The Republicans really wonder about capitalism.

[doctor100]

OMG that is too stupid but perfectly liberal. Communism in USSR and Red China slowly starved to death about 120 million.

the 1880's saw the fastest economic growth in American History. Those that liberals call Robber Barrons got rich by gifting 10000 times the riches to Americans in the form of steel, autos, oil, and railroads, etc. For example Henry Ford made most Americans wealthy enough to afford cars but only got $1.49 himself for each car. Rockefeller actually turned night into day for most Americans by making kerosene affordable!!! Its was a capitalist miracle of miracles which, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand.

Ahhh, perspective is wonderful thing isn't it? The contrast you draw is stark, and implies that the attributes of one do not belong to the other . . .but during that time we have starving people in America (how exactly do you think unions got started?) and Russia developed a powerful infrastructure.

But i do agree . .. insofar as people like ford, who willingly gave workers good wages and benefits of work beyond what was required help bring the nation up. It's true, under most circumstances I prefer the option of "giving to each according to their need" rather than by force.

God never got angry at people living in luxury while needs were met; only when they were not.

Higher taxes but less spending by almost 50%? Impossible equation.

It's the 50s that were capitalist, now it's socialism for the wealthy + interest groups./QUOTE]
Both of those statements are wrong. It is possible to increase tax rates, and reduce overall spending-that may have something to do with total income being taxed; or deliberate policy.

and you are claiming that after the new deal and during the great society was the least "socialist" period of out of the last century? I assume that you don't consider taking over car manufacture plants to build tanks to be socialism either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why doesn't everyone agree that anybody who refers to Obama as a socialist doesn't understand the term?

But y'all get so worked up when the correct term for his policies is used. (That would be "fascism" for the democrats and other uneducated folk reading this...)

 

[Uncensored2008]

'Socialism'? You mean more unions? Like in the 50s? Higher marginal tax rates? Like the 50s? Higher real income? Like the 50s?

Serious question, did you make it all the way to third grade?

You HONESTLY think there was higher real income in the 50's? You've never been exposed to an economics course.

How much did a brand new car cost in 1958? How many hours of labor, working at minimum wage did it take to purchase that car? How does that compare to a brand new Kia Spectra ($12,939 @ $7.25 = 1,749 hours) today?

What about a color TV? How about a house?

Oh and BTW, in every case the product is superior - the car now has Air, AM/FM/CD, power everything. The TV is dozens of times larger, the house is bigger, etc.

It isn't just that what you leftists believe is wrong, it's that most of what you know simply isn't factual.

 

[JBeukema]

So the average man out of high school working in the average office can afford a home and a car and support two children without a second income in the home today?

Or are you going to say all the Republican hype surrounding the 50s is bs and they really do just love the 50s because it was the last decade before the civil rights movement started forcing them to let blacks ride in the front of the bus and eat in their restaurants?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is an idiot.

One person is confirmed to be.

i mean, socialism? control of wages, production, and distribution by the government? (which is VERY VERY different from communism mind you)

What do you think communism is?

But unions are not socialism, never were, never will be. Those are corporatist.

Where do you get your definitions?

I'll by Syndicate, but "corporation?" Uh - no...

As for the "wealthy enjoying the benefits of socialism"? nooo, that would capitalism, socialism normally helps the lower class,

Yeah, just look at the USSR, North Korea, Mao's China, Cuba, et al... The poor were having a ball.

(You don't HAVE to be stupid to be a leftist, oh - wait...)

that's redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor-involuntarily.

Socialism is the redistribution of wealth from the middle class, the bourgeoisie, to the well connected looters and elite ruling class. It is the structuring of socio-economics into two, rather than three levels. Merchants and entrepreneurs are crushed and bureaucrats assume the duties. An elite lives a life of opulence and the masses beg for scraps.

Socailism was an attempt to control banks and financial institutions, control company policies (through ownership by the government) to benefit the "people"

"The people" being a euphemism for the elite ruling class.

which isn't to say that "socialist Obama" is a bad thing. I mean, compare median lifestyle during "absolute capitalism/robber baron" to those in "absolute socialism/communist russia" and you will see marked similarities.

No, you won't.

Show me 35 million starving to death at any point in the history of the USA. You can't, because like most leftists, what you present is a complete fabrication.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What Obama has done is to make an effort to save capitalism from the capitalists. To suggest otherwise, or that his agenda is to remake America into a socialistic nation, is Glen Beckian.

Obama inherited a mess and needed to act fast to prevent a worldwide economic tsunami. The Great Recession of 2008 had many fathers, Obama was not one of them. President Obama is a pragmatist and has been remarkedly successful in pulling us back from the brink economic collapse and working with The Congress to reform a system in which greed has all but eliminated common sense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

bureaucratic collectivism is communism?

And yellow is red, right?

So let me get this straight, Red China and the USSR were NOT Communist?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stupid fuckwad.

Look, I know you're just lying, but you come off as stupid as a brick. Seriously, you should rethink this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So the average man out of high school working in the average office can afford a home and a car and support two children without a second income in the home today?

The amount of hours of work required to obtain goods and services now is substantially less than it was in the 1950's.

Or are you going to say all the Republican hype surrounding the 50s is bs and they really do just love the 50s because it was the last decade before the civil rights movement started forcing them to let blacks ride in the front of the bus and eat in their restaurants?

