Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 96

Thread: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    in a neocon's craw
    Last Seen
    04-24-17 @ 10:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,801

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Quote Originally Posted by Defensor View Post
    Anyone who lives in the United States knows what a socialist state looks like.
    We've been this way since the republicans created the federal reserve at the turn of the century and it sisn't going to reverse so where are you going to move to?

  2. #72
    User Defensor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    04-21-09 @ 09:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    144

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    Government spending or federal government spending?

    You seem to think the government should stay out of the "free market" so why would you expect the government to change what it does when the "free market" does it's thing? IOW, if the two shouldn't be involved with each other then when FM consumption and investment spending go down it shouldn't matter to the government. Right?
    Correct.

    OK, so what do you do for a living that doesn't use the public commons that was paid for and maintained by tax dollars. What do you do for a living?
    I work in the private sector and do not live off the government.


    You said government and did not specify state or federal. Your local fire department gets federal tax dollars. So lets just say you mean state government. OK, the state needs to collect taxes from you for the police and fire dept. along with a myriad of other services you take for granted. But without federal monies your state taxes will have to go up in order to cover the federal loss.
    And? My federal tax dollars go to subsidize the spending habits of other states. Why is fedgov in the money laundering business?

    Any federal money going to fire departments is incredibly minuscule. Most fire departments are maintained primarily, if not entirely, by local and state taxes, and outside of urban areas, volunteer fire departments are the norm. Not even a dent in the federal budget.

    With regard to state police, I've never had any need for them or any interaction with them at all besides the usual highway troopers. I don't see how I "take them for granted."

    So your attempt to misrepresent the facts as though any budget cut would fall upon emergency services or road maintenance falls flat.


    What was the federal budget for 2008?
    Nearly $3 trillion, with socialist programs and imperialism taking the lion's share of it.


    List them for discussion. You apparently know right where all of them are.
    Don't be dense, google the U.S. Constitution if you are interested. Article 1, Section 8 covers the powers of Congress.


    What intervention was that?
    Of course the Federal Reserve created the initial bubble as it has been wont to do since its founding, and this was the main cause of the crisis, but the problems in the housing market in particular were also exacerbated by the reckless behavior of the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and by other government shenanigans like the Community Reinvestment Act.


    Isn't that what just happened in the last 2 elections?
    Americans elected Bush in 2004 and Bush in a brown costume in 2008...what could you possibly be referring to?

  3. #73
    User Defensor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    04-21-09 @ 09:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    144

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    We've been this way since the republicans created the federal reserve at the turn of the century and it sisn't going to reverse so where are you going to move to?
    Woodrow Wilson signed the bill and the Democrats controlled both houses when it passed; your party is hardly innocent.

  4. #74
    User Defensor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    04-21-09 @ 09:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    144

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slippery Slope View Post
    It contributed to the problems by allowing unfettered greed. Can you name a time and place that laissez-faire capitalism has worked?
    Already answered by someone.

    In your untrained opinion.
    Dismissing economic facts as "opinion" now?

    If I said that water is wet, you'd have the same nonsensical response.


    Would it be worse without the stimulus? The vast majority of economists seem to think so.
    It WILL be much worse with Obama's porkulus package. This is agreed upon by all economists who haven't turned out to have been wrong about everything thus far.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    The problem is that you don't view society as a social compact and wish for a free-for-all economy.
    Incorrect. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I believe in certain government regulations but only in a minimal fashion.

    The only outcome for that is a wealthy merchant class and a poor servant class.
    There are only two ways a wealthy merchant class can maintain their position in the market.

    1. They are doing a good job.

    -If someone stays in business and turns a profit it's because consumers prefer to transact with them. They have an efficient business model that provides consumers with a product or service at a price they find reasonable. Not only that, but they contribute positively to the economy by providing jobs and facilitating capital creation. This helps raise the standard of living for everyone who is willing to work hard. If the business deviates from their model a more efficient business model will supplant it.

    2. Government favoritism.

    -Inefficient business models are able to survive creative destruction via government regulation and intervention. They lobby the government for favors who subsequently intervenes and regulates on their behalf. This accomplishes three things:

    a. It props up inefficient business models with tax payer money.

    b. It stymies competition and hinders more efficient business models from entering the market.

    c. Both.

    The first example (doing a good job absent government favoritism) is a true free-market. The second example (government favoritism) is basically what we have now and what you are seeking to legitimize. The government does not intervene on your behalf, Slippy. They could care less about you. They are intervening on behalf of big business and special interests. Get the government out of the economy and allow creative destruction to work its magic.

    Eventually, there is revolt because society needs socialism because we are social animals with empathy. Those without empathy only care about themselves.
    I believe in individual compassion, not government mandated compassion. I will not forfeit my moral obligation to others by pawning it off on the government.

    What's your tax bracket right now?
    I'm poor. I go to school.

