Will America Go Communist?

[georgephillip]

Because fiat money, does not have any inherent value, by printing more money, you are devaluing the money

That depends on what the money is used for. If it''s used to prop up speculation like the current Fed's interventions in the Repo market, negative consequences will result.

On the other hand, if the money is used to fund millions of productive jobs, the resulting boost to consumption will produce positive consequences.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-included-everything-in-the-national-GDP

 

[georgephillip]

Does it not seem odd to you that if your MMT system worked, that governments would still be borrowing money? Why would they do this? Why would any government anywhere in the world borrow so much as a penny, if they can simply print all the money they need?

That is indeed a trillion dollar question
Why do governments borrow money?
Perhaps the profit motive and interest rates explain why?

Modern Monetary Theory - Wikipedia

"The first four MMT tenets do not conflict with mainstream economics understanding of how money creation and inflation works.

"For example, as former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan said, 'The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.'[8]

"However, MMT economists disagree with mainstream economics about the fifth tenet, on the impact of government deficits on interest rates.[9][10][11][12][13]

 

[Andylusion]

Besides, they did.

Venezuela Merges Nationalised Banks to Form New Bicentenary Bank

Happened back in 2009.

Your link:

"Bolívar, Central and Confederado Banks were among eight banks taken over by the government in late November as a result of a mini banking crisis that prompted the arrest of a number of prominent bankers for violation of banking regulations.

"As a result of the merger of the three banks with the already state-owned bank, Banfoandes, it is estimated that the Bicentenary Bank now holds nearly 20% of all deposits in Venezuela."

What about the other 80% of bank deposits?

Were they held in private banks?

Doesn't look like it, at least not 80%. Again, I don't know why it matters. When you own everything, what difference does it make who holds the accounts?

If I own your house, does it really matter who owns the mortgage? No. Because I own the house, no matter who has the mortgage.

That said, from what I've read, out of the largest banks in the entire country, two of the largest are state owned:
Banco Bicentenario Banco Universal
and
Banco de Venezuela

Both of these banks, appear to have roughly 1/5 of the market.

That means at best 3/5 of the deposits in the market are with private institutions.

However, those banks are much smaller than the government run banks. Spanish to english translations pages are not perfect, but it appears the next largest bank is just 7% of the market... compared to the 40% for the state run institutions.

However, even ignoring that state control and ownership of the means of production is key to your argument, the reality is, none of the banks matter. None of them do.

You can't get $1 out of the bank in Venezuela. I tried.

What difference does it make, when none of the banks, state owned, or privately owned, have any money?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Andylusion]

Because fiat money, does not have any inherent value, by printing more money, you are devaluing the money

That depends on what the money is used for. If it''s used to prop up speculation like the current Fed's interventions in the Repo market, negative consequences will result.

On the other hand, if the money is used to fund millions of productive jobs, the resulting boost to consumption will produce positive consequences.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-included-everything-in-the-national-GDP

Just a fundamentally wrong claim. Again, not a single example of that in the entire world. Venezuela tried that. Cuba tried that. North Korea tried that. Greece tried that.

Everything you claim here, has been tried. Why has it not worked?

I mean by your logic, Greece should have been the economic powerhouse lead of Europe, given how they were blowing endless billions on these funded productive jobs, that should have resulted in boosting consumption, and produce positive consequences.

It never happened. In fact, directly after doing all that, the entire country imploded.

Your system has never worked. Not once. You can't point to a single example, anywhere in the world, where that worked.

And the reason for this is actually simple.

What determines what is productive?

Does the government filled with politicians, and political lobbyists know what is productive? Or does the market?

The market. A government doesn't know if a building in plain city ohio would be productive or not. Who would know if it is productive to build there? The people who would live there, or work there, or produce something there.

How would a politicians in Washington know where to have someone build anything? They wouldn't.... except that you have lobbyists, and the special interests, are less interested in what is productive, than getting the government contract.

This is why you have China's ghost cities.

That's why your system doesn't work.

 

[Thunderbird]

Marxist-Leninists create dictatorships supposedly to end exploitation, but in the end deliver the worst exploitation: tyranny, famine, and gulags.

