Obama, and the Ten Planks of Communism

[JakeStarkey]

Loony Toons!

by Douglas V. Gibbs

In Obama's Marxist Tendencies, and the Response of the Founding Fathers, I used quotes by Obama, Democrats, Karl Marx, and the Founding Fathers to show where Obama stands when compared to the Founding Fathers, and Karl Marx.

Now, I think it is time to see where Obama and the Democrats stand when compared to the Ten Planks of Communism. . .

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto

Read more and you Lefties steam @ Political Pistachio: Obama, and the Ten Planks of Communism

 

[Sallow]

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

brilliant argument, shit-for-brains.

Best thing to do for a full of shit, idiotic post..is to laugh at it.

King Asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

Good one. I have lived in three, count em', three socialist countries. The O/P and his reference wouldn't know communism if it landed in his lap and set his shirt on fire. Obama has, if anything, held closer to Geo W. Bush's policies than the ones he proclaimed in 2007.

What you mean by "socialist country" is probably just a European welfare state. They are only slightly more socialist than the United States. Go live in Cuba or North Korea and tell us how you like it there. You're obviously the one who doesn't know what socialism is.

I predict no serious response to my post, just insults and sarcasm. Most of these turds don't actually know any real history. Their brains are full of myths and propaganda.

 

[Sallow]

I'll take a monarchy over democracy any day of the week. Under monarchy, the government only confiscated 3% of the country's GDP. Now it takes 50%.

Monarchists are allowed to grab your land as well.

And **** your wife.

Still like it?

No they aren't, moron. Monarchs had to ply their demands in the courts, just like the common folks.

You pretty much are an idiot.

You have no idea about how our present form of government evolved.

Read the Constitution. There's plenty in it about private property.

Which, Monarchs, had absolutely no respect for..until nobles started fighting back.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarian revision of American history merely discounts the facts.

 

[Sallow]

We have a very ignorant electorate and very compliant lib mainstream media, and to their credit, Obama's team did have the best ground game. They rounded up all kinds of dregs and funneled them into polling places, after telling them who to vote for while promising free stuff.

Not only that, the American electorate are very very paranoid and would be more than happy to give up their Liberty and Freedom for feeling of more security.

yep. The theory that the average man values freedom is a myth. What they really want is security. They will trade away their freedom in a heartbeat in exchange for a steady paycheck. Obama's election proved that beyond all doubt.

Well, sadly enough, you are partially right here.

 

[bripat9643]

Monarchists are allowed to grab your land as well.

And **** your wife.

Still like it?

No they aren't, moron. Monarchs had to ply their demands in the courts, just like the common folks.

You pretty much are an idiot.

You have no idea about how our present form of government evolved.

Read the Constitution. There's plenty in it about private property.

Which, Monarchs, had absolutely no respect for..until nobles started fighting back.

In the days of the more primitive Monarchs, that may have been true. However, by the time of the enlightenment, most European countries had fairly effective and impartial court systems. The King had to submit any case he wanted to pursue to the courts. whatever the reason this came about is irrelevant. the fact is that by the 1700s the King couldn't just expropriate any property he cast his eye on. He also couldn't commit rape or murder.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

OK, thanks for the Ayn Rand revisionist history.

Of course the people being accused were "dropping prices". That is how they forced competitors out of the market.

If you have enough capital reserves on-hand, this is a great way to form a monopoly.

And then, after all your serious competitors are gone, you raise prices right back up.

Of course lowering prices like this would temporarily benefit the consumer, right up until it didn't...

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarian revision of American history merely discounts the facts.

Which facts am I discounting, nitwit?

 

[bripat9643]

OK, thanks for the Ayn Rand revisionist history.

Of course the people being accused were "dropping prices". That is how they forced competitors out of the market.

If you have enough capital reserves on-hand, this is a great way to form a monopoly.

And then, after all your serious competitors are gone, you raise prices right back up.

Of course lowering prices like this would temporarily benefit the consumer, right up until they didn't...