    Would you freely give up the same amount to private charity and private businesses to get the same level of services?
    It depends on what my needs were at the time. If I were financially secure I wouldn't hesitate to donate my money and time to worthy causes, but one could not expect me to forfeit my income if I truly needed it, oh wait, the government already does that.

    As for forfeiting services I would only forfeit services that I derive no conceivable benefit from. I'm willing to pay taxes for national defense, roads, police, fire departments, and basic infrastructural necessities. What I'm not willing to pay for is someone's mortgage, healthcare, or welfare.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    1. They are doing a good job.

    -If someone stays in business and turns a profit it's because consumers prefer to transact with them. They have an efficient business model that provides consumers with a product or service at a price they find reasonable. Not only that, but they contribute positively to the economy by providing jobs and facilitating capital creation. This helps raise the standard of living for everyone who is willing to work hard. If the business deviates from their model a more efficient business model will supplant it.
    Competition leads to monopolization which leads to stagnation.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Competition leads to monopolization which leads to stagnation.
    I've never used this icon before but I feel this post warrants it...



    Competition prevents monopolies from forming. The reason Coca-Cola doesn't have a monopoly on the soda market is because they have a bevy of competitors.

    Competition encourages lower prices and increased efficiency. You've got it backwards, my friend.

  8. #78
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Competition prevents monopolies from forming. The reason Coca-Cola doesn't have a monopoly on the soda market is because they have a bevy of competitors.
    I said monopolization. There is a reason there are only a small handful of large soda companies, for example; the only way smaller businesses are able to compete is through the establishment of niche markets.

    Competition encourages lower prices and increased efficiency.
    Competition leads to capital accumulation, which tends towards (is that better wording for you?) monopolization and stagnation.

    You've got it backwards, my friend.
    What have I got backwards? I agree with your statement, by the way. Competition is mainly in developments in productivity/efficiency which leads to lower prices (which is the point of competition).
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 02-18-09 at 09:17 PM.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    I said monopolization.
    I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction. Monopolization is the process of acquiring a monopoly. Competition inhibits the formation of monopolies or the process of monopolization.

    No competition = monopoly. Competition = no monopoly.

    There is a reason there are only a small handful of large soda companies
    Yes, the reason being they have efficient business models and provide a product at a reasonable price to consumers. They create jobs, provide millions in tax revenue, and facilitate capital creation. Their existence is highly beneficial to our economy.

    the only way smaller businesses are able to compete is through the establishment of niche markets.
    Tough cookies. I can buy twelve ounces of delicious Coca-Cola for about $1.25 at just about any gas station, store, or restaurant in the country. Unless someone can do better than that I'm not inclined to purchase their product. I save money and time buying from Coca-Cola; this surplus of money and time increases productivity.

    Moreover, many of these smaller business who find niche markets often turn into successful corporations after time, just so long as they maintain an efficient business model and provide a desirable service or product at a reasonable price.

    However, attaining success is not supposed to be easy - especially the kind of success attained by Coca-Cola - hence the difficult nature of breaking into the soda market or any other market for that matter. If you want to become very wealthy then you better have a great idea and a strong work ethic.

    Competition leads to capital accumulation
    Is there any kind of business model - aside from crappy ones - that doesn't lead to capital accumulation?

    which tends towards (is that better wording for you?) monopolization and stagnation.
    I'm going to coin a new logical fallacy. Hopefully the DP will embrace it...

    This is what I like to refer to as the "underpants gnomes fallacy".

    Phase one: Competition leads to capital accumulation.

    Phase two: ???

    Phase three: Monopolization and stagnation.

    If you are unfamiliar with the underpants gnomes then please click on the following link...

    Gnomes | South Park | Comedy Central

    What have I got backwards?
    Your premise.

  10. #80
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Are Obama's Policies Ushering in Era of Socialism? [EDIT]

    Tough cookies. I can buy twelve ounces of delicious Coca-Cola for about $1.25 at just about any gas station, store, or restaurant in the country. Unless someone can do better than that I'm not inclined to purchase their product. I save money and time buying from Coca-Cola; this surplus of money and time increases productivity.
    I'm not arguing in support of small business, so yes, I realize that it is "tough cookies".

    I'm going to coin a new logical fallacy. Hopefully the DP will embrace it...

    This is what I like to refer to as the "underpants gnomes fallacy".

    Phase one: Competition leads to capital accumulation.

    Phase two: ???

    Phase three: Monopolization and stagnation.

    If you are unfamiliar with the underpants gnomes then please click on the following link...

    Gnomes | South Park | Comedy Central
    The tendency towards monopolization is the tendency for capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands. As you have agreed, competition leads to capital accumulation, and as you have also said, capital accumulation leads to increasing difficulty of competing with that company due to the fact of the "difficult nature of breaking into the market".

    Your premise.
    Which premise?

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •