Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

ashurbanipal · Sep 24, 2012

Diogenes said:
"Willing" - to me - means free of external coercion, and the exchange applies to both labor and goods.

Still no good--what counts as external coercion? Suppose I am Joseph Stalin, and I keep food shipments from reaching a particular region of Siberia. Now, people are working there because I decided that was a good place for a factory, but I've since decided it would be better if those people weren't a burden on the Soviet State any longer. I'm not preventing them from eating anything--they can eat each other, or pine bark, or whatever. Am I engaging in any external coercion?

If you answer yes to this, how do you avoid also thinking that workers in our society are coerced, since the means of production are all owned? Land is the primary resource, and there isn't a single piece of land anywhere that isn't owned by someone. Those owners determine what resources will be developed on their land, and more particularly, how much is paid to those who develop those resources. This last, for two reasons: first, because it's just true. As Adam Smith points out, the "masters" will always collude on wages. This is partly facilitated by government, and partly by associations such as chambers-of-commerce, or institutions like Robert Half, which publishes a "wage guide" to businesses every year. Second, because the owners of resources are privileged to decide not to develop a resource, even if that resource is needed by the community.

Diogenes said:
The only way to make that work is for a discontented worker to be free to go make (and try to sell) his own barrels. Then your algorithm will work, and the worker who overvalues his effort will go hungry while the owner who undervalues the worker's efforts will go broke. But you can't sit in your faculty lounge and determine the value of either barrels or workers; only the market can do that.

Why is that the only way to make this work? Seems like it could simply be legislated into reality: whatever the factory owner sells the barrel for determines how much the wages are for the barrel-maker. The owners expenses are deducted, and a determined profit, and the rest is remitted back to the barrel maker.

Diogenes said:
T-bills and CDs are, to some extent, guaranteed. A new business is certainly not

The point I was making is that we would have to provide such a guarantee. I'm trying to be sensitive to, and sensible about, the fact that a person with capital risks it to start a business.

In combination with an overhaul of how money works, as I have suggested, there wouldn't be any real loss to doing this. Suppose I start a business under such a system and fail miserably. I'm just no good at business. Still, I get bailed out--I get all my capital back because that's what the law says should happen. In fact, taxpayers are paying me, but the money I lost still went back into the economy somehow. Where I lose, someone else wins (perhaps I was selling barrels below my costs; either others now have barrels that can sell for a profit, or my materials suppliers have more money).

Diogenes said:
I've known several people who became quite wealthy during the tech boom of the nineties, and several who have lost a great deal of money betting on failed ideas like electric cars. As you observe, low risk and low reward will appeal to a cautious person - but I see no reason whatsoever for government to get involved in high risk endeavors, either to penalize the successful gamblers or subsidize the failures. Perhaps you can offer some counter-examples.

I think perhaps I haven't been clear: I'm proposing that to acheive any measure of social justice, we will have to completely overhaul our economic system at a basic level. Capitalism, as currently practiced, does not work. Neither does socialism. Purely or mostly competetive models of commerce are unbalanced one direction, and purely or mostly cooperative models are unbalanced in a different direction. But if these don't work (as I think they do not), what does?

Diogenes said:
Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more. A fiat currency is more dangerous than a gold standard because it is subject to government manipulation (as in post-WWI Germany, or currently in Argentina).

I never said otherwise, but the gold standard is really no better. Instead of manipulating the currency, you just manipulate the gold market, and still end up with essentially the same bad consequences.

Diogenes said:
After-tax wealth belongs to the person who owns it, not the government or society. What is the rationale for limiting who that person can give it to?

Again, I'm willing to jettison just about any idea about such things as ownership, money, markets, or the like, provided there is a good reason for it. So, your assertion that after-tax wealth belongs to the person who owns it is neither true nor false under such a framework. I'm asking whether such things should be the case, not whether they are or are not the case.

That said, despite the other overhauls I've suggested, there remains the problem of attractors. As more and more money accumulates in some container, the rate of accumulation for that container also increases. This is a problem for the rest of society when wealth is finite (as it must be).