That's another liberal myth. It would be stupid as a business policy. Furthermore, there's no historical record of it actually happening. Standard Oil never raised its prices. Never. It lowered them year after year. That's precisely what its competitors complained about and lobbied Congress to put a stop to.

So how did the consumers suffer as a result of Standard Oil producing refined petroleum products cheaper than its competitors?

 

[Vast LWC]

Which facts am I discounting, nitwit?

Basic economics...

History...

 

[bripat9643]

Which facts am I discounting, nitwit?

Basic economics...

History...

I'm discounting Voo-Doo economics and propaganda.

Name one "fact" that contradicts what I claimed.

 

[Sallow]

No they aren't, moron. Monarchs had to ply their demands in the courts, just like the common folks.

You pretty much are an idiot.

You have no idea about how our present form of government evolved.

Read the Constitution. There's plenty in it about private property.

Which, Monarchs, had absolutely no respect for..until nobles started fighting back.

In the days of the more primitive Monarchs, that may have been true. However, by the time of the enlightenment, most European countries had fairly effective and impartial court systems. The King had to submit any case he wanted to pursue to the courts. whatever the reason this came about is irrelevant. the fact is that by the 1700s the King couldn't just expropriate any property he cast his eye on. He also couldn't commit rape or murder.

Um seriously?

Really?

Yes..you have evolution in Europe with respects to Monarchs, but no, they still carried out some pretty vile practices. Which was part of the reason for the various revolutions in Europe and the formation of America.

 

[bripat9643]

You pretty much are an idiot.

You have no idea about how our present form of government evolved.

Read the Constitution. There's plenty in it about private property.

Which, Monarchs, had absolutely no respect for..until nobles started fighting back.

In the days of the more primitive Monarchs, that may have been true. However, by the time of the enlightenment, most European countries had fairly effective and impartial court systems. The King had to submit any case he wanted to pursue to the courts. whatever the reason this came about is irrelevant. the fact is that by the 1700s the King couldn't just expropriate any property he cast his eye on. He also couldn't commit rape or murder.

Um seriously?

Really?

Yes..you have evolution in Europe with respects to Monarchs, but no, they still carried out some pretty vile practices. Which was part of the reason for the various revolutions in Europe and the formation of America.

What "vile" practices are those? i doubt any of them are worse than what our government has demonstrated it is capable of.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's another liberal myth. It would be stupid as a business policy. Furthermore, there's no historical record of it actually happening. Standard Oil never raised its prices. Never. It lowered them year after year. That's precisely what its competitors complained about and lobbied Congress to put a stop to.

So how did the consumers suffer as a result of Standard Oil producing refined petroleum products cheaper than its competitors?

You are one seriously brainwashed Ayn Randian.

Are you seriously suggesting that monopolies are just a figment of a "Liberal Imagination", and that price fixing and intentionally undercutting competition to corner a market are just fictions created by some "evil leftists" so that industry won't succeed?

Wow.

And Standard Oil did in fact raise it's prices, in areas where they held a monopoly.

I would suggest reading the actual Supreme court anti-trust decision concerning Standard Oil, as opposed to Ann Coutler's interpretation. You might learn a thing or two.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are giving us your conclusion without giving us your facts to get from A to Z, bripat Doosh. Give us your facts.

Libertarian revision of American history merely discounts the facts.

Which facts am I discounting, nitwit?

 

[bripat9643]

brilliant argument, shit-for-brains.

Best thing to do for a full of shit, idiotic post..is to laugh at it.

King Asshole.

In other words, you have no facts or logic at your disposal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have given us no facts or logic, bripat the Doosh. Do so. Now.

 

[bripat9643]

You are giving us your conclusion without giving us your facts to get from A to Z, bripat Doosh. Give us your facts.

Libertarian revision of American history merely discounts the facts.

Which facts am I discounting, nitwit?

Go back and read what I posted, douche nozzle.

 

[bripat9643]

You have given us no facts or logic, bripat the Doosh. Do so. Now.

You're the biggest dumbfuck in this forum, Fakey, and the competition is stiff.