Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Tehon]

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit.

Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.

Provide a source for your definition.

Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]​

The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?

Every firm tries to make a profit. It doesn't matter what stage of production they occupy.

So they invested money (capital) into producing a product for a profit. And you claim that isn't a textbook example of capital?

 

[westwall]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Anybody with a working brain.

 

[francoHFW]

N

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Not bipartisan.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah. You don't really get this whole "market" concept, do you?

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

 

[francoHFW]

N

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Not bipartisan.

Unfortunately, the Democrats need 60 votes for reform like Obamacare. The last time they had 60 votes was under wa LBJ, when we got Medicare Medicaid civil rights living wage etc etc

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.

Provide a source for your definition.

Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]​

The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?

Every firm tries to make a profit. It doesn't matter what stage of production they occupy.

So they invested money (capital) into producing a product for a profit. And you claim that isn't a textbook example of capital?

"Capital" is the actually physical good, like a factory. Money is just the medium of exchange you use to purchase it or build it.

 

[francoHFW]

Screw Republicans and screw oligarchs, especially Venezuelan ones. Hands off Venezuela.

And it has very little to do with socialism, which is what they have in France New Zealand etc. Venezuela has always been a third world mess of a country and still is. Trump should come home like he always says he is

New Zealand is ranked #3 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The US is ranked #18. New Zealand is hardly socialist. You have absolutely no clue what socialism is.

It has everything to do with socialism.

So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.

No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.

the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....

I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says. Anyone who takes that as gospel is a certified moron. Some Marxist moron like you probably wrote the entry.

But you just love GOP propaganda sites that have no connection to reality LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Screw Republicans and screw oligarchs, especially Venezuelan ones. Hands off Venezuela.

And it has very little to do with socialism, which is what they have in France New Zealand etc. Venezuela has always been a third world mess of a country and still is. Trump should come home like he always says he is

New Zealand is ranked #3 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The US is ranked #18. New Zealand is hardly socialist. You have absolutely no clue what socialism is.

It has everything to do with socialism.

So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.

No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.

the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....

I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says. Anyone who takes that as gospel is a certified moron. Some Marxist moron like you probably wrote the entry.

For you that is anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh LOL or anyone in academia. You're absolutely out of your mind. Brainwashed functional morons...

 

[georgephillip]

Government meddling is not capitalism. It's socialism. The Teapot Dome scandal is an example of government corruption. How is capitalism responsible for that?

Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia

The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery scandal involving the administration of United States President Warren G. Harding from 1921 to 1923.

"Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming, and two locations in California, to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding."

Crony capitalists meddle in government by bribing politicians for favorable tax and investment policies. Virtually any example of "government corruption" you can find stems from capitalists providing bribes to politicians, and you blame government?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Correct, it was a mismanagement of capital(ism).

Government running the printing press is mismanagement of government.
Nothing to do with capitalism.

Of course a mismanagement of capital has everything to do with capitalism.

Government mismanaged the money supply, government mismanaged the state run oil company.
Neither was the fault of capitalism.

Neither was the fault of Capitalism? How do you know? Was the Tea Pot Dome Scandal a product of Socialism?

My concern with Venezuela is Trump has tried everything to obstruct the Mueller Investigation but invade another country. I have no doubt trump's lack of moral integrity would have no reservations in putting our military in harms way as a means to save his ass from Impeachment and conviction.

Government meddling is not capitalism. It's socialism. The Teapot Dome scandal is an example of government corruption. How is capitalism responsible for that?

What you suspect Trump might do is not under discussion here. I wouldn't be surprised if you suspected him of eating babies. The question is, why is Venezuela such a basket case. Trump obviously isn't responsible.

Trump's administration is corrupt, as is he and his kids. You may be in denial, but the Trump Family is a crime family and that will be proved in New York State and hopefully in the Senate when he is impeached.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. You are so ignorant it must hurt. Read a book on economics. Not a book on Marxist horseshit.

Provide a source for your definition.

Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]​

The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?

Every firm tries to make a profit. It doesn't matter what stage of production they occupy.

So they invested money (capital) into producing a product for a profit. And you claim that isn't a textbook example of capital?

"Capital" is the actual physical good, like a factory or a computer. Money is just the medium of exchange you use to purchase it or build it.

Government meddling is not capitalism. It's socialism. The Teapot Dome scandal is an example of government corruption. How is capitalism responsible for that?

Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia

The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery scandal involving the administration of United States President Warren G. Harding from 1921 to 1923.

"Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming, and two locations in California, to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding."

Crony capitalists meddle in government by bribing politicians for favorable tax and investment policies. Virtually any example of "government corruption" you can find stems from capitalists providing bribes to politicians, and you blame government?

ROFL! So politicians take bribes, and that's the fault of capitalism? I'd say that's the fault of democracy. Do you imagine that politicians under socialism don't take bribes?

 

[bripat9643]

Government running the printing press is mismanagement of government.
Nothing to do with capitalism.

