What is really the culprit of our economy

[Neubarth]

In 1927, Hitler was busy building up support among the workers to further his political ambitions. He coddled them perfectly, and as I said, it was only when he was appointed Chancellor that he did an about-face.

German Social Democratic Party

Now you are being more factual. Hitler saw the SDP as part of an old power order that was corrupt and infiltrated and controlled by monied interests. He was absolutely correct. Though I do not endorse what he did to them, I understand why. They were not socialists from his viewpoint.

I pulled up some "facts" to support what I said in my own words:

Hitler replaced all labor unions with one Nazi-controlled German Labor Front, and banned all political parties except his own.

It's okay to admit when you're wrong.

Maggie, you are coming across as a total buffoon. Stop it. Hitler was a true socialist. You do not understand what a socialist is and can not seem to separate politics from economics. That is very stupid for a supposed college educated person.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe it's worth pointing out some schools of socialism require political democracy and economic democracy.

How many here would object to receiving a ballot with every tax bill that would allow you to tell your government exactly where to spend your money?

Socialism will never have a fair test until/unless its tried in the USA.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now you are being more factual. Hitler saw the SDP as part of an old power order that was corrupt and infiltrated and controlled by monied interests. He was absolutely correct. Though I do not endorse what he did to them, I understand why. They were not socialists from his viewpoint.

I pulled up some "facts" to support what I said in my own words:

Hitler replaced all labor unions with one Nazi-controlled German Labor Front, and banned all political parties except his own.

It's okay to admit when you're wrong.

Maggie, you are coming across as a total buffoon. Stop it. Hitler was a true socialist. You do not understand what a socialist is and can not seem to separate politics from economics. That is very stupid for a supposed college educated person.

There is not a credentialed historian alive who would agree that Hitler was a true Socialist. So I don't intend to go back and forth with you on this. Calling me names doesn't help support your argument in any event. It only weakens it, when it was already weak.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hitler's Germany was definitely organized in the socialist model. He described himself as a socialist. My history professors all taught that he obtained power through a socialist concept and then took all the authority for himself to delegate as he chose bypassing the central committee common to most socialist systems.

Here is a fascinating video somebody put together on Nazism - kind of long, but provides a lot of food for thought. I will have to rethink a lot before I'll agree that Friedrich Nietzsche was the catalyst and basis for Nazism, but there are interesting concepts in the video. Not how often the word 'socialism' is used.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX-h71SLkvs]YouTube - What is Nazism[/ame]

 

[MaggieMae]

Hitler's Germany was definitely organized in the socialist model. He described himself as a socialist. My history professors all taught that he obtained power through a socialist concept and then took all the authority for himself to delegate as he chose bypassing the central committee common to most socialist systems.

Here is a fascinating video somebody put together on Nazism - kind of long, but provides a lot of food for thought. I will have to rethink a lot before I'll agree that Friedrich Nietzsche was the catalyst and basis for Nazism, but there are interesting concepts in the video. Not how often the word 'socialism' is used.

YouTube - What is Nazism

You are correct, and so is history. Hitler rose to power by hoodwinking German Socialists, then turned Germany into a totalitarian state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe it's worth pointing out some schools of socialism require political democracy and economic democracy.

How many here would object to receiving a ballot with every tax bill that would allow you to tell your government exactly where to spend your money?

Socialism will never have a fair test until/unless its tried in the USA.

Then again some folks believe credible sources who advise them the iron is hot, but there are always one or two who have to burn themselves before they'll believe it.

A lot of us have observed the results of socialism in enough other places to know we don't want it here. Others continue to think that somehow it would be different in the United States despite the evidence everywhere else.

 

[georgephillip]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word socialism a principle function of all governments was to socialize the loss while privatizing profit. We're currently living through the latest example.

Socialism could produce reform along the lines the classical economists of the 18th and 19th were trying to impose on "...the 'free lunch' of land rents by Europe's hereditary aristocracies, and from monopoly rents administered by royal trading corporations created by European governments (monarchs) to pay off their war debts."

The Chicago Boys Free Market Theology.

 

[Foxfyre]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word socialism a principle function of all governments was to socialize the loss while privatizing profit. We're currently living through the latest example.

Socialism could produce reform along the lines the classical economists of the 18th and 19th were trying to impose on "...the 'free lunch' of land rents by Europe's hereditary aristocracies, and from monopoly rents administered by royal trading corporations created by European governments (monarchs) to pay off their war debts."