I think a good case can be made that when we're trying to figure out ownership, society qua society has a seat at the table. To see why, just try this thought experiment: take any wealthy individual--doesn't matter who--rewind the clock on them so that they're young again, and place them smack in the middle of Summeria in 2500 B.C. How likely are they to amass the same kind of wealth as they currently enjoy? Even assuming they know the language and customs, and can blend in like a native, I think the obvious answer is that they simply will not accrue such wealth. Bill Gates will not start up microsoft, Warren Buffet will not get Berkshire Hathaway going again, and so on. But why not? The only difference is that societies have changed. This must imply a direct role that society has in the accumulation of wealth, and therefore in ownership.

ecofarm · Sep 24, 2012

LiberalAvenger said:
No, your computer did.:roll:

Are you actually accusing me of lying about changing my lean? I've been 'independent' since day 1. A mod can confirm that.

274ina · Sep 24, 2012

Diogenes said:
Would you require a secret ballot? Have you seen the 1953 movie On The Waterfront?

of course. They always are.

no but i will.......

Yes, I see the plot. But this goes to my point that the rich LOVE mob and or corrupt unions.
This distracts the union people from fighting the corp, to civil war and not getting anything.

That is why major labor reforms are needed.

274ina · Sep 24, 2012

Diogenes said:
Affordable, but not necessarily available at that price. If you cap the price too low, you no longer have willing sellers.

I dont care if they are willing or not. Law says they will offer the coverage per the ACA.

So agian, the poor WILL BE COVERED with REAL insurance.

Diogenes · Sep 24, 2012

274ina said:
I dont care if they are willing or not. Law says they will offer the coverage per the ACA.

So agian, the poor WILL BE COVERED with REAL insurance.

Never happen. They will only offer ACA coverage if they want to be in the business. When they can't make a living at it, they will find something else to do.

Diogenes · Sep 24, 2012

ashurbanipal said:
Still no good--what counts as external coercion? Suppose I am Joseph Stalin, and I keep food shipments from reaching a particular region of Siberia. Now, people are working there because I decided that was a good place for a factory, but I've since decided it would be better if those people weren't a burden on the Soviet State any longer. I'm not preventing them from eating anything--they can eat each other, or pine bark, or whatever. Am I engaging in any external coercion?

If you answer yes to this, how do you avoid also thinking that workers in our society are coerced, since the means of production are all owned? Land is the primary resource, and there isn't a single piece of land anywhere that isn't owned by someone. Those owners determine what resources will be developed on their land, and more particularly, how much is paid to those who develop those resources. This last, for two reasons: first, because it's just true. As Adam Smith points out, the "masters" will always collude on wages. This is partly facilitated by government, and partly by associations such as chambers-of-commerce, or institutions like Robert Half, which publishes a "wage guide" to businesses every year. Second, because the owners of resources are privileged to decide not to develop a resource, even if that resource is needed by the community.

No sale. Absent government or union coercion, the workers are free to move, free to change their line of work, free to go into business for themselves.

Why is that the only way to make this work? Seems like it could simply be legislated into reality: whatever the factory owner sells the barrel for determines how much the wages are for the barrel-maker. The owners expenses are deducted, and a determined profit, and the rest is remitted back to the barrel maker.

Fail again. Price controls have never worked for anything.

The point I was making is that we would have to provide such a guarantee. I'm trying to be sensitive to, and sensible about, the fact that a person with capital risks it to start a business.

Like Solyndra? Fisker? Ener1? We don't have to provide a guarantee, and we don't have to insure against failure. Let the free market work. That's the way this country has provided the highest standard of living in history.

In combination with an overhaul of how money works, as I have suggested, there wouldn't be any real loss to doing this. Suppose I start a business under such a system and fail miserably. I'm just no good at business. Still, I get bailed out--I get all my capital back because that's what the law says should happen. In fact, taxpayers are paying me, but the money I lost still went back into the economy somehow. Where I lose, someone else wins (perhaps I was selling barrels below my costs; either others now have barrels that can sell for a profit, or my materials suppliers have more money).

Under that system, the government has foolishly taken money from those who used good economic judgment so pay for poor economic judgment. That is not social justice.