Of course a mismanagement of capital has everything to do with capitalism.

Government mismanaged the money supply, government mismanaged the state run oil company.
Neither was the fault of capitalism.

Neither was the fault of Capitalism? How do you know? Was the Tea Pot Dome Scandal a product of Socialism?

My concern with Venezuela is Trump has tried everything to obstruct the Mueller Investigation but invade another country. I have no doubt trump's lack of moral integrity would have no reservations in putting our military in harms way as a means to save his ass from Impeachment and conviction.

Government meddling is not capitalism. It's socialism. The Teapot Dome scandal is an example of government corruption. How is capitalism responsible for that?

What you suspect Trump might do is not under discussion here. I wouldn't be surprised if you suspected him of eating babies. The question is, why is Venezuela such a basket case. Trump obviously isn't responsible.

Trump's administration is corrupt, as is he and his kids. You may be in denial, but the Trump Family is a crime family and that will be proved in New York State and hopefully in the Senate when he is impeached.

None of the turds making that accusation have managed to prove it.

It's obvious horseshit.

He will never be impeached.

 

[Tehon]

You asked about allocating resources....... We would know how to allocate resources and how to organize labor by seeing what people were consuming in the market.

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

 

[westwall]

New Zealand is ranked #3 on the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. The US is ranked #18. New Zealand is hardly socialist. You have absolutely no clue what socialism is.

It has everything to do with socialism.

So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.

No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.

the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....

I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says. Anyone who takes that as gospel is a certified moron. Some Marxist moron like you probably wrote the entry.

But you just love GOP propaganda sites that have no connection to reality LOL

Let us know when a socialist society actually lasts for more than 50 years. Well, without killing a shitload of its citizens of course. If they are willing to do that they can last a bit longer.

 

[bripat9643]

And how would that work? Would you have government appointed "investors" who watched market trends and allocated resources in response?

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

Why is that only acquired under capitalism?

 

[Tehon]

Computers can track consumption and inventory and alert the manufacturers when the stock should be replenished.

What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

Why is that only acquired under capitalism?

Capitalism is good at driving innovation.

 

[francoHFW]

So what is your definition of socialism, brainwashed functional moron? Everybody outside your bubble of GOP crap believes that socialism now means always Democratic fair capitalism with a good safety net. Read something and see the world, brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur.

No they don't, moron, especially not economists. Socialism is government control of the means of production. I've posted this 1000 times. Your definition is self serving. It allows you to ignore any country were socialism led to disaster. The countries you call "socialist" aren't really socialist. You have even admitted that they're capitalist.

the definition says owned or regulated by the government, regulated being the same as controlled. Thus can be just about anything.... Wikipedia says it started out as Marxist theory commas and became the USSR style, now it means well regulated always democratic faire capitalism with a good safety net.the only people in the world that have no clue are you brainwashed GOP Cold War dinosaur functional morons....

I couldn't care less what Wikipedia says. Anyone who takes that as gospel is a certified moron. Some Marxist moron like you probably wrote the entry.

But you just love GOP propaganda sites that have no connection to reality LOL

Let us know when a socialist society actually lasts for more than 50 years. Well, without killing a shitload of its citizens of course. If they are willing to do that they can last a bit longer.

Since you are a dupe, you are no doubt talking about communism. Then you have the USSR lasted 70 years. or you might be talking about the modern definition of socialism, in which case there is the UK France Germany etc since World War II, also 70 years.

 

[bripat9643]

What we've seen in socialist countries like the USSR is that consumption is determine by how long you are willing to stand in line. It has little to do with price. What motive does a manufacturer have for replenishing stocks? There's only one manufacturer: the government. It faces no penalty for not meeting demand. It will never go bankrupt.

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

Why is that only acquired under capitalism?

Capitalism is good at driving innovation.

That's true. What is socialism good at? You appear to be admitting that under socialism all progress stops. I agree with that assessment.

 

[Tehon]

Provide a source for your definition.

Capital - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer's needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.[1]​

The capital goods that were produced in the first instance, were they sold to the secondary manufacturer (the one who produced the consumer good) for a profit?

Every firm tries to make a profit. It doesn't matter what stage of production they occupy.

So they invested money (capital) into producing a product for a profit. And you claim that isn't a textbook example of capital?

"Capital" is the actually physical good, like a factory. Money is just the medium of exchange you use to purchase it or build it.

The money you used to build the factory was a Capital Investment.

 

[Tehon]

The USSR lacked the technology to build a socialist society.

Socialism can't work unless capitalism has already made a country rich? Really?

I think that technological know how is an imperative in sustaining a country's population. Don't you?

Why is that only acquired under capitalism?

Capitalism is good at driving innovation.

That's true. What is socialism good at? You appear to be admitting that under socialism all progress stops. I agree with that assessment.

That is quite a leap. Progress doesn't stop, it has never stopped.

Socialism will liberate us from capital tyranny.