The Chicago Boys Free Market Theology.

The purpose of socialism is to put the property and/or means of productioninto the hands or under the control of the people rather than it be owned/controlled by the individual. Socialism doesn't recognize individual rights so much as collective rights. The purpose of course is to more equalize prosperity and minimize poverty. The net effect however, everywhere that it has been tried, has been to place the power and responsibility with the government and take it away from the individual. The effect can be less personal responsibility and therefore less poverty but it also results in less prosperity, lowered expectations, and less accomplishment.

If one sees that as acceptable and a worthy goal, then he is a socialist.

 

[antagon]

it is important to recognize that a functional economy must be mixed. the united states, which i recognize as the world's most functional economy, is a mix of socialist and communist components in a largely capitalist solution.

fox is right in that when you order eggs, you want them salted, rather than having your salt egged. for that reason, we rightfully resist the expansion of socialist and commie components in our economy. the interdependence of these three philosophical generalities shows whenever a government attempts to force out any one or two entirely, always resulting in systemic failure.

what we are left with is a debate, not about whether there are merits to each, but the extents that these merits need to mesh. in the US, it is about the extent which socialism and communism support capitalism, whereas in some economies, the discussion is about the extent which capitalism and socialism could support communism (see china's mixed economy).

 

[froggy]

Gov't bailouts.

 

[Foxfyre]

it is important to recognize that a functional economy must be mixed. the united states, which i recognize as the world's most functional economy, is a mix of socialist and communist components in a largely capitalist solution.

fox is right in that when you order eggs, you want them salted, rather than having your salt egged. for that reason, we rightfully resist the expansion of socialist and commie components in our economy. the interdependence of these three philosophical generalities shows whenever a government attempts to force out any one or two entirely, always resulting in systemic failure.

what we are left with is a debate, not about whether there are merits to each, but the extents that these merits need to mesh. in the US, it is about the extent which socialism and communism support capitalism, whereas in some economies, the discussion is about the extent which capitalism and socialism could support communism (see china's mixed economy).

China has a mixed economy only because the government recognized that they could not compete without allowing some capitalism to be a part of it. But the sheer size of their population has created a massive economy just allowing what little capitalism that they do and that little bit of capitalism has almost miraculously eliminated much of the abject poverty of that country. The Chinese people are remarkable people and if their government ever allowed individual rights and ability to write, speak, worship, and live freely, they would be unstoppable.

The USA has been the incredible economic success that it has because it allowed individual freedom as no other nation had ever allowed before or since. But we are seeing that economy slow down, erode, stagnate, become increasingly vulnerable, and come apart at the seams here and there as we incorporate more and more socialist concepts into the system.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

There is no reason to believe that the USA will somehow be different.

 

[froggy]

How can anyone say Mexican are good for Americas economy, when more than half they make here goes to Mexico.

 

[antagon]

China has a mixed economy only because the government recognized that they could not compete without allowing some capitalism to be a part of it. But the sheer size of their population has created a massive economy just allowing what little capitalism that they do and that little bit of capitalism has almost miraculously eliminated much of the abject poverty of that country. The Chinese people are remarkable people and if their government ever allowed individual rights and ability to write, speak, worship, and live freely, they would be unstoppable.

The USA has been the incredible economic success that it has because it allowed individual freedom as no other nation had ever allowed before or since. But we are seeing that economy slow down, erode, stagnate, become increasingly vulnerable, and come apart at the seams here and there as we incorporate more and more socialist concepts into the system.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

There is no reason to believe that the USA will somehow be different.

fox, my point is that it is not possible to run a government exclusively on the back of any one of these systems. your 'socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried' only echoes my '...whenever a government attempts to force out any one or two entirely, always resulting in systemic failure.' my statement acknowledges that these systems can't naturally exist in total isolation from eachother. i guess you only think that is true of socialism.

you seem to imply that the US rose to power under a completely capitalistic system, but this isn't true, of course. there has always been tax in the US. tax converts the communist or feudal merchantilist principles of state ownership to valued duties. where i own 100% of my property, the government taxes 4% of it every year, 20% when i sell it. the same applies to my business or anyone's payroll income. this is a way communism is mixed into our capitalist system - and not because everyone in every government in the last 2000 years is stupid and you're not.

by providing any sort of communal infrastructure or service, the government also mixes socialist values into our economy. our military and postal services, education and roads represent efforts by the government to provide for communal benefits from the national largess of debt and tax - socialism.

the socialistic agenda you are more closely referring to - social welfare and health care - are also crucial components of our capitalistic system. all modern economies include systems like these because they maintain economic activity which capitalistic functions in the economy cannot sustain alone - and not because everyone in every developed nation's government is stupid and you're not.

you absolutely must recognize that we dont have a situation where there is a massive surplus of jobs and demand. instead, there is a surplus of workers, which constitute the basis of demand in the economy. without welfare, government contracting and government employment, the profits which constitute the creation of wealth in a capitalistic system would be fewer and farther between. like every single last country without these systems which ever, ever existed in all time - there is not enough domestic consumption to create the demand for profitable consumption with capitalism alone. this is why country attempting to go it without any social systems in place follow 'Made in' discreetly on just about everything at our bargain retailers in the US, on products muddled with the fingerprints of child laborers, etc - if they're lucky.

this is why there aren't any developed nations without a social safety-net to support the propensity of capitalist economies to burn themselves out with persistent trending toward efficiency (unemployment) leading to a deflationary cycle where demand for produce shrinks alongside the decline in average wages.

if you are going to knock the US, make your case that a production-led economy like china is so much better than a consumption-led economy like ours. make a case that there's really a bright future in low-cost labor, and china doesn't actually have a conundrum on their hands with the population they carry. maybe you could show another economy which functions like the US, but has no social welfare. there are hundreds of countries out there, fox. certainly if you are remotely accurate about the virtues of capitalism in isolation of socialistic support, there would be one nation with a per capita GDP in the neighborhood of half of ours, but which does not include these crucial internationally recognized text-book components to modern economies.

name that country and i think you might be on to something. failing that, i suggest you look into the way the best economies in the world function with an open mind, rather than with the opinion that you can do so much better with methods from the 1880s. societies and economies evolve. i contend that what has made the US great from the jump is that we lead that evolution curve, and excel at the implementation of what we've innovated. you mentioned our freedoms, and i agree with you there, but if you continue to read our history, there is much more to add. the rest of the world reads from our playbook as to how to come up in the world, but save for freedom, you criticize the bases of our economic dominance without demonstrating an understanding of it.

find that country.

 

[froggy]

Media

 

[rikules]

Hello to All:

I am a retired Sgt. Major of 28 years and have pretty much seen it all on both sides of the political spectrum and have come to the conclusion that both are seriously flawed pretty much to the point of no return. This includes liberals and conservatives. Neither can work effectively in our current political and economic state. As a matter of fact, conservative and liberal policies have had their chances over the past 50 years or so, and both have failed miserably in so many ways. I am sure that I have your attention now and you are wondering how I came to this conclusion. I ask you to please keep in mind that I have served my country to the best of my ability pretty much most of my life in that my father was a veteran of 37 years of military service that included time WWII in Africa, Italy, UK, France, and Germany as a 17-19 year old teen. He also was in Korea and Japan, during the Korean Conflict. Lastly, he spent time in South Vietnam; the worst of which he spoke of. I have an older brother that retired from the Navy with 20 years of service. So when I speak of the military, I do so with respect and even more important, with full honesty.
With the election of President Obama, a lot of groups came out of the wood-work of which some are radically conservative as well as some fringe liberal groups. You ask me where I fit in. After 28 plus years of service to my country, I feel that I am capable of objectively studying both sides of the political realm and pick the good that both sides have to offer. I consider myself a very solid middle of the road with a very, very slight tilt to the left. Some say that if you are in the middle of road, you will be trampled by both sides. I disagree with the concept, and fully believe that if the middle ground is high enough, you can comfortably sit back and watch the two sides destroy each other.

There are accusations the Pres. Obama wants to turn this nation into a pure socialist type of government. This is a ridiculous in so many ways. Also, some groups consider Obama to be the reincarnation Hitler. This is about as far away from the truth as you can get in a 180 degree turn. Hitler was an extreme right wing dictator that hated left wing governments and their leaders with a passion. Socialism has existed in our country for many decades with both good and bad results such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and many more. These programs have helped far more people than any other government type of programs that includes tax cuts. I would guess that at least 75% or greater of tax paying citizens of this country love having tax cuts including myself. Do these help? That is the question that deserves that deserves close scrutiny. Both President Bush (W), and President Obama have attempted these of which each resulting with minimal short-term results.

Since NAFTA, along with the granting of China becoming a favored trade nation, jobs in the USA have packed up and moved to the greener pastures of China, India, Mexico and many others. The loss of jobs due to these policies is nothing less than astronomical. We have a problem that is much worse than many realize. In fact, we may have already past the point of no return with being able to correct this massive problem. I have an extensive background in the economics of free enterprise systems. On paper, this concept is nothing short of great. Unfortunately, our business world has abused our system for many years, resulting in what we now have. Neither the left, right, nor middle care too much for what we now have. The big question now, is what in the hell can we do about it?

If our leaders could come to a concession changing the way we operate, we might have a decent chance with coming up with a solution that both sides can agree on. OK, after a quick slap in the face, I realize that this would be unlikely at its best attempt to do so. With regard to the "Tea Party" concept, I think it has some merit, but its negatives far out way its positives. I would dare to guess that about 75% or greater of the people involved with this concept are those that consider themselves to be "true patriots", but not the type of a Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Many in the Tea Party movement are those that prefer to have an arsenal of weapons and rations in order to be ready when the government falls and we are all left on our own. My prayers are that common sense will eventually rule the day for us all.

On a last note, we need to closely examine how we can get a handle on what our country does with the money that we invest in it via taxes. As I have stated earlier, my family including myself, have served our country to the best we now how it. The problem that I am referring to is the enormous amount of our tax dollars that keep our military machine purging onward. The percentage of the federal budge that goes towards the military is a whopping 38%!.....Yes, 38%. Some of you may say that it is all needed to fight our wars. I have talked extensively with friends that have retired or are still serving in the military. A Brigadier General, who is a close friend and is set to retire this coming August, has confided in me about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how this should come to a quick end ASAP. In discussion with some of my military friends that have and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the opinion is that there never were any WMDs in Iraq as proposed by the Bush administration when we entered in "Iraqi Freedom". This war had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11-01. "W' wanted to finish what pops started in "Desert Storm". This war is absolutely unnecessary and has blown hole in our federal budget that we may never recover from until many years down the road. Also, the war in Afghanistan may wind up costing twice the cost of Iraqi Freedom. As much as most people hated Bill Clinton, you have to give him a tip of the hat in that his administration managed to put the federal budget in the black of which had not happened in many decades. If we could get a handle on defense spending, we could very well fund a national health insurance program. I think I just heard a pin drop with the silence I am is all around me now!

Just mention National Health Care, and you can start a war of words and unfortunately a war of guns and other devices of harm. Being in the military and now receiving my retirement benefits, I have been a member of the largest socialized program in the entire history of mankind. Yes, the military is the largest socialized program in the entire world. I see only minimal differences in what President Obama is proposing for are not fortunate enough to have any kind of health benefits. A friend of the family lost his job due to a company's downsizing and eventual relocation to Mexico. He had been with that company for 36 years. Not only did he lose his job, he had to pay $1200.00 per month for COBRA of which he could not afford. Kendell had been looking for a job going on 2 years and has since lost his home, his wife and other things that were precious to him. He sent out over 600 resumes and has interviewed for 59 jobs. The companies like him, but do not want to hire someone who is 61 years old. Kendell developed cancer of the Pancreas and died 6 months later and died an excruciating and lonely death. I have no doubt that there are thousands and possibly millions of “Kendells” out there of which some could have had their life saved if they had access to the kind of treatment that could give them a fighting chance to have their life saved.

Yes, the answer to solving some of our countries problems go much futher than tea parties and knee jerk conservative ideology along with bleeding heart liberal agenda. It will take a combination of common sense, compassion, and most important, non-biased honesty to make it happen. This country is all of ours; not just fringe elements of society on both the right and left.

Doc

you are much too sane, rational and logical to be on this board!

welcome!