I think perhaps I haven't been clear: I'm proposing that to acheive any measure of social justice, we will have to completely overhaul our economic system at a basic level. Capitalism, as currently practiced, does not work. Neither does socialism. Purely or mostly competetive models of commerce are unbalanced one direction, and purely or mostly cooperative models are unbalanced in a different direction. But if these don't work (as I think they do not), what does?

Again, what is your concept of "social justice" ?? Poor choices to yield the same outcomes as wise choices?

I never said otherwise, but the gold standard is really no better. Instead of manipulating the currency, you just manipulate the gold market, and still end up with essentially the same bad consequences.

The gold market hasn't been manipulated since the Spaniards starting hauling tons of the stuff back from the New World 500 years ago.

Again, I'm willing to jettison just about any idea about such things as ownership, money, markets, or the like, provided there is a good reason for it. So, your assertion that after-tax wealth belongs to the person who owns it is neither true nor false under such a framework. I'm asking whether such things should be the case, not whether they are or are not the case.

What rationale do you have for stealing the property of those who own it?

That said, despite the other overhauls I've suggested, there remains the problem of attractors. As more and more money accumulates in some container, the rate of accumulation for that container also increases. This is a problem for the rest of society when wealth is finite (as it must be).

Your first error is assuming that wealth is finite. Can you really believe there is no more wealth in the world today than their was a century, or a millenium, or 30,000 years ago.

I think a good case can be made that when we're trying to figure out ownership, society qua society has a seat at the table. To see why, just try this thought experiment: take any wealthy individual--doesn't matter who--rewind the clock on them so that they're young again, and place them smack in the middle of Summeria in 2500 B.C. How likely are they to amass the same kind of wealth as they currently enjoy? Even assuming they know the language and customs, and can blend in like a native, I think the obvious answer is that they simply will not accrue such wealth. Bill Gates will not start up microsoft, Warren Buffet will not get Berkshire Hathaway going again, and so on. But why not? The only difference is that societies have changed. This must imply a direct role that society has in the accumulation of wealth, and therefore in ownership.

There will always be people who become wealthy (relative to the average for the society) because they understand the society they live in and find a way to serve that society usefully. Only the nature of the service changes to take advantage of changes in the society. The idea that society somehow has a role in creating the wealth, and therefore a claim of ownership, is the same kind of nonsense that leads Obama to claim "You didn't build that." It is a specious claim to attempt to justify theft.

ashurbanipal · Sep 24, 2012

Diogenes said:
No sale. Absent government or union coercion, the workers are free to move, free to change their line of work, free to go into business for themselves.

I disagree. When you have no money, you are not free to move (no one should seriously consider, in today's age, the fairness of a person starting out with the clothes on their back and nothing more, and walking from, say, Atlanta to New York City in search of anything better--especially since, if and when you get there, it's just going to be more of the same). When you have no money, it's fairly difficult to change your line of work. When you have no money, you are not free to go into business for yourself. And where the purse-strings are controlled tightly enough, a person is not free to choose how much money they will have. That seems like a pretty bald violation of your case.

Diogenes said:
Fail again. Price controls have never worked for anything.

Two points:

1) "Never for anything" is a pretty far-reaching claim, especially when "worked" is an unclear predicate. We're pretty sure, for example, that economies were largely engineered in the Ancient world, and we know they were in Medieval Europe. And they certainly "worked" in the sense that the countries which had them were relatively stable over a long period of time.

2) Who said anything about price controls? Under my scheme, the market controls the price of barrels. It therefore also controls the wages the workmen receive. The only thing being controlled is proportional profit.

Diogenes said:
Like Solyndra? Fisker? Ener1? We don't have to provide a guarantee, and we don't have to insure against failure. Let the free market work. That's the way this country has provided the highest standard of living in history.

This seems obviously false, or at best incomplete. Why don't other countries with free markets also have equivalent standards of living? Why has the U.S., despite "free" markets, endured periods of lower standards of living. Finally, what is your basis that our standard of living is the highest in history?

Diogenes said:
Under that system, the government has foolishly taken money from those who used good economic judgment so pay for poor economic judgment. That is not social justice.

Not without an equivalent amount going back to those who used good economic judgment.

