT'S WHAT I MEAN by socialism for the rich.

Is that really that hard for you to understand?

If so, then no amount of ASCII I pen will ever unconfuse you about this issue, or how societies have worked, and will always work, either.

If all of the above is beyond your ability to process then you are destined by cruel nature to EVER be a tool, kid.

 

[Ringel05]

Politically, it's an oligarchy maquarading as a democratic republic, if anything.

Economically, we live in a mixed economy.

Mixed as in socialistic for the wealthiest 1/10th of 1%, and dog-eat-dog- capitalism for the working classes, and some kind of twisted welfare state for the bottom 1% or 2% of us.

Silly person.

In order to have a SHAM one must go through the steps that make one's victim believe that what they think matters.



How many times did the Feds send in troops to kill those "dirty anarchists"? Who do you suppose the FEDS were listening to, the robber barons or the trade unionists?

American damned near had a socialist revolution because the government was tipping its classist hand as the labor movement was developing during the industrial revolution.

The masters aren't entirely fools, you know?

They knew that a strategic retreat that still allowed them the vast majority of the industrial pie, beat the workers' revolution that would have happened had they not retreated somewhat. And thank GOD they did understand that, too. The Romanovs didn't understand that, and look what the Russian people got as a result of the master class's complete failure to understand that the people will only take so much shit before things get real ugly.

They saw what happened to the masters of France when they refused to give an inch.

These people damned smart, amigo.

They know that the class struggle isn't won or lost in a day, or a week, or a decade or a generation. They know that the struggle will be with us as long as civilizations continue to exist.



Old truths get to become old truths because they continue to resonate their fundamental truisms over time, chum.

Civilization is bound to ever have a struggle between them what has in that cicilization, and then what has not.

The class struggle is merely bad monkeyism writ large in each society.




Some of those stupendously wealthy most certainly are involved in the honest battle that we call capitalism, of course.

but are socialistic instead. This should be interesting.

Google up the most recent bailout of the banks.

Have you heard word one about how the people who screwed up so badly are being forced to pay for it? Most of them weren't even fired for the mess they made of things.

That's what I mean by socialism for the rich.

We've been bailing out extremely wealthy banks (and the insiders who manage them) for decades, now, kiddo.

This latest round (started by Bush II and continued now by Obama) isn't anything new. We did similar socialistic things in the 80s and 90s too.

Add to that reality, many of this nation's most stupendously wealthy got that way by servicing our government, and THAT'S WHAT I MEAN by socialism for the rich.

Is that really that hard for you to understand?

If so, then no amount of ASCII I pen will ever unconfuse you about this issue, or how societies have worked, and will always work, either.

If all of the above is beyond your ability to process then you are destined by cruel nature to EVER be a tool, kid.

Wow, ask a few questions and get stomped on, from what I've seen from your postings it doesn't surprise me. It must be nice being omnipotent.
The funny thing is you seem to be focusing you view of the wealthy to include only bankers and Wall Street so you generalized assessment of the rich being socialistic is misleading at best. The most stupendously wealthy individuals can be found in all areas of economic endeavor, many of which did not make their money servicing the government.
Also amazing - I never said the robber barons didn't have the feds on their side (temporarily then and throughout history), but if weren't for the power of the citizen the robber barons would have persevered not the American people therefore my statement 'unsuccessfully'. What are you seeing today? A major back lash against the bail outs (in conjunction with the health plan). It's part of the normal flux that has occurred throughout our history. So much for us being an oligarchy.

 

[Christopher]

While there were many factors which created the recession, the government was definitely involved in its part of it. The government created a moral hazard in the market which increased the number of risky loans.

"Moral Hazard" ????

Nobody was providing oversight and these loans were pushed like popcorn. All part of the "free market" pushed by the neocons

No, there was oversight; it just wasn’t set up right. The problem was that the system that was set up to take on risky loans (required by the government) by passing the risk along a chain. Fannie and Freddie were a big part of this “chain”. Each entity involved in this “chain” assumed the next person was taking the risk and that ultimately the government was taking the risk. Here is a link to what I am talking about: Moral hazard is part of mortgage mess

Quote from the link:

In the last four years or so, mortgage standards became lax because each link in the mortgage chain collected profits while believing it was passing on risk to the next link in the chain. Brokers weren't lending their own money, so they were pushing risks onto the lenders. Lenders sold mortgages soon after underwriting them, pushing the risk onto investors. Investment banks bought the mortgages and chopped up mortgage-backed securities into slices, with some slices being less risky and other slices being more risky. Investors bought securities and hedged against the risk of default and prepayment, pushing those risks further along.

The average American could get a loan on second mortgages and “flip” houses much easier. There was a big push towards making a quick buck since loans were easier to obtain. This was not just the large investment companies either. The market just helped to create a system to make it seem like it was working by passing the risk along, although Fannie and Freddie were a large part of it. See here: United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many areas, particularly in those with most appreciation, non-standard loans went from almost unheard of to prevalent. For example, 80% of all mortgages initiated in San Diego region in 2004 were adjustable-rate, and 47% were interest only.
In 1995, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities [66]

It is clear there was government involvement in this system and the government I think has a significant amount of blame because of the forced risk they placed on the private sector. Again, it goes back to my analogy. The government tightened the private sector’s rope by forcing them to provide sub-prime and interest only loans. So, the private sector takes on the risk assuming that they are not really taking it on (that is the definition of a moral hazard) and of course the bottom falls out eventually. Yet, the government is only point fingers at the private sector and you are believing them.

Now, there is a second part of the moral hazard which the government has created and this has to do with labeling companies as “too big to fail.” When a large company knows the government views them as “too big to fail” they will take more risk because they know the government will try to bail them out if they get into trouble. Continuing to bail out all these companies and homeowners the government has sets the standard for the future. Here is a quote from the first link I posted:

Here's another example of moral hazard: Using government money to help homeowners who are stuck in unsuitable loans and can't afford their house payments. If not done carefully, this type of aid would subsidize lending institutions that made poor choices. It would bail out the investors who bought risky loans and now don't want to suffer the consequences of losing their bets.

If only the government would just say no like they did back when the steel industry was in trouble. The steel industry never failed just because the government did not give them a bail out.

 

[Christopher]

Socialism?

Is that what you think this is all leading us to? A socialist government and economy?

We should be that lucky.

Socialism implies that the leaders of the socialist nation care what happens to the nation and its people.

True Socialism may be a crappy form of government, but at least its a nationalistic form of government.

That's not where we're headed, Chris.

We are already on the path and have been for some time. Have you ever considered the amount of government spending as a percentage of GDP? I think now we are at about 35% and it has steadily increased with some spikes during certain time periods. What will it be during the Obama years? While there are also other factors where the government is involved in industries through regulation, I think the % of GDP is a good indicator of how “socialized” we have become. At what point does this percentage reach a level, or the overall level of control the government reaches, do we begin calling it socialism?

Of course leaders of socialist nations care what happens to their nation and people, since their power depends upon it. The problem is that I think they tend to care more about their power and control over their nation and people.

 

[Christopher]

The main point of my initial post was that there should be a balance between government’s role and a free market economy’s “freedom”. That balance has been broken here in America, and one of the main reasons the US economy is not doing well is because the government has continually overstepped its intended bounds, so it only proves to me that Socialism does not work well over time in combination with a “free market”.

This reason, and the fact that more people have become convinced that they “need” everything now, people over extending spending beyond the point of what they could afford, etc. The key to all of this I think is this: the government’s financial irresponsibility seems to be a reflection of the people’s.

 

[Christopher]

I hate to say this but I am convinced there is no stopping America’s transition to Socialism. I will continue to argue against it and vote against it, but too many today are pushing towards it.

I understand that there is much more to Socialism than what I will discuss here; however, I would like to provide an analogy about how we are moving towards socialism and see how many of you agree with it.

Imagine with me for a moment that the free market system is like a large giant with the capability to accomplish much work and growth. Unrestrained, the giant can also create much destruction. So, America initially placed a long rope to give the giant enough freedom to accomplish work. Gradually, the American government has continued to shorten this rope and this has not necessarily been a bad thing to a degree. The problem is that now the balance of how long to make the rope is lost and the shortening of the rope because “the free market needs more controls” has become similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I mean by this is that those who ask for more controls are also saying the free market cannot function on its own and needs help, while they continually make it difficult for the free market to accomplish work by shortening the rope. It is almost like a trainer prodding an elephant to reach all the peanuts or hay when the trainer does not allow enough rope/chain to do so. As the elephant becomes more hysterical to reach the food, the trainer will say, “What is wrong with you? Why are you acting this way? There must be something wrong with the elephant and it needs more of my control. I’m going to shorten its chain so I can watch it more closely.” Eventually, the elephant will die and the trainer will ironically say “See, it needed my help all along”.

Now imagine that the giant is actually made up of all those individuals that are in the market, the small businesses, the investors, large corporations, etc. and each of these individuals or entities has a similar rope that keeps shortening. As the balance between being able to accomplish enough to be profitable with the short rope shifts towards unprofitability, each individual will begin to see other options. Some will say “The government is giving out ‘free’ pay with no effort and I cannot seem to make ends meet” and decide to get out of the market. Others will say “I can do better just working for the group at the end of this rope” or “it’s not worth the effort” and will get a job working for the government. What this also does is put more strain on those still making efforts against the short rope and intensifies the problem, since less individuals per capita are working in the free market and more individuals go on government support which have to be paid by increased taxes of the free market. All we have to do is consider the percent of government spending as a percent of GDP to see this.

Eventually, as more and more continue to rely on either “free” support from the government or a paycheck from the government, the “free market” will be “morphed” into one much larger, monopolized, and more destructive giant with little or no restraint: the government.

Who wrote this? Glenn Beck?

No, Beck did not write it. I would have provided a link to it if he had.

By the way, do you go by Bourne on another forum?

 

[Christopher]

No responses? This thread just went silent.

 

[Bern80]

I love how to a republican

Spending money to invade a country that is not a threat to you is .....PATRIOTISM

Humaniatrian could be argued as well

Spending money to help the American people is.............SOCIALISM

Well it least you get it now. The government is spending more money on people because of how our culture has evolved. Quite simply we have become a society that is less an less wiling to hold ourselves accountable for our outcomes. Government and mainly liberals only encourage this by attempting to redistribute wealth and give breaks that aren't warranted (i.e. CRA).

 

[rightwinger]

I love how to a republican

Spending money to invade a country that is not a threat to you is .....PATRIOTISM

Humaniatrian could be argued as well

Spending money to help the American people is.............SOCIALISM

Well it least you get it now. The government is spending more money on people because of how our culture has evolved. Quite simply we have become a society that is less an less wiling to hold ourselves accountable for our outcomes. Government and mainly liberals only encourage this by attempting to redistribute wealth and give breaks that aren't warranted (i.e. CRA).

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

 

[Bern80]

I love how to a republican

Spending money to invade a country that is not a threat to you is .....PATRIOTISM

Humaniatrian could be argued as well

Spending money to help the American people is.............SOCIALISM

Well it least you get it now. The government is spending more money on people because of how our culture has evolved. Quite simply we have become a society that is less an less wiling to hold ourselves accountable for our outcomes. Government and mainly liberals only encourage this by attempting to redistribute wealth and give breaks that aren't warranted (i.e. CRA).

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

 

[rightwinger]

Humaniatrian could be argued as well



Well it least you get it now. The government is spending more money on people because of how our culture has evolved. Quite simply we have become a society that is less an less wiling to hold ourselves accountable for our outcomes. Government and mainly liberals only encourage this by attempting to redistribute wealth and give breaks that aren't warranted (i.e. CRA).

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

Remember the Bush tax cuts? He borrowed $5 Trillion in order to pay for those cuts. The disproportionate amount of those cuts went to the extremely wealthy. For this, we were supposed to get "tinkle down" jobs. Instead, those jobs went overseas and we ended up bailing out the wealthy.

 

[Bern80]

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

Remember the Bush tax cuts? He borrowed $5 Trillion in order to pay for those cuts. The disproportionate amount of those cuts went to the extremely wealthy. For this, we were supposed to get "tinkle down" jobs. Instead, those jobs went overseas and we ended up bailing out the wealthy.

Go look at the numbers again bud. The tax cuts were across the board. In terms of income tax, the middle class got the biggest cut. Small and large businesses were also cut.

 

[Meister]

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

Remember the Bush tax cuts? He borrowed $5 Trillion in order to pay for those cuts. The disproportionate amount of those cuts went to the extremely wealthy. For this, we were supposed to get "tinkle down" jobs. Instead, those jobs went overseas and we ended up bailing out the wealthy.

Wasn't it Slick Willy who signed NAFTA? Always love the blame Bush crowd.

 

[oreo]

I hate to say this but I am convinced there is no stopping America’s transition to Socialism. I will continue to argue against it and vote against it, but too many today are pushing towards it.

I understand that there is much more to Socialism than what I will discuss here; however, I would like to provide an analogy about how we are moving towards socialism and see how many of you agree with it.

Imagine with me for a moment that the free market system is like a large giant with the capability to accomplish much work and growth. Unrestrained, the giant can also create much destruction. So, America initially placed a long rope to give the giant enough freedom to accomplish work. Gradually, the American government has continued to shorten this rope and this has not necessarily been a bad thing to a degree. The problem is that now the balance of how long to make the rope is lost and the shortening of the rope because “the free market needs more controls” has become similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I mean by this is that those who ask for more controls are also saying the free market cannot function on its own and needs help, while they continually make it difficult for the free market to accomplish work by shortening the rope. It is almost like a trainer prodding an elephant to reach all the peanuts or hay when the trainer does not allow enough rope/chain to do so. As the elephant becomes more hysterical to reach the food, the trainer will say, “What is wrong with you? Why are you acting this way? There must be something wrong with the elephant and it needs more of my control. I’m going to shorten its chain so I can watch it more closely.” Eventually, the elephant will die and the trainer will ironically say “See, it needed my help all along”.

Now imagine that the giant is actually made up of all those individuals that are in the market, the small businesses, the investors, large corporations, etc. and each of these individuals or entities has a similar rope that keeps shortening. As the balance between being able to accomplish enough to be profitable with the short rope shifts towards unprofitability, each individual will begin to see other options. Some will say “The government is giving out ‘free’ pay with no effort and I cannot seem to make ends meet” and decide to get out of the market. Others will say “I can do better just working for the group at the end of this rope” or “it’s not worth the effort” and will get a job working for the government. What this also does is put more strain on those still making efforts against the short rope and intensifies the problem, since less individuals per capita are working in the free market and more individuals go on government support which have to be paid by increased taxes of the free market. All we have to do is consider the percent of government spending as a percent of GDP to see this.

Eventually, as more and more continue to rely on either “free” support from the government or a paycheck from the government, the “free market” will be “morphed” into one much larger, monopolized, and more destructive giant with little or no restraint: the government.

Horse crap--You're seeing the blow-back right now. Americans will not tolerate socialism. We VALUE our freedom over anything else.

In fact, someone in the UK said that decades ago about us. The only way to get the USA to accept socialism was to disguise it as a "savior" & that required an economic crisis, as we would never accept it if we knew what it was, or saw it coming.

Sound familiar?

"The problem with socialism is that government eventually runs out of other people's money to spend" Margaret Thatcher.

 

[veritas]

I hate to say this but I am convinced there is no stopping America’s transition to Socialism. I will continue to argue against it and vote against it, but too many today are pushing towards it.

I understand that there is much more to Socialism than what I will discuss here; however, I would like to provide an analogy about how we are moving towards socialism and see how many of you agree with it.

Imagine with me for a moment that the free market system is like a large giant with the capability to accomplish much work and growth. Unrestrained, the giant can also create much destruction. So, America initially placed a long rope to give the giant enough freedom to accomplish work. Gradually, the American government has continued to shorten this rope and this has not necessarily been a bad thing to a degree. The problem is that now the balance of how long to make the rope is lost and the shortening of the rope because “the free market needs more controls” has become similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I mean by this is that those who ask for more controls are also saying the free market cannot function on its own and needs help, while they continually make it difficult for the free market to accomplish work by shortening the rope. It is almost like a trainer prodding an elephant to reach all the peanuts or hay when the trainer does not allow enough rope/chain to do so. As the elephant becomes more hysterical to reach the food, the trainer will say, “What is wrong with you? Why are you acting this way? There must be something wrong with the elephant and it needs more of my control. I’m going to shorten its chain so I can watch it more closely.” Eventually, the elephant will die and the trainer will ironically say “See, it needed my help all along”.

Now imagine that the giant is actually made up of all those individuals that are in the market, the small businesses, the investors, large corporations, etc. and each of these individuals or entities has a similar rope that keeps shortening. As the balance between being able to accomplish enough to be profitable with the short rope shifts towards unprofitability, each individual will begin to see other options. Some will say “The government is giving out ‘free’ pay with no effort and I cannot seem to make ends meet” and decide to get out of the market. Others will say “I can do better just working for the group at the end of this rope” or “it’s not worth the effort” and will get a job working for the government. What this also does is put more strain on those still making efforts against the short rope and intensifies the problem, since less individuals per capita are working in the free market and more individuals go on government support which have to be paid by increased taxes of the free market. All we have to do is consider the percent of government spending as a percent of GDP to see this.

Eventually, as more and more continue to rely on either “free” support from the government or a paycheck from the government, the “free market” will be “morphed” into one much larger, monopolized, and more destructive giant with little or no restraint: the government.

Newsflash!!!!!!!!

We ARE already a socialist country. We are NOT a democracy or a capitalist country anymore. We ceased being such with the Clinton Administration. Too bad for guys like you and me. The takeover of communism is next.

You know, you are pretty cute, truthmangler........right down to your magical underwear. [yes I read that thread, got to page 30, when I have another lapse of reason maybe I will stick my toe in again].

Christopher, analogies aren't your thang. Look elsewhere for amusement.