I'm going to state the facts. People in every strata of our economy are substantially better off today than they were in the 1950's.

What you offer is class warfare bullshit - fabrications tossed out to promote failed ideas from a failed party.

 

[doctor100]

Let's be clear, socailism was never intended to "help the rich". It may have in practice. It is gov't control of corporate decision making [wages, prices, location, employment, production] all of which are things that Obama has led a policy of doing. That does not make the Gov't socialist, that makes the executive leadership socialistic ("ic" at the end-that means "tending toward").

Now, to my mind he shouldn't be controlling the wages of the banking executives-nor should he have bailed them out. "my" policy would have been to use that government money to assist in the portional acquisition of the larger "failed" banks by the smaller (more responsible, smaller town, and more diverse in practice) banks that didn't fail. And i would've done the car companies roughly the same way-with an emphasis on the high efficiency companies that springing up in the last decade but not producing sales. i believe ti would have created greater competition-literally, and with it all the benefits. instead competition has been reduced further. Does competition work?

As for the "badness" factor of things being socialist or liberal policies. I believe food stamps does a better job at feeding our hungry than the private market does. But I believe that an active culture of caring for our elderly did a better job at that than our social security culture does. I am not a liberal, I am a progressive: i do not believe in a policy because it acts to change something that is broken, I believe in a policy because it is demonstrated to work better than other alternatives.

Specifically I say i am a Progressive Libertarian Fundamentalist. (that makes me dangerous to everyone)
Progressive: Best policies that result from study.
Libertarian: Minimalism in laws to achieve result.
Fundamentalism: With moral consideration in all things.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What Obama has done is to make an effort to save capitalism from the capitalists. To suggest otherwise, or that his agenda is to remake America into a socialistic nation, is Glen Beckian.

There is a some brown, viscous matter seeping out of your ears. You might want to see to that...

 

[JBeukema]

bureaucratic collectivism is communism?

And yellow is red, right?

So let me get this straight, Red China and the USSR were NOT Communist?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stupid fuckwad.

Look, I know you're just lying, but you come off as stupid as a brick. Seriously, you should rethink this.

google: bureaucratic collectivism

You need to read more Shachtman

 

[Flopper]

Socialism and Capitalism are too opposite ends of a scale. Every country on earth is both socialist and capitalist. In its purest form neither can survive. The United States remains one the most capitalistic counties in the world. Taxation and regulation are necessary parts of every modern society.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let's be clear, socailism was never intended to "help the rich".

Socialism is intended to transfer wealth from the merchants and vendors, the middle class, to well connected looters.

What the morons who promote socialism and it's Siamese-twin fascism, can't seem to grasp is that command economies by necessity have a commander.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Socialism and Capitalism are too opposite ends of a scale. Every country on earth is both socialist and capitalist. In its purest form neither can survive.

Bullshit.

Collectivism is generally driven by corruption. Most socialist policies exist for the purpose of aiding and encouraging corruption in order to funnel fund to the well connected.

Capitalism works just fine without corruption. The problem is that we have so many dishonest people who seek to steal rather than trade value for value, that corruption creeps in at every crack and pour.

 

[Toro]

I would consider Sweden in the 1970s a socialist country. The gov't had a heavy hand in dictating terms to business. But companies were still privately owned for the msot part.

They still are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They still are.

Really?

What portion of the means of production are owned or controlled by the state in Sweden?

 

[Toro]

So the average man out of high school working in the average office can afford a home and a car and support two children without a second income in the home today?

The amount of hours of work required to obtain goods and services now is substantially less than it was in the 1950's.

Or are you going to say all the Republican hype surrounding the 50s is bs and they really do just love the 50s because it was the last decade before the civil rights movement started forcing them to let blacks ride in the front of the bus and eat in their restaurants?

I'm going to state the facts. People in every strata of our economy are substantially better off today than they were in the 1950's.

This is true.

However, since 1968, real wages for uneducated white males have fallen ~10%. All other stratas are higher - educated black females being the highest.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is an idiot.

i mean, socialism? control of wages, production, and distribution by the government? (which is VERY VERY different from communism mind you)

Yeah, Obama did each of those things; controlled wages never before controlled, controlled production, controlled distribution(like medical insurance).

I'm pretty sure YOU are in this thread.

Wage and price controls were put in effect during WWII and the Korean War as well as in peacetime from 1971 to 1974 by Nixon.
CON$ only know the revisionist history spewed by GOP hate radio.

Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls

President Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls
August 15, 1971. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls.

 

[Toro]

They still are.

Really?

What portion of the means of production are owned or controlled by the state in Sweden?

I'm not sure. Most of Sweden's education and health care industries are in public hands, but most everything else is private. Sweden privatized several companies such as TeliaSonera, the telecom company, in the 1990s. Sweden has a very high level of personal taxation but treats capital pretty well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is true.

However, since 1968, real wages for uneducated white males have fallen ~10%. All other stratas are higher - educated black females being the highest.

I'll be happy to play the same game using 1968 as a baseline, to test your claim.

What was minimum wage? What did a low-cost new car cost? How many hours of labor were required to obtain it? What about houses? A loaf of bread? You're going to lose.

You see, what you claim is false. The lowest strata of American workers had the highest purchasing power in the history of this nation in 2005 - an hour of labor at minimum wage returned more in goods and services than any time in human history. They have declined since '05, sharply in 09'.