Socialism’s Flawed Pricing Mechanism

[Flanders]

George Will is completely wrong about immigration. Laura Ingraham is closer to the truth in this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHNHuOV_DU0&feature=player_embedded]Immigration Reform Debated on Fox News Sunday Panel Hosted by Chris Wallace - 2-9-14 - YouTube[/ame]​

To be fair to Mr. Will, I never heard a talking head on any show —— EVER —— examine the fundamental economic harm Socialism did to this country. The ongoing destruction is clearly seen in legal and illegal immigration.

Bear with me on this:

1. Socialism raises the cost of everything from consumer goods, to housing, to healthcare, to state operated toll roads, tunnels, bridges, and so on. I dare any economist to name a single financial transaction where Socialist ideology did not raise the price of whatever is being bought and sold.

2. Socialism is the best friend absentee owners ever had. At least one had to be born into wealth in a monarchy. One has only to manipulate the government to become wealthy, or to increase and protect one’s fortune. In short: The government does everything it can possibly do to enrich absentee owners who contribute nothing to society. Proof: Absentee owners of every stripe are the only people not suffering in America today. Absentee owners of every stripe are the only people who do not fear tomorrow.

3. The ever-increasing rise in prices destroys the reason to work. Nobody ever says “I have to work harder so I can pay higher prices for everything.”

4. The government need not implement policies that pay people to not work —— 99 percent of the people on the lowest rung of the ladder can see they cannot work their way up the ladder because no matter how hard they work rising prices will keep them poor. The opposite is true when market prices remain at their lowest without government interference. Even those people who command higher prices because of special skills are working for the lowest price.

5. In the worst busts in America’s glory years of boom or bust cycles the poor knew they could still work their way up.

6. Any attempt to define the economy must end up pitting higher prices against lower prices. Once you do that there is no doubt that government-dictated higher prices hurts the most people while helping the fewest.

7. Prices dictated by market forces without government interference is the only economic system that can guarantee a ladder out of poverty for the most people —— not some philosophical pipe dream about patriotism or equality or the garbage in Emma Lazarus’ poem. Laura Ingraham’s assimilation in America only occurred before Socialists and absentee owners gained full control of the government.

Now let me top off this thread with a bit of political philosophy.

Parenthetically, the poor in Third World countries will remain poor because they are not free. Socialism will not free them.

I consider the melting pot unshakeable proof of Socialism’s economic failures.

In the days before credit cards were accepted as good coin of the realm America prided itself on being a melting pot. A melting pot meant that emigrants from different backgrounds would blend together over time, and eventually they would become Americans. Ever-increasing prices necessary in a Socialist form of government will never, can never, accommodate a melting pot. Social engineers saw the flaw in their system of government and came up with multiculturalism in order to justify a Socialist economy. Serendipitously, multiculturalism gave Socialists a moral foundation to abandon the melting pot altogether.

Emigrants are encouraged to remain what they are when they arrive from whatever inferno they came from rather than become Americans. Result: Neither immigrants, nor their descendants, will ever become the freedom-loving Americans that built this country. Stated in plain English, a Socialist economy had no choice but to discard the melting pot and replaced it with multicultural anti-Americanism.

Also, government-dictated, and funded, multiculturalism requires the courts, the Ministry of Propaganda, and the education system to increase the help they give to immigrants in their push to eliminate Americans altogether. Sometimes I think Socialists controlling those three institutions hate Americans so much they can't wait to see them go down on their knees to illegal aliens.

One look at America today and it’s obvious that abandoning national identity abandons tremendous benefits derived from individual liberties. Dirty little multicultural moralists never mention that.

I would be remiss if I did not mention establishment Republicans who are also committed to multiculturalism. (They are also committed to amnesty and open-borders.) They vote with Democrats on issues. The mainstream media then portrays those disguised votes as though they are nothing more than normal bipartisan give and take.

Finally, J.R. Dunn lays out multiculturalism in relation to national security:

December 05, 2010
Multiculturalism Hits The Wall
By J.R. Dunn

Archived-Articles: Multiculturalism Hits the Wall

 

[DGS49]

What the hell does socialism have to do with this? Without explaining what you mean by socialism (which certainly isn't the textbook definition of socialism) your posting makes no sense.

 

[Flanders]

What the hell does socialism have to do with this? Without explaining what you mean by socialism (which certainly isn't the textbook definition of socialism) your posting makes no sense.

To DGS49: I did not think I had to explain the connection. Everything Democrats do, or propose, about immigration, the economy, the tax code, and so on implements a piece of Socialism’s agenda in one way or another. Research my messages if you want more details.

p.s. You probably know this, but if you don’t —— you can click on my name at the top of any post. A drop-down menu gives you the option of finding all of my posts.

 

[Indeependent]

Laura Ingraham was kicked off of NYC's WABC several years ago for making sense.

 

[Flanders]

John T. Bennett’s article does justice to the topics:

Huntington wrote that the American majority is concerned with "societal security," meaning sustaining "existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity." Elites, however, placed societal security behind "supporting international trade and migration" and "encouraging minority identities and cultures at home."

XXXXX​

Huntington took his provocative title, "America's Dead Souls," from Sir Waltrer Scott's "Lay of the Last Minstrel":

"Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said:
'This is my own, my native Land?'

XXXXX​

Sadly, there are now many dead souls among the Republican leadership, who don't share the same principles as the majority of their constituents.

XXXXX​

In fact, Huntington took direct aim at multiculturalism, and explored the ways it is in conflict with a shared national identity.

XXXXX​

Our immigration law is the first American tradition rejected by illegal immigrants. If someone is willing to reject our laws the instant they cross the border, or overstay their visa, then they are refusing to assimilate to one of our most vital traditions.

Of course, ethnic special interest groups will see to it that even more traditions are rejected. In 1995, the president of the National Council of La Raza said, "The biggest problem we have is a cultural clash, a clash between our values and the values in American society." It is a safe bet that La Raza's influence on the largest group of immigrants will remain stronger than the influence of, say, John Boehner.

XXXXX​

The solution is to replace Republican multiculturalists with nationalists, or at least politicians who are devoted to maintaining the integrity of our border. With that in mind, Eric Cantor has a challenger named David Brat, an economics professor who deserves a close look.

February 11, 2014
Dead Souls In the Republican Leadership
By John T. Bennett

Articles: Dead Souls In the Republican Leadership​

My OP does not do as good of a job as does John T. Bennett and Samuel P. Huntington; so Allow me to play a little catchup.

Politicians betraying the country are not alone in their treason. Powerful people in the media are just as blameworthy because they have been honoring this promise since the early 1950s:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."

He went on to explain:

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle

David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg Quote...Ten Years Later​

One more item:

In addition to the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, the sneaks who got this country into the UN knew what they were doing when they designed a foundation that was a masterpiece of betrayal. A foundation that would withstand every challenge when their descendants carried on. Treason became legal the minute the US became a member of an underhanded organization that was, and is, determined to tear down America. Membership in the UN meant that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf could be prosecuted for treason. Only lawyers could design something like that. Flanders

Here’s the link to Huntington’s article. Note the date. Karl Rove’s Republicans have become worse since then:

Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite
March 1, 2004
Samuel P. Huntington

Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite

 

[Interpol]

Then how come Medicare is so cheap for seniors?

Or are you saying that given to the free market, seniors would be paying even less for healthcare than they do with Medicare?

 

[Flanders]

Then how come Medicare is so cheap for seniors?

To Interpol: It isn’t and it never was. Forcing everybody to pay for it only made it look cheap for a few.

And it’s going to get a lot more expensive for the elderly after all of the cuts to Medicare kick in.

Or are you saying that given to the free market, seniors would be paying even less for healthcare than they do with Medicare?

To Interpol: The federal government is not responsible for anybody’s healthcare; so I do not accept your premise.

Individuals would have structured their lives differently had free market competition been left to work without government interference. Instead of choices the government forcing everybody into the system for the sole purpose of enriching the few changed the structure of society for the worse.

And please do not respond with all of the touchy-feely bullcrap about caring for the children, the poor, and the elderly. Your political posture does nothing more than justify the insurance industry bailout that is coming. See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/334753-the-wealthiest-parasites.html

 

[midcan5]

You robot like wingnuts are funny people, and most of that humor comes from your downright enormous stupidity. If Fox told you the world was ending tomorrow would you believe that too. Corporate media sure has you stooges under their wraps.

Do any of you fools know any history at all? ANY?

"Throughout the nineteenth century, the loans which financed large American capital investment programs, mounted by private consortia, were continually defaulted on. The history of the American railroads is a history of default. More specifically, the history of American capitalism is one of default. This happened in a spectacular manner during the Panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1892-93 and 1907. None of this reneging happened in the civilized manner organized by a Solon or a Sully. Rather it involved a panic and a crash, which created massive bankruptcies, which in turn wiped out massive debts. Because of the disordered way in which each ripping up of obligations came, the result was always a short period of widespread depression before the cleansed economy took off again with renewed force. In the Panic of 1892-93 alone, four thousand banks and fourteen thousand commercial enterprises collapsed. In other words, the nonpayment of debt was central to the construction of the United States.... The great depressions of the last hundred and fifty years can be seen as the default mechanisms of middle-class societies. Depressions free the citizens by making the paper worthless. The method was and is awkward and painful, particularly for the poor, but it destroys the paper chains and permits a new equilibrium to be built out of the pain and disorder of collapse.... One of the most surprising innovations of the late twentieth century has been not only the rationalization of speculation but, beyond that, the attachment of moral value, with vaguely religious origins, to the repayment of debts. This probably has something to do with the insertion of God as an official supporter of capitalism and democracy." p403 John Ralston Saul, 'Voltaire's Bastards'


"Corporatism reappeared in the 1960s in such places as the British union movement, the American business group known as the Round Table and its imitative Canadian equivalent, the Business Council on National Issues. The last two can claim to have set much of their countries' contemporary economic and social agendas. The banding together of citizens into interest groups becomes corporatist, that is to say dangerous, only when the interest group loses its specific focus and seeks to override the democratic system. In the case of the British unions and the North American business councils, their every intervention into public affairs has been intended to undermine the democratic participation of individual citizens." p472 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul

 

[DGS49]

A few thoughts:

"Pure Capitalism" (one might say, Economic Darwinism) will inevitably result in a tiny minority of the population having all the wealth.

But true economic freedom, ensured by a smart government, can result in a large, robust middle class, as people perpetually create new businesses to satisfy the needs that arise. Most of the new businesses fail, but good entrepreneurs keep trying.

Unfortunately, it is NECESSARY for any civilized society to create some sort of social safety net, to ensure that those who CANNOT fend for themselves are taken care of. For better or for worse, the U.S. Constitution makes NO PROVISION for the Federal Government to lead, or even participate in the creation of this necessary safety net, and thus it has been necessary to bend, fold, and mutilate Article I, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to permit the Feds to create, for example Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other institutions that are, by general consensus, necessary in a civilized society.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers assumed that the States, Churches, Families, and community organizations would take care of the sick, the retarded, the crippled, the elderly, and future government teat-suckers, but they didn't let on.

With the backdrop of this general consensus of the need for a Federally-sponsored social safety net, much of the turmoil in Washington in the past 50 years has been about how big that safety net ought to be, how it should be implemented, and how it should be paid for.

As George Will has famously and often said, America believes two things very emphatically: (1) that we ought to have a lot of expensive government programs to take care of us, and (2) that "someone else" should have to pay for it.

This is the real conundrum.

 

[Flanders]

A few thoughts:

"Pure Capitalism" (one might say, Economic Darwinism) will inevitably result in a tiny minority of the population having all the wealth.

To DGS49: That’s exactly what Socialism/Communism is doing.

But true economic freedom, ensured by a smart government, can result in a large, robust middle class, as people perpetually create new businesses to satisfy the needs that arise. Most of the new businesses fail, but good entrepreneurs keep trying.

To DGS49: Economic freedom and government are incompatible.

Unfortunately, it is NECESSARY for any civilized society to create some sort of social safety net, to ensure that those who CANNOT fend for themselves are taken care of.

To DGS49: No it is not. Especially if you’re saying civilized society when you mean coerced charity.

For better or for worse, the U.S. Constitution makes NO PROVISION for the Federal Government to lead, or even participate in the creation of this necessary safety net, and thus it has been necessary to bend, fold, and mutilate Article I, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to permit the Feds to create, for example Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other institutions that are, by general consensus, necessary in a civilized society.

To DGS49: Necessary to parasites only. See the Eric Hoffer quote following my signature.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers assumed that the States, Churches, Families, and community organizations would take care of the sick, the retarded, the crippled, the elderly, and future government teat-suckers, but they didn't let on.

To DGS49: The Founding Fathers believed that individual liberties was the best way to take care of it for the most people, and they were right until the XVI Amendment.

With the backdrop of this general consensus of the need for a Federally-sponsored social safety net, much of the turmoil in Washington in the past 50 years has been about how big that safety net ought to be, how it should be implemented, and how it should be paid for.

To DGS49: There is no general consensus calling for more welfare state programs.

The only turmoil is in how much force the government has to use and how quickly it can be applied.

As George Will has famously and often said, America believes two things very emphatically: (1) that we ought to have a lot of expensive government programs to take care of us, and (2) that "someone else" should have to pay for it.

This is the real conundrum.

To DGS49: A substantial number of Americans believe the opposite. Their number is growing faster than is the parasite class. That is why Democrats are hellbent on increasing dependency on government before the tide turns. Forcing HillaryCare II on the country was the point of no return for Socialists. They gambled that the number of parasites the ACA created would put them over the top once and for all.

The real dilemma for Democrats is finding a way to convince everyone that becoming a parasite is for the common good.