Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[Tehon]

Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

Ok... that's my WTF of the day. Care to expound?

Capitalism and socialism are differing methods of production. The end result of each is that commodities are produced. A market is a way of distributing the commodities among society. It will serve either mode of production equally.

 

[dblack]

Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

Ok... that's my WTF of the day. Care to expound?

Capitalism and socialism are differing means of production. The end result of each is that commodities are produced. A market is a way of distributing the commodities among society. It will serve either mode of production equally.

Methinks you don't know what the phuck you are typing about.

 

[regent]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

 

[dblack]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

Hmmm.... maybe you haven't been following along.

 

[regent]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

Hmmm.... maybe you haven't been following along.

Should our government make any effort to pass laws that make the rank and file American a little more secure and less anxious?

 

[Boss]

The production system is the defining quality of an economic system. You agree that different production systems distribute commodities in the same market. So the market is common, which is what I have been saying from the start. The market is a common means of distributing commodities which means that the defining characteristic of an economic system is the means of production.

You can define socialism as government ownership of the means of production but it is not the only definition and certainly not the preferred definition. I choose to define it along Marxist principles, which is that the workers own the means of production and the state tends to wither away.

You're back to not making any sense again. No, the production system is probably the least important part of an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with defining it. Yes, the market is common by ******* definition... what else would the market be? Not common? It's not a means of distribution. WE are the ******* market! The consumers! We buy things from producers who use all kinds of methods of production and compete for our business. This is called free enterprise.

I'm sorry your head has been pumped full of Marxist propaganda. Maybe one day you'll grow up and realize you've been suckered? I really hope that happens before you destroy the greatest economic system man ever devised for a pipe dream that's responsible for 100 million deaths. You live in a country where you can be, do or have anything you like. The free market system creates millionaires and billionaires, the Marxist-Socialist system creates mass poverty and mass graves.

 

[dblack]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

Hmmm.... maybe you haven't been following along.

Should our government make any effort to pass laws that make the rank and file American a little more secure and less anxious?

No. Patronizing idiots is a mistake.

 

[dblack]

The Main Thing™, is that we need to centralize control over all life's necessities under an authoritarian government. Then everyone will be happy forever.

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

'We the People' is not a rallying cry for majoritarian government. Quite the opposite. It's a recognition that the People - individuals every one - hold sovereignty over government. Not the other way around.

 

[regent]

Maybe not happy forever but happier at times when we pursue happiness.

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

Hmmm.... maybe you haven't been following along.

Should our government make any effort to pass laws that make the rank and file American a little more secure and less anxious?

No. Patronizing idiots is a mistake.

Never read much history eh?

 

[dblack]

Praise be government. Happiness is ours by virtue of the fatherland!

When the fatherland was owned by the noble class and monarchy, the government's responsibility was the happiness of that noble class. Today many of believe that "we the people" own America, and government has a responsibility for the people' to be able to pursue happiness.

Hmmm.... maybe you haven't been following along.

Should our government make any effort to pass laws that make the rank and file American a little more secure and less anxious?

No. Patronizing idiots is a mistake.

Never read much history eh?

I haven't read any history that shows indulging idiocy to be a good idea. But then, I don't read idiotic history books. Gotta link?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

You can get your fruit from Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
And your butter, eggs and milk from Organic Valley - Wikipedia

We're living history.

Uhm... yeah.... we live in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY! Dumbass!

Yes, we are a liberal country. We have the freedom to associate and organize freely. And regardless of how we organize our businesses we can sell the commodities we produce in the market. The market does not define the method of production. Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

The right to associate and organize are not ‘absolute,’ however – as is the case with other rights, our liberties are subject to restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

Likewise, government is authorized to place necessary and proper limits on how the markets function in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where such regulation does not manifest as ‘big government,’ or ‘overregulation’ or ‘government overreach.’

 

[idb]

Big government. We haz it.

The combined Federal, State and local government is about 40% of the GDP.

In most households rich or poor the cost of government is usually the largest single expenditure. More than food, more than housing, more than any other single expenditure. It is killing our productive economy.

According to the CIA Fact book The cost of combined government in the US is larger than the GDP of sll but two other countries on the face of the earth. The Federal government by itself is larger than all but three other economies.

Our country sucks because it spends so much money for government. In addition to that we are in debt more than the GDP of all but one other country on the face of the earth.

The Democrats love big government because it gives them power by creating a dependent voting base and enables their socialist agenda. Despicable, isn't it? The Republicans say they are anti big government but at the end of the day they just about as bad as the filthy Democrats.

"Abandon hope all ye that enter here"

Well...to be fair...invasion and dropping Tomahawks on wedding parties and hospitals costs a lot of money.