Diogenes said:
Again, what is your concept of "social justice" ?? Poor choices to yield the same outcomes as wise choices?

Not exactly, though I think poor choices should be forgiven, even if it means not rewarding wise ones quite as much. This, partially because "poor" and "wise" choices are sensitive to context. Because we control so much of our own environment now, choices which might seem wise a priori can nevertheless lead to a bad outcome due to malevolent or even acquisitive human agency, and vice-versa.

Social justice is probably best captured, in my view, by Rawles' notion of the veil of ignorance. The idea is this: would all, or the vast majority (i.e. 99.99999% or better), of people now in the U.S. wish to still be citizens if they could not know their social or economic status, what medical problems they would have, where they would be born or where they could or would go to school, what race they would be, and so on? The system to which all or most would agree is the one that guarantees social justice at least as perfectly as it may be manifest in human society.

My contention would be that a very large number of current citizens would not agree to anything like the current system, which means that there is not social justice.

Diogenes said:
The gold market hasn't been manipulated since the Spaniards starting hauling tons of the stuff back from the New World 500 years ago.

It seems to me that FDR did it many centuries later. Prior to that, the (rather famous) manipulation of gold futures (and other markets) by Nathan Rothschild is another case in point.

Diogenes said:
What rationale do you have for stealing the property of those who own it?

I don't, necessarily, though I do ask whether such concepts as "stealing" and "property" should continue to have the definitions or moral weight they currently seem to have.

Diogenes said:
Your first error is assuming that wealth is finite. Can you really believe there is no more wealth in the world today than their was a century, or a millenium, or 30,000 years ago.

No, but how does this imply that wealth is not finite? No one ever extracted an infinite amount of wealth in a finite amount of time. The volume of the earth is also finite, and so a finite amount of resources can be withdrawn from it. Finally, the longevity of the earth is constrained in time--the sun will explode in a few billion years, if nothing else.

But beyond this, each year's total GDP for all countries on earth is a finite number.

Diogenes said:
There will always be people who become wealthy (relative to the average for the society)

The parenthesized expression carries a pretty heavy burden here.

Diogenes said:
because they understand the society they live in and find a way to serve that society usefully.

I find this rather difficult to swallow. Taken literally, I suppose I agree: some people become wealthy by serving their society. Historically, however, it appears that most who become wealthy, especially those who become fabulously so, do so through violence, fraud, manipulation, bribery, corruption, or other such means.

Diogenes said:
Only the nature of the service changes to take advantage of changes in the society. The idea that society somehow has a role in creating the wealth, and therefore a claim of ownership, is the same kind of nonsense that leads Obama to claim "You didn't build that." It is a specious claim to attempt to justify theft.

Your last two sentences do not follow from anything you've said. If, for instance, Bill Gates built Microsoft, entirely on his own and with no input from any other entity other than himself, including American society, then he ought to be able to do this at any time and place. However, obviously, he cannot. He must, therefore, have received input from somewhere else, and input that is almost certainly not credited to its source. In the thought-experiment, the only thing that changes is the society in which Bill Gates exists. By Mill's theorem, then, causation for the relative success of the actual Bill Gates is traceable to society. The difference between how we would have done in, say, Medieval France vs. how well he's done now can be a measure of just how much society actually contributes. How much society should own of Bill Gates' fortune is a complicated matter, since it wasn't just he alone that benefitted from society. But to say that literally none should be owned by society is to ignore what is obviously correct.

Diogenes · Sep 24, 2012

ashurbanipal said:
I disagree. When you have no money, you are not free to move (no one should seriously consider, in today's age, the fairness of a person starting out with the clothes on their back and nothing more, and walking from, say, Atlanta to New York City in search of anything better--especially since, if and when you get there, it's just going to be more of the same). When you have no money, it's fairly difficult to change your line of work. When you have no money, you are not free to go into business for yourself. And where the purse-strings are controlled tightly enough, a person is not free to choose how much money they will have. That seems like a pretty bald violation of your case.

Millions of people have already done so, and you can do it also if you want to badly enough.