 

[Bfgrn]

Hello to All:

I am a retired Sgt. Major of 28 years and have pretty much seen it all on both sides of the political spectrum and have come to the conclusion that both are seriously flawed pretty much to the point of no return. This includes liberals and conservatives. Neither can work effectively in our current political and economic state. As a matter of fact, conservative and liberal policies have had their chances over the past 50 years or so, and both have failed miserably in so many ways. I am sure that I have your attention now and you are wondering how I came to this conclusion. I ask you to please keep in mind that I have served my country to the best of my ability pretty much most of my life in that my father was a veteran of 37 years of military service that included time WWII in Africa, Italy, UK, France, and Germany as a 17-19 year old teen. He also was in Korea and Japan, during the Korean Conflict. Lastly, he spent time in South Vietnam; the worst of which he spoke of. I have an older brother that retired from the Navy with 20 years of service. So when I speak of the military, I do so with respect and even more important, with full honesty.
With the election of President Obama, a lot of groups came out of the wood-work of which some are radically conservative as well as some fringe liberal groups. You ask me where I fit in. After 28 plus years of service to my country, I feel that I am capable of objectively studying both sides of the political realm and pick the good that both sides have to offer. I consider myself a very solid middle of the road with a very, very slight tilt to the left. Some say that if you are in the middle of road, you will be trampled by both sides. I disagree with the concept, and fully believe that if the middle ground is high enough, you can comfortably sit back and watch the two sides destroy each other.

There are accusations the Pres. Obama wants to turn this nation into a pure socialist type of government. This is a ridiculous in so many ways. Also, some groups consider Obama to be the reincarnation Hitler. This is about as far away from the truth as you can get in a 180 degree turn. Hitler was an extreme right wing dictator that hated left wing governments and their leaders with a passion. Socialism has existed in our country for many decades with both good and bad results such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and many more. These programs have helped far more people than any other government type of programs that includes tax cuts. I would guess that at least 75% or greater of tax paying citizens of this country love having tax cuts including myself. Do these help? That is the question that deserves that deserves close scrutiny. Both President Bush (W), and President Obama have attempted these of which each resulting with minimal short-term results.

Since NAFTA, along with the granting of China becoming a favored trade nation, jobs in the USA have packed up and moved to the greener pastures of China, India, Mexico and many others. The loss of jobs due to these policies is nothing less than astronomical. We have a problem that is much worse than many realize. In fact, we may have already past the point of no return with being able to correct this massive problem. I have an extensive background in the economics of free enterprise systems. On paper, this concept is nothing short of great. Unfortunately, our business world has abused our system for many years, resulting in what we now have. Neither the left, right, nor middle care too much for what we now have. The big question now, is what in the hell can we do about it?

If our leaders could come to a concession changing the way we operate, we might have a decent chance with coming up with a solution that both sides can agree on. OK, after a quick slap in the face, I realize that this would be unlikely at its best attempt to do so. With regard to the "Tea Party" concept, I think it has some merit, but its negatives far out way its positives. I would dare to guess that about 75% or greater of the people involved with this concept are those that consider themselves to be "true patriots", but not the type of a Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Many in the Tea Party movement are those that prefer to have an arsenal of weapons and rations in order to be ready when the government falls and we are all left on our own. My prayers are that common sense will eventually rule the day for us all.

On a last note, we need to closely examine how we can get a handle on what our country does with the money that we invest in it via taxes. As I have stated earlier, my family including myself, have served our country to the best we now how it. The problem that I am referring to is the enormous amount of our tax dollars that keep our military machine purging onward. The percentage of the federal budge that goes towards the military is a whopping 38%!.....Yes, 38%. Some of you may say that it is all needed to fight our wars. I have talked extensively with friends that have retired or are still serving in the military. A Brigadier General, who is a close friend and is set to retire this coming August, has confided in me about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how this should come to a quick end ASAP. In discussion with some of my military friends that have and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the opinion is that there never were any WMDs in Iraq as proposed by the Bush administration when we entered in "Iraqi Freedom". This war had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11-01. "W' wanted to finish what pops started in "Desert Storm". This war is absolutely unnecessary and has blown hole in our federal budget that we may never recover from until many years down the road. Also, the war in Afghanistan may wind up costing twice the cost of Iraqi Freedom. As much as most people hated Bill Clinton, you have to give him a tip of the hat in that his administration managed to put the federal budget in the black of which had not happened in many decades. If we could get a handle on defense spending, we could very well fund a national health insurance program. I think I just heard a pin drop with the silence I am is all around me now!

Just mention National Health Care, and you can start a war of words and unfortunately a war of guns and other devices of harm. Being in the military and now receiving my retirement benefits, I have been a member of the largest socialized program in the entire history of mankind. Yes, the military is the largest socialized program in the entire world. I see only minimal differences in what President Obama is proposing for are not fortunate enough to have any kind of health benefits. A friend of the family lost his job due to a company's downsizing and eventual relocation to Mexico. He had been with that company for 36 years. Not only did he lose his job, he had to pay $1200.00 per month for COBRA of which he could not afford. Kendell had been looking for a job going on 2 years and has since lost his home, his wife and other things that were precious to him. He sent out over 600 resumes and has interviewed for 59 jobs. The companies like him, but do not want to hire someone who is 61 years old. Kendell developed cancer of the Pancreas and died 6 months later and died an excruciating and lonely death. I have no doubt that there are thousands and possibly millions of “Kendells” out there of which some could have had their life saved if they had access to the kind of treatment that could give them a fighting chance to have their life saved.

Yes, the answer to solving some of our countries problems go much futher than tea parties and knee jerk conservative ideology along with bleeding heart liberal agenda. It will take a combination of common sense, compassion, and most important, non-biased honesty to make it happen. This country is all of ours; not just fringe elements of society on both the right and left.

Doc

you are much too sane, rational and logical to be on this board!

welcome!

I think doc already came to that conclusion. His OP is the only post he has made...

 

[Foxfyre]

name that country and i think you might be on to something. failing that, i suggest you look into the way the best economies in the world function with an open mind, rather than with the opinion that you can do so much better with methods from the 1880s. societies and economies evolve. i contend that what has made the US great from the jump is that we lead that evolution curve, and excel at the implementation of what we've innovated. you mentioned our freedoms, and i agree with you there, but if you continue to read our history, there is much more to add. the rest of the world reads from our playbook as to how to come up in the world, but save for freedom, you criticize the bases of our economic dominance without demonstrating an understanding of it.

find that country.

You're missing the point. The USA was not designed on a 'system' of any kind, capitalistic or otherwise. It was conceived and designed on a principle that recognizes that there are unalienable human rights that no man should be allowed to infringe and which government is charged to identify, defend, and protect. Once that is accomplished, the people can then be free to design, order, or implement whatever society or economic systems they wish to have and all will work when mutually agreed and administered by the people themxelves.

When such a principle is enforced, the people are completely free to dream, plan, aspire, innovate, invent, achieve, excel and prosper according to each person's ability and ambitions. Their only restriction is that nobody is permitted to interfere with anybody else's attempts to do that.

Whenever government has presumed to take over any of that process, there have benefits to some, but negative consequences to others. And over the decades the accumulation of negative consequences will invariably overtake and dwarf the cumulative finite benefits.

 

[antagon]

name that country and i think you might be on to something. failing that, i suggest you look into the way the best economies in the world function with an open mind, rather than with the opinion that you can do so much better with methods from the 1880s. societies and economies evolve. i contend that what has made the US great from the jump is that we lead that evolution curve, and excel at the implementation of what we've innovated. you mentioned our freedoms, and i agree with you there, but if you continue to read our history, there is much more to add. the rest of the world reads from our playbook as to how to come up in the world, but save for freedom, you criticize the bases of our economic dominance without demonstrating an understanding of it.

find that country.

You're missing the point. The USA was not designed on a 'system' of any kind, capitalistic or otherwise. It was conceived and designed on a principle that recognizes that there are unalienable human rights that no man should be allowed to infringe and which government is charged to identify, defend, and protect. Once that is accomplished, the people can then be free to design, order, or implement whatever society or economic systems they wish to have and all will work when mutually agreed and administered by the people themxelves.

When such a principle is enforced, the people are completely free to dream, plan, aspire, innovate, invent, achieve, excel and prosper according to each person's ability and ambitions. Their only restriction is that nobody is permitted to interfere with anybody else's attempts to do that.

Whenever government has presumed to take over any of that process, there have benefits to some, but negative consequences to others. And over the decades the accumulation of negative consequences will invariably overtake and dwarf the cumulative finite benefits.

this is a fallacy, fox - fundamentally fallacious fodder . we discussed adam smith the other day. him and his enlightenment contemporaries not only shaped the politics of the US, but the economics. the 'american system' envisaged by one of the greatest american economists, alex hamilton, was the basis for how we fostered the growth of the country in the first hundred years of our existence. our forward thinking in this regard has, indeed, been systematic and by no means incidental. it has been decidedly determined by the US government from its inception, heavy-handedly employing government-directed mixed economic practices for the entire span of the republic. this is simply history, fox. we would have been toast by 1812 without it.

find that history. there's more method than chaos, more discipline than freedom behind the US economy.

and, no, the negative consequences are vastly eclipsed by those positive outcomes such that decades on, cumulatively, the US is the worlds biggest, most dynamic economy. show some pride.

 

[Foxfyre]

name that country and i think you might be on to something. failing that, i suggest you look into the way the best economies in the world function with an open mind, rather than with the opinion that you can do so much better with methods from the 1880s. societies and economies evolve. i contend that what has made the US great from the jump is that we lead that evolution curve, and excel at the implementation of what we've innovated. you mentioned our freedoms, and i agree with you there, but if you continue to read our history, there is much more to add. the rest of the world reads from our playbook as to how to come up in the world, but save for freedom, you criticize the bases of our economic dominance without demonstrating an understanding of it.

find that country.

You're missing the point. The USA was not designed on a 'system' of any kind, capitalistic or otherwise. It was conceived and designed on a principle that recognizes that there are unalienable human rights that no man should be allowed to infringe and which government is charged to identify, defend, and protect. Once that is accomplished, the people can then be free to design, order, or implement whatever society or economic systems they wish to have and all will work when mutually agreed and administered by the people themxelves.

When such a principle is enforced, the people are completely free to dream, plan, aspire, innovate, invent, achieve, excel and prosper according to each person's ability and ambitions. Their only restriction is that nobody is permitted to interfere with anybody else's attempts to do that.

Whenever government has presumed to take over any of that process, there have benefits to some, but negative consequences to others. And over the decades the accumulation of negative consequences will invariably overtake and dwarf the cumulative finite benefits.

this is a fallacy, fox - fundamentally fallacious fodder . we discussed adam smith the other day. him and his enlightenment contemporaries not only shaped the politics of the US, but the economics. the 'american system' envisaged by one of the greatest american economists, alex hamilton, was the basis for how we fostered the growth of the country in the first hundred years of our existence. our forward thinking in this regard has, indeed, been systematic and by no means incidental. it has been decidedly determined by the US government from its inception, heavy-handedly employing government-directed mixed economic practices for the entire span of the republic. this is simply history, fox. we would have been toast by 1812 without it.

find that history. there's more method than chaos, more discipline than freedom behind the US economy.

and, no, the negative consequences are vastly eclipsed by those positive outcomes such that decades on, cumulatively, the US is the worlds biggest, most dynamic economy. show some pride.

You're going to have to show that it is fallacious with more than just not wanting it to be true. You and I will continue to disagree on Adam Smith and the sort of influence he had with the Founders. The Founders did not often provide sources for convictions or concepts they held, and while it is probable that Smith was read by both Jefferson and Madison, there is no way to know what impact he may have had re government, taxes, etc. A careful reading of Wealth of Nations, however, suggests that Smith was less anti-government than were any of the Founders.

The fundamental concepts the Founders gave us have indeed served us well and did create the most free, most innovative, most creative, more forward looking, most accomplished, and most successful economy on Earth. I appreciate that as much as any American could and there is nobody more proud of what that American was and can be than me. And I think my experience with reading and understanding the history would probably be found adequate by most.

I also have watched the deterioration occur over the decades as government has inserted itself into more and more of the American economy, culture, and social structures. I am not blind to the cumulative negative consequences directly related to that, not the least of which we now now arrived at the point our national credit rating will likely be downgraded and we are limiting opportunities and racking up debt sufficiently to deny much of the American dream to our children and grandchildren even to the fourth and fifith generations.

You may think things are still just hunky dory and our government is just great. That's your prerogative, but man oh man I hope we haven't sold a whole lot of the blinders I think you would have to be wearing to believe that.

 

[Neubarth]

How can anyone say Mexican are good for Americas economy, when more than half they make here goes to Mexico.

Total Bullshit statistic. Where do you people come from with all of this crap?

There are no viable statistics on how much illegals make and how much it costs them to live in this country and how much they send to their wives and children back in Mexico.

I've known thousands of illegals, even sheltered them, and the overwhelming majority are here to stay. They live, work, breed and die in this country and have no desire to return to Mexico other than to visit relatives.