Analysis | 10 Things You Should Know About Socialism

"Socialism is an economic system very different from capitalism, feudalism, and slavery.

"Each of the latter divided society into a dominant minority class (masters, lords, and employers) and a dominated majority (slaves, serfs, employees).

"When the majority recognized slavery and feudal systems as injustices, they eventually fell."

Can you acknowledge the existence of Communist dictatorships or are you too far gone?

Capitalism comes from slavery.

In Europe there was a feudal interlude; however, in MAGA-land, capitalism came directly from the enslavement of millions of Africans and the mass murder of millions of Native Americans.

You call that "great."?

Not really.

No, Slavery Did Not Make America Rich | Corey Iacono

 

[Thunderbird]

Why not move to Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Venezuela? You needn’t worry about capitalist exploitation in those countries.

Why not MAGA?

Analysis | 10 Things You Should Know About Socialism

Don’t believe lying politicians.

How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases | RealClearPolitics

"5. Thank American socialists, communists, and unionists for the 1930s New Deal

"FDR’s government raised the revenue necessary for Washington to fund massive, expensive increases in public services during the Depression of the 1930s.

"These included the Social Security system, the first federal unemployment compensation system, the first federal minimum wage, and a mass federal jobs program.

"FDR’s revenues came from taxing corporations and the rich more than ever before."

Okay but much of the New Deal is still in place not to mention Great Society and other programs. So why are you complaining?

 

[georgephillip]

Besides, they did.

Venezuela Merges Nationalised Banks to Form New Bicentenary Bank

Happened back in 2009.

Your link:

"Bolívar, Central and Confederado Banks were among eight banks taken over by the government in late November as a result of a mini banking crisis that prompted the arrest of a number of prominent bankers for violation of banking regulations.

"As a result of the merger of the three banks with the already state-owned bank, Banfoandes, it is estimated that the Bicentenary Bank now holds nearly 20% of all deposits in Venezuela."

What about the other 80% of bank deposits?

Were they held in private banks?

Doesn't look like it, at least not 80%. Again, I don't know why it matters. When you own everything, what difference does it make who holds the accounts?

If I own your house, does it really matter who owns the mortgage? No. Because I own the house, no matter who has the mortgage.

That said, from what I've read, out of the largest banks in the entire country, two of the largest are state owned:
Banco Bicentenario Banco Universal
and
Banco de Venezuela

Both of these banks, appear to have roughly 1/5 of the market.

That means at best 3/5 of the deposits in the market are with private institutions.

However, those banks are much smaller than the government run banks. Spanish to english translations pages are not perfect, but it appears the next largest bank is just 7% of the market... compared to the 40% for the state run institutions.

However, even ignoring that state control and ownership of the means of production is key to your argument, the reality is, none of the banks matter. None of them do.

You can't get $1 out of the bank in Venezuela. I tried.

What difference does it make, when none of the banks, state owned, or privately owned, have any money?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

What the relevancy of nationalizing all banks to implementing socialism?

List of nationalizations by country - Wikipedia

"Venezuela[edit]

• "1916, nationalization of the Puerto Cabello and Valencia railway under the rule of Juan Vicente Gómez.[86]
• 1976, foundation of PDVSA with the nationalization of the Venezuelan oil industry under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez.
• 2007 On May 1, 2007, the government stripped the world's biggest oil companies of operational control over massive Orinoco Belt crude projects, a controversial component in President Hugo Chávez's nationalization drive.
• 2008 On April 3, 2008, Chávez ordered the nationalization of the cement industry.[87]
• 2008 On April 9, 2008, Chávez ordered the nationalization of Venezuelan steel mill Sidor, in which Luxembourg-based Ternium currently holds a 60% stake. Sidor employees and the Government hold a 20% stake respectively