Two points:

1) "Never for anything" is a pretty far-reaching claim, especially when "worked" is an unclear predicate. We're pretty sure, for example, that economies were largely engineered in the Ancient world, and we know they were in Medieval Europe. And they certainly "worked" in the sense that the countries which had them were relatively stable over a long period of time.

2) Who said anything about price controls? Under my scheme, the market controls the price of barrels. It therefore also controls the wages the workmen receive. The only thing being controlled is proportional profit.

1) If you have trouble with the concept of "worked" we aren't going to get very far.
2) Point made. I should have said "profit controls."

This seems obviously false, or at best incomplete. Why don't other countries with free markets also have equivalent standards of living? Why has the U.S., despite "free" markets, endured periods of lower standards of living. Finally, what is your basis that our standard of living is the highest in history?

Occasional periods of lower standards of living can usually be traced to governmental attempts to bring "social justice" although natural disasters like hurrricanes and tsunamis can also cause setbacks.

Not exactly, though I think poor choices should be forgiven, even if it means not rewarding wise ones quite as much. This, partially because "poor" and "wise" choices are sensitive to context. Because we control so much of our own environment now, choices which might seem wise a priori can nevertheless lead to a bad outcome due to malevolent or even acquisitive human agency, and vice-versa.

I take a dim view of those who take my money by force and then make poor choices. People make choices and should be allowed to benefit (or not) from the consequences. A former neighbor of mine once sold an iPad on eBay and shipped it to the buyer in Nigeria before discovering there was no money in the PayPal account he was given. I feel no responsibility to make good his loss.

Social justice is probably best captured, in my view, by Rawles' notion of the veil of ignorance. The idea is this: would all, or the vast majority (i.e. 99.99999% or better), of people now in the U.S. wish to still be citizens if they could not know their social or economic status, what medical problems they would have, where they would be born or where they could or would go to school, what race they would be, and so on? The system to which all or most would agree is the one that guarantees social justice at least as perfectly as it may be manifest in human society.

My contention would be that a very large number of current citizens would not agree to anything like the current system, which means that there is not social justice.

We are as close as any society has ever been to that standard. Everyone is born with different talents and different circumstances, but no other society in history has given its citizens such freedom and opportunity to change their circumstances.

It seems to me that FDR did it many centuries later. Prior to that, the (rather famous) manipulation of gold futures (and other markets) by Nathan Rothschild is another case in point.

The FDR case is a good example of the failed kind of government meddling which you seem to be proposing, which is incompatible with free markets and material progress.

I don't, necessarily, though I do ask whether such concepts as "stealing" and "property" should continue to have the definitions or moral weight they currently seem to have.

When you deny property rights, you are proposing a failed society.

No, but how does this imply that wealth is not finite? No one ever extracted an infinite amount of wealth in a finite amount of time. The volume of the earth is also finite, and so a finite amount of resources can be withdrawn from it. Finally, the longevity of the earth is constrained in time--the sun will explode in a few billion years, if nothing else.

So you actually believe that only physical resources are wealth?

But beyond this, each year's total GDP for all countries on earth is a finite number.

And one that increases every year, with no limit in sight.

Taken literally, I suppose I agree: some people become wealthy by serving their society. Historically, however, it appears that most who become wealthy, especially those who become fabulously so, do so through violence, fraud, manipulation, bribery, corruption, or other such means.

Fraud, etc. are especially prevalent where the government has control.

Your last two sentences do not follow from anything you've said. If, for instance, Bill Gates built Microsoft, entirely on his own and with no input from any other entity other than himself, including American society, then he ought to be able to do this at any time and place. However, obviously, he cannot. He must, therefore, have received input from somewhere else, and input that is almost certainly not credited to its source. In the thought-experiment, the only thing that changes is the society in which Bill Gates exists. By Mill's theorem, then, causation for the relative success of the actual Bill Gates is traceable to society. The difference between how we would have done in, say, Medieval France vs. how well he's done now can be a measure of just how much society actually contributes. How much society should own of Bill Gates' fortune is a complicated matter, since it wasn't just he alone that benefitted from society. But to say that literally none should be owned by society is to ignore what is obviously correct.

Society merely provides the garden in which ideas can flourish and further benefit the society. It is up to the individual to make something of it, and a free market society will reward contribution. A managed economy does not spread the wealth, it only spreads the poverty.

Kane · Sep 24, 2012

Yes. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from the third world to multinational, oil, defense and banking cartels, by acting out his role as a puppet for the Council on Foreign Relations.

Consider the U.S. invasions of Libya and Syria, the corporate conglomerate media narratives the American Govmnt relies on to propagandize we the people.

What I find vile is that the American Government thinks that because they lost the battle to triumph economically thru competition, can instead be won by bombing the world into submission.

Are you old enough to remember John Birch Society meetings on CSPAN?

They spewed the fears the United Nations would be the One World Government, the boogeyman, like the commies, and Alex Jones got this philiosophy from a John Birch Society book his dad gave him, to co-opt dissent for a decade.The real one world government has turned out to be the CFR. What the UN has become is a tool for the Elites to instigate and institutionalize illegal interventions by getting faux support from U.S. installed puppet states and corrupt bought off govmnts like the Gulf Co-operation Council. The coalitions of the willing. How easily dissent can be turned against us, as the Democrat Party boosters wish us to forget Obama/Homeland Securitys clampdown of Occupy.

Birch was run by ex-Pentagon people/CIA stoking the fears of commies for the defense contracting industry, the same Reaganites in his cabinet of military buildup people, who couldn't wait to scare you with the Russkies and unneceesary nuclear missle buildups. They claimed they did not want to be the worlds policemen, but by keeping dissenters eye off of the ball, people thought they were legitimate anti-establishment. They were not. These Birchers were controlled dissent, like the pre-packaged Astroturf Common Dreams and Democracy Now, we know now Chomskys MIT was started as a CIA front, and Working Assets funded by Ford Foundation is also.

Al Jazeera institutionalized the "Arab Spring" in the same way. Divide and conquer at Al Jazeera controlled behind the scenes by Centcom. A show called "Listening Post" monitored the Facebook "activists" while the PsyOps played the staged YouTube "injustices" the CIA, State Dept., and CentCom wanted you to see, to cultivate the portrait Big Brother wanted you to feel for the 2 minutes hate. Another news report on there detailed how stand up comics took payola in foreign countries to put pro-govmnt propaganda into their acts, support for the war on teror, for instance.

Stealth politics, indeed. With expert camera crews, excellent reporting, and a using a CNN type model complete with a Larry King/Crossfire segments. The sheer competence of Al Jazeera cameras in foreign lands depicting Wag the Dog scenarios was enough for us to realize that the best Western propagandists money could buy are working at full throttle under Obama, much better than CNN/Fox could ever hope to want to promote their invasions.Religous fundamentalist muslims eclipsing independant reporters, just as the Christian Coalition hijacked CNN for a time with William Bennet, Ralph Reed and Falwell turning issues of State into religious fodder, and yelling extremism deliberately used to sabotage progress.

https://leaksource.wordpress.com/tag/exposed/

Are all of the Left's Mouthpieces CIA?

The Left Gatekeepers (May 4, 2008)

A Nation Deceived - Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad

Chapter 9, Control of the Media, "THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3", 1985

Media and CIA

The CIA and the Media

Manc Skipper · Sep 24, 2012

He's certainly not reversed the financial flow toward the 1%.

Kane · Sep 25, 2012

Manc Skipper said:
He's certainly not reversed the financial flow toward the 1%.

Nope. Obama is a bought off corrupt schmoe, and I say those dipwad Liberal talk hosts are equally lame-o.

If Obomber hadn't blown up the Middle East gas prices would have receded. Nope just more profits for Haliburton.

LiberalAvenger · Sep 25, 2012

Kane said:
Nope. Obama is a bought off corrupt schmoe, and I say those dipwad Liberal talk hosts are equally lame-o.

If Obomber hadn't blown up the Middle East gas prices would have receded. Nope just more profits for Haliburton.

Have you forgotton who started the war? Both parties and the corporate media.