 

[Mac1958]

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

The government didn't have anything to do with the ratings agencies giving (selling, actually) AAA ratings to crap CMO's, which were sold as AAA's (treasury-level safety) to investors and funds and groups and banks and municipalities and larger governments. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that AIG was selling credit default swaps to layer after layer after layer of buyers without needing even $1 in reserves to cover those swaps. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that Merrill and other banks were buying swaps on the very securities they selling. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that the banks were cramming CMO's and even more hideous CDO's with all kinds of garbage credit, including paper that had nothing to do with mortgages.

And that's the thing. Had the government been regulating all of the above, the Meltdown would not have happened. The loans that were initially backed by the government would have had to stay with their initial issuer, and credit standards would have remained MUCH higher. And there wouldn't have half a trillion in credit default swaps betting against the US economy.
.

Uhm... YES... the government had a hand in ALL of it! They backed billions in loans that should've never been made. They repealed Glass-Steagall and passed Fannie, Freddy, National Affordable Housing Act and American Dream Downpayment Act, while manipulating interest rates through the Fed. All of this MEDDLING in free market systems contributed to what transpired and to ignore that is just plain dishonest or dumb, one or the other.

Okay, this is where I usually just give up. I live this stuff every day. You're entitled to your opinion.
.

If you "live this stuff every day", perhaps you can share some of your insight....

What I've seen is a cynical game of government doing everything in its power to undermine the free market, and the using the 'failures' of the free market as proof that it doesn't work. Isn't that a little like Republicans doing everything they can to undermine ACA, and then using its failure as proof that it doesn't work?

I really don't see the two as all that similar.

The Republicans played the ultimate political game. They opposed and attacked the ACA mostly for partisan political reasons. Yes, it's a shit law, but they certainly stepped back and hoped for the worst. That's just undeniable. They then lied for eight years, saying they had a better plan, and simply produced MORE shit when handed the keys to the car. Then, comically, many of them pretended that it was a "repeal" when it was only a tweak, and couldn't even get THAT done. Holy crap. Clown show.

"The Government" does its job per its mandate. If it's told to regulate more, it regulates more. If it's told to regulate less, it regulates less. While I do get cranky when I have to deal with more administrative crap when a new law is passed, I know that law was passed by politicians, not by those who enforce it. My point remains there must be an equilibrium between dynamic and open free markets and protections from fraud, waste, abuse and destructive man-made distortions. I see both sides of this.

The Republicans are desperate to blame the Meltdown on this Democratic politician or that piece of legislation, and they're either lying or being willfully ignorant.
.

 

[Tehon]

A socialist mode of production is just as capable of producing fruit and french toast, delivered by the market. Farming co-ops are a prime example of such a method of production.

No they're not and history proves it.

You can get your fruit from Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
And your butter, eggs and milk from Organic Valley - Wikipedia

We're living history.

Uhm... yeah.... we live in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY! Dumbass!

Yes, we are a liberal country. We have the freedom to associate and organize freely. And regardless of how we organize our businesses we can sell the commodities we produce in the market. The market does not define the method of production. Capitalist or socialist, makes no difference, the market still serves the same function.

The right to associate and organize are not ‘absolute,’ however – as is the case with other rights, our liberties are subject to restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law.

Likewise, government is authorized to place necessary and proper limits on how the markets function in accordance with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where such regulation does not manifest as ‘big government,’ or ‘overregulation’ or ‘government overreach.’

I disagree that the constitution defines limits on regulation of the market. The amount of regulation is a political matter that is determined by the people at any given time with no limits.

 

[Flash]

[QUO

Well...to be fair...invasion and dropping Tomahawks on wedding parties and hospitals costs a lot of money.

True. Obama being at war every day of his administration cost us a lot of money. The bombs he drooped on Libya weren't cheap. Also, it cost a tom of money to provide food stamps and medical care to Illegals and Muslim refugees. Giving fat cat Solyndra executives nice little bonuses and bailing out car companies and Wall Street banks that contributed to Obama's campaign cost a ton of money.

 

[Tehon]

The production system is the defining quality of an economic system. You agree that different production systems distribute commodities in the same market. So the market is common, which is what I have been saying from the start. The market is a common means of distributing commodities which means that the defining characteristic of an economic system is the means of production.

You can define socialism as government ownership of the means of production but it is not the only definition and certainly not the preferred definition. I choose to define it along Marxist principles, which is that the workers own the means of production and the state tends to wither away.

You're back to not making any sense again. No, the production system is probably the least important part of an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with defining it. Yes, the market is common by ******* definition... what else would the market be? Not common? It's not a means of distribution. WE are the ******* market! The consumers! We buy things from producers who use all kinds of methods of production and compete for our business. This is called free enterprise.

I'm sorry your head has been pumped full of Marxist propaganda. Maybe one day you'll grow up and realize you've been suckered? I really hope that happens before you destroy the greatest economic system man ever devised for a pipe dream that's responsible for 100 million deaths. You live in a country where you can be, do or have anything you like. The free market system creates millionaires and billionaires, the Marxist-Socialist system creates mass poverty and mass graves.

You can't just claim that capitalism is free market. That may be the system that we have but it is not the only possibility. Likewise, socialism isn't only a planned economy with the government ownership of the means of production. The way that we distribute goods and services is not linked to the form of production therefore it does not define it. Capitalism is a method of production, nothing more.

Why do you think the market is not a way to distribute goods and services in society? You are not making sense.

 

[Tehon]

No, the production system is probably the least important part of an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with defining it.

There is nothing to distribute in the economy without production. I'd say it isn't the least important thing. You're losing it dude.

Why are you even arguing with me?

Well, I think you have to keep an eye on capitalists because capitalism doesn't necessarily mean free market capitalism.

 

[Boss]

The production system is the defining quality of an economic system. You agree that different production systems distribute commodities in the same market. So the market is common, which is what I have been saying from the start. The market is a common means of distributing commodities which means that the defining characteristic of an economic system is the means of production.

You can define socialism as government ownership of the means of production but it is not the only definition and certainly not the preferred definition. I choose to define it along Marxist principles, which is that the workers own the means of production and the state tends to wither away.

You're back to not making any sense again. No, the production system is probably the least important part of an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with defining it. Yes, the market is common by ******* definition... what else would the market be? Not common? It's not a means of distribution. WE are the ******* market! The consumers! We buy things from producers who use all kinds of methods of production and compete for our business. This is called free enterprise.

I'm sorry your head has been pumped full of Marxist propaganda. Maybe one day you'll grow up and realize you've been suckered? I really hope that happens before you destroy the greatest economic system man ever devised for a pipe dream that's responsible for 100 million deaths. You live in a country where you can be, do or have anything you like. The free market system creates millionaires and billionaires, the Marxist-Socialist system creates mass poverty and mass graves.

You can't just claim that capitalism is free market. That may be the system that we have but it is not the only possibility. Likewise, socialism isn't only a planned economy with the government ownership of the means of production. The way that we distribute goods and services is not linked to the form of production therefore it does not define it. Capitalism is a method of production, nothing more.

Why do you think the market is not a way to distribute goods and services in society? You are not making sense.

I didn't claim capitalism is free market. Free market is a type of capitalism. Indeed, there are other possibilities, free market is the superior. Capitalism isn't a method of production, it's an economic system. The market is not "a way to distribute goods and services" it is the receiver of goods and services from a supplier. I'm making perfect sense, you are the one who is confused.

 

[Tehon]

The production system is the defining quality of an economic system. You agree that different production systems distribute commodities in the same market. So the market is common, which is what I have been saying from the start. The market is a common means of distributing commodities which means that the defining characteristic of an economic system is the means of production.

You can define socialism as government ownership of the means of production but it is not the only definition and certainly not the preferred definition. I choose to define it along Marxist principles, which is that the workers own the means of production and the state tends to wither away.

You're back to not making any sense again. No, the production system is probably the least important part of an economic system. It has absolutely nothing to do with defining it. Yes, the market is common by ******* definition... what else would the market be? Not common? It's not a means of distribution. WE are the ******* market! The consumers! We buy things from producers who use all kinds of methods of production and compete for our business. This is called free enterprise.

I'm sorry your head has been pumped full of Marxist propaganda. Maybe one day you'll grow up and realize you've been suckered? I really hope that happens before you destroy the greatest economic system man ever devised for a pipe dream that's responsible for 100 million deaths. You live in a country where you can be, do or have anything you like. The free market system creates millionaires and billionaires, the Marxist-Socialist system creates mass poverty and mass graves.

You can't just claim that capitalism is free market. That may be the system that we have but it is not the only possibility. Likewise, socialism isn't only a planned economy with the government ownership of the means of production. The way that we distribute goods and services is not linked to the form of production therefore it does not define it. Capitalism is a method of production, nothing more.

Why do you think the market is not a way to distribute goods and services in society? You are not making sense.

I didn't claim capitalism is free market. Free market is a type of capitalism. Indeed, there are other possibilities, free market is the superior. Capitalism isn't a method of production, it's an economic system. The market is not "a way to distribute goods and services" it is the receiver of goods and services from a supplier. I'm making perfect sense, you are the one who is confused.

What does the market do with the goods and services once it receives them? Consumes them? Or distributes them through voluntary transactions?

 

[Tehon]

Capitalism isn't a method of production

Are you kidding me? Do we need to start at the beginning and discuss how value is created? No wonder you people don't understand socialism, you don't even understand capitalism.