• 2008 On August 19, 2008, Chávez ordered the take-over of a cement plant owned and operated by Cemex, an international cement producer. While shares of Cemex fell on the New York Stock Exchange, the cement plant comprises only about 5% of the company's business, and is not expected to adversely affect the company's ability to produce in other markets. Chávez has been looking to nationalize the concrete and steel industries of his country to meet home building and infrastructure goals.[89]
• 2009 On February 28, 2009, Chávez ordered the army to take over all rice processing and packaging plants.[90]
• 2010 On January 20, 2010, Chávez signed an ordinance to nationalize six supermarkets under the system of retail stores of a French company because of increasing price and speculation hoarding illicit.[91]
• 2010 On June 24, 2010, Venezuela announced the intention to nationalize oil drilling rigs belonging to the U.S. company Helmerich & Payne.[92]
• 2010 On October 25, 2010, Chávez announced that the government was nationalizing two U.S.-owned Owens-Illinois glass-manufacturing plants.[9

• 2010 On October 31, 2010, Chávez said his government will take over the Sidetur steel manufacturing plant. Sidetur is owned by Vivencia, which had two mineral plants appropriated by the government in 2008.[93]
• 2015 Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro promises to nationalize food distribution."

 

[georgephillip]

Don’t believe lying politicians.

How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases | RealClearPolitics

Methane & Fracking: What You Need to Know

 

[Thunderbird]

Don’t believe lying politicians.

How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases | RealClearPolitics

Methane & Fracking: What You Need to Know

Read the whole article: Methane & Fracking: What You Need to Know

 

[georgephillip]

Okay but much of the New Deal is still in place not to mention Great Society and other programs. So why are you complaining?

Primarily because over the course of my lifetime (72), I've seen the "money interests" that FDR took on mount a sustained, bipartisan attack on much of the New Deal:

The US supreme court has taken a sledgehammer to the New Deal | Heather Cox Richardson

"Since the 1930s, when then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to break the hold of moneyed men on the government and broker 'a new deal for the American people', a cabal of reactionaries resolved to destroy the new government Democrats created.

"Roosevelt’s New Deal regulated business, protected social welfare and promoted national infrastructure on the principle that the role of government was not simply to protect the property of the wealthy, but rather was to promote equality of opportunity for all."

The New Deal played a key part in creating the greatest middle class in history, something the richest one percent wasted no time in destroying.

Historical Changes in U.S. Income Inequality - Sociological Images

 

[Thunderbird]

Okay but much of the New Deal is still in place not to mention Great Society and other programs. So why are you complaining?

Primarily because over the course of my lifetime (72), I've seen the "money interests" that FDR took on mount a sustained, bipartisan attack on much of the New Deal:

The US supreme court has taken a sledgehammer to the New Deal | Heather Cox Richardson

"Since the 1930s, when then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to break the hold of moneyed men on the government and broker 'a new deal for the American people', a cabal of reactionaries resolved to destroy the new government Democrats created.

"Roosevelt’s New Deal regulated business, protected social welfare and promoted national infrastructure on the principle that the role of government was not simply to protect the property of the wealthy, but rather was to promote equality of opportunity for all."

The New Deal played a key part in creating the greatest middle class in history, something the richest one percent wasted no time in destroying.

Historical Changes in U.S. Income Inequality - Sociological Images

What you’re missing is that the money interests love big government.

Big Corporations and Big Government Go Hand in Hand | FreedomWorks

 

[georgephillip]

Read the whole article: Methane & Fracking: What You Need to Know

Fracking has the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that's only one consideration as far as its effects on the environment are concerned:

The environmental costs and benefits of fracking: The state of research - Journalist's Resource

"A lot of this is good news: U.S. consumers and industry rarely complain when energy prices fall, and reducing imports from unstable parts of the world has considerable appeal.

"Natural gas also releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal, allowing it to potentially serve as a 'bridge fuel' to the cleaner energy supported by the majority of Americans

"Despite these advantages, fracking remains highly controversial, in large part because of the potential damage it poses to human health and the environment.

"Reports of fracking operations contaminating aquifers are widespread, and research has found indications of higher rates of silicosis among well workers, an increase in congenital defects to children born nearby, and elevated cancer risk due to air pollution.

"Even earthquakes have been linked to fracking operations.

"Such concerns have led a number of towns to try to ban the practice, and fracking has become one of the central issues in the 2014 battle for Colorado’s governorship, a crucial swing state."

 

[georgephillip]

Can you acknowledge the existence of Communist dictatorships or are you too far gone?

I have no problem condemning the terror inflicted by Stalin and Mao. I wonder if you have any concern for the dictatorship of capital that rules this county?

Either you own property or you become property; there is nothing else in a property-based world.

Bourgeois Elections and the Dictatorship of Capital

"As the presidential primary circus kicks off, America’s rulers tout this country’s political system as a model of democracy.

"The First Congress of the Communist International in 1919 contrasted the fraud of bourgeois democracy, a fig leaf for the class dictatorship of capital, to the system of proletarian rule in the form of soviets (councils) in the early workers state established through the 1917 October Revolution in Russia."

 

[Andylusion]

Besides, they did.

Venezuela Merges Nationalised Banks to Form New Bicentenary Bank

Happened back in 2009.

Your link:

"Bolívar, Central and Confederado Banks were among eight banks taken over by the government in late November as a result of a mini banking crisis that prompted the arrest of a number of prominent bankers for violation of banking regulations.

"As a result of the merger of the three banks with the already state-owned bank, Banfoandes, it is estimated that the Bicentenary Bank now holds nearly 20% of all deposits in Venezuela."

What about the other 80% of bank deposits?

Were they held in private banks?

Doesn't look like it, at least not 80%. Again, I don't know why it matters. When you own everything, what difference does it make who holds the accounts?

If I own your house, does it really matter who owns the mortgage? No. Because I own the house, no matter who has the mortgage.

That said, from what I've read, out of the largest banks in the entire country, two of the largest are state owned:
Banco Bicentenario Banco Universal
and
Banco de Venezuela

Both of these banks, appear to have roughly 1/5 of the market.

That means at best 3/5 of the deposits in the market are with private institutions.

However, those banks are much smaller than the government run banks. Spanish to english translations pages are not perfect, but it appears the next largest bank is just 7% of the market... compared to the 40% for the state run institutions.

However, even ignoring that state control and ownership of the means of production is key to your argument, the reality is, none of the banks matter. None of them do.

You can't get $1 out of the bank in Venezuela. I tried.

What difference does it make, when none of the banks, state owned, or privately owned, have any money?

Totally irrelevant to the discussion.

What the relevancy of nationalizing all banks to implementing socialism?

List of nationalizations by country - Wikipedia

"Venezuela[edit]

• "1916, nationalization of the Puerto Cabello and Valencia railway under the rule of Juan Vicente Gómez.[86]
• 1976, foundation of PDVSA with the nationalization of the Venezuelan oil industry under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez.
• 2007 On May 1, 2007, the government stripped the world's biggest oil companies of operational control over massive Orinoco Belt crude projects, a controversial component in President Hugo Chávez's nationalization drive.
• 2008 On April 3, 2008, Chávez ordered the nationalization of the cement industry.[87]
• 2008 On April 9, 2008, Chávez ordered the nationalization of Venezuelan steel mill Sidor, in which Luxembourg-based Ternium currently holds a 60% stake. Sidor employees and the Government hold a 20% stake respectively

• 2008 On August 19, 2008, Chávez ordered the take-over of a cement plant owned and operated by Cemex, an international cement producer. While shares of Cemex fell on the New York Stock Exchange, the cement plant comprises only about 5% of the company's business, and is not expected to adversely affect the company's ability to produce in other markets. Chávez has been looking to nationalize the concrete and steel industries of his country to meet home building and infrastructure goals.[89]
• 2009 On February 28, 2009, Chávez ordered the army to take over all rice processing and packaging plants.[90]
• 2010 On January 20, 2010, Chávez signed an ordinance to nationalize six supermarkets under the system of retail stores of a French company because of increasing price and speculation hoarding illicit.[91]
• 2010 On June 24, 2010, Venezuela announced the intention to nationalize oil drilling rigs belonging to the U.S. company Helmerich & Payne.[92]
• 2010 On October 25, 2010, Chávez announced that the government was nationalizing two U.S.-owned Owens-Illinois glass-manufacturing plants.[9

• 2010 On October 31, 2010, Chávez said his government will take over the Sidetur steel manufacturing plant. Sidetur is owned by Vivencia, which had two mineral plants appropriated by the government in 2008.[93]
• 2015 Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro promises to nationalize food distribution."

Nothing you posted, answered the question.
All you did was validate my position, that they socialized vast swaths of the economy. I agree.
And the economy imploded because of that. Again, I agree.
So.... what was your point again?

 

[Andylusion]

Don’t believe lying politicians.

How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases | RealClearPolitics

Methane & Fracking: What You Need to Know

Methane is barely a fraction of the what the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, and CO2 is barely a fraction of the total greenhouse effect.
In other words, methane is far less significant, than even CO2, which is insignificant.

Not an issue.

 

[Andylusion]

Okay but much of the New Deal is still in place not to mention Great Society and other programs. So why are you complaining?

Primarily because over the course of my lifetime (72), I've seen the "money interests" that FDR took on mount a sustained, bipartisan attack on much of the New Deal:

The US supreme court has taken a sledgehammer to the New Deal | Heather Cox Richardson

"Since the 1930s, when then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to break the hold of moneyed men on the government and broker 'a new deal for the American people', a cabal of reactionaries resolved to destroy the new government Democrats created.

"Roosevelt’s New Deal regulated business, protected social welfare and promoted national infrastructure on the principle that the role of government was not simply to protect the property of the wealthy, but rather was to promote equality of opportunity for all."

The New Deal played a key part in creating the greatest middle class in history, something the richest one percent wasted no time in destroying.

Historical Changes in U.S. Income Inequality - Sociological Images

Interesting.... so the high point of the 1920s, when the entire economy was doing fantastic, and everyone was prospering. The low point in the 1970s when the economy sucked, and we had the misery index. And then a high point again in the late 90s to 2000s, when the economy was good, and everyone was prospering.

What can we learn from this? Inequality of income, is usually when everyone is doing well. Equality of economy, is when the entire economy sucks, and everyone is doing badly.

 

[Andylusion]

Can you acknowledge the existence of Communist dictatorships or are you too far gone?

I have no problem condemning the terror inflicted by Stalin and Mao. I wonder if you have any concern for the dictatorship of capital that rules this county?

Either you own property or you become property; there is nothing else in a property-based world.

Bourgeois Elections and the Dictatorship of Capital

"As the presidential primary circus kicks off, America’s rulers tout this country’s political system as a model of democracy.

"The First Congress of the Communist International in 1919 contrasted the fraud of bourgeois democracy, a fig leaf for the class dictatorship of capital, to the system of proletarian rule in the form of soviets (councils) in the early workers state established through the 1917 October Revolution in Russia."

Really? Who dictates my life, from capital? If I quit my job, what is going to happen? If I save millions of dollars, who is going to stop me?

Your claims never match reality.

 

[regent]

The Republicans have been predicting America becoming communist for so long now, that it would be in the Republican interests if America did go communistic. Republicans could shout to the world how right they were predicting America is going communistic.

 

[georgephillip]

Not really.

No, Slavery Did Not Make America Rich | Corey Iacono

Your link:

"In 1847, Karl Marx wrote that

"Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry…cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.

"As with most of his postulations concerning economics, Marx was proven wrong."

Marx didn't get slavery or capitalism wrong although a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in Pharmaceutical Science apparently believes otherwise.

The Poverty of Philosophy - Chapter 2.1

"Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides.

"Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.

"Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc.

"Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry.

"Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance.

"Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country.

"Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization.

"Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.[*1]

"Thus slavery, because it is an economic category, has always existed among the institutions of the peoples.

"Modern nations have been able only to disguise slavery in their own countries, but they have imposed it without disguise upon the New World."

 

[Thunderbird]

Can you acknowledge the existence of Communist dictatorships or are you too far gone?

I have no problem condemning the terror inflicted by Stalin and Mao. I wonder if you have any concern for the dictatorship of capital that rules this county?

Either you own property or you become property; there is nothing else in a property-based world.

Bourgeois Elections and the Dictatorship of Capital

"As the presidential primary circus kicks off, America’s rulers tout this country’s political system as a model of democracy.

"The First Congress of the Communist International in 1919 contrasted the fraud of bourgeois democracy, a fig leaf for the class dictatorship of capital, to the system of proletarian rule in the form of soviets (councils) in the early workers state established through the 1917 October Revolution in Russia."

Can you condemn Lenin as well?

Lenin Paints Himself Black With His Own Words