Kane · Sep 25, 2012

LibAvenger:

Obomber is the more effective evil. Not the lesser of two when measured against Bush. Whereas Bush was transparent in his decisions, Obomber hides behind sophisticated covert ops and stealth,with evil CFR members in govmnt and the media, like the Clintons, (and their DLC buddies) to execute even more innocents than before. And, if you think Obama will stop with regime change in Syria, you are wrong. Iran is coming, because he is taking orders from the CFR, he is just a figurehead. The choreographed events where he poses as a leader reading from teleprompters, picking pre-determined questions from his lackey press, and foreign/domestic policy talking points ginned up by corporate America, in newspapers and TV, are all just window dressing for our American dictatorship and never ending war machine.

Romney was never meant to win.The entire primary was a hoax, the nominee was picked beforehand. His VP attacking social security was proof of that. Seniors would NEVER stand for or elect that, the power-brokers know that. Its just another stealth manuever for the CFR to make their villian Obomber seem fair and just.

You see? Obama the working class hero would NEVER attack the DEFENSELESS like the old and sick. Our elections are scripted like a storybook football game. And they're pre-determined. Our elections are decided behind closed doors, by not-so-secret anymore societies.

https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/wag-the-dog-syria-exposed/

A Nation Deceived - Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad

LiberalAvenger · Sep 25, 2012

Kane said:
LibAvenger:

Obomber is the more effective evil. Not the lesser of two when measured against Bush. Whereas Bush was transparent in his decisions, Obomber hides behind sophisticated covert ops and stealth,with evil CFR members in govmnt and the media, like the Clintons, (and their DLC buddies) to execute even more innocents than before. And, if you think Obama will stop with regime change in Syria, you are wrong. Iran is coming, because he is taking orders from the CFR, he is just a figurehead. The choreographed events where he poses as a leader reading from teleprompters, picking pre-determined questions from his lackey press, and foreign/domestic policy talking points ginned up by corporate America, in newspapers and TV, are all just window dressing for our American dictatorship and never ending war machine.

Romney was never meant to win.The entire primary was a hoax, the nominee was picked beforehand. His VP attacking social security was proof of that. Seniors would NEVER stand for or elect that, the power-brokers know that. Its just another stealth manuever for the CFR to make their villian Obomber seem fair and just.

You see? Obama the working class hero would NEVER attack the DEFENSELESS like our old and sick? Our elections are scripted like a storybook football game. And they're pre-determined. Our elections are decided behind closed doors, by not-so-secret anymore societies.

https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/wag-the-dog-syria-exposed/

A Nation Deceived - Council on Foreign Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities at Home and Abroad

I knew that!

ashurbanipal · Sep 27, 2012

Diogenes said:
Millions of people have already done so, and you can do it also if you want to badly enough.

Well, I have switched careers mid-life, but just because I did, or because millions have done so (I'm not sure this is entirely correct either), it does not follow that all people can. I would put it that when even a few people don't have that capability, we are in a state that needs rectification. In fact, I think probably many millions do not have that capability, and so we are in a state of rather severe injustice.

Diogenes said:
2) Point made. I should have said "profit controls."

Well, again, profit controls seem to have worked in at least some instances. Most guilds in the European Renaissance employed profit controls, and this was one of the better sustained economic expansions the world has ever seen. There were other reasons we could attribute this expansion to, but if the claim is that profit controls never work, this is an exception. I can think of others.

Of course, I would admit that profit controls do not always work, and when profits are too severely controlled, they have a negative effect. I agree that there has to be an incentive to work hard and take risks. This is why I say that, in exchange for limiting proportional profits, there also has to be a certain amount of protection from risk.

Note also that I'm talking about proportional profits, not absolute profits. Let's say that Sam the factory owner has a factory that makes barrels. He is restricted from taking, by law, more than, say, 8% of net profits for himself or shareholders. But that 8% can represent anything from $8 to $8,000,000 per year.

A system that makes sure that workers have money is a system that creates and maintains a lot of customers as well. Part of what I'm arguing is simply that we need to return to an economic model wherein the best way to make money is to be productive. Right now, I don't think we have that.

Diogenes said:
Occasional periods of lower standards of living can usually be traced to governmental attempts to bring "social justice" although natural disasters like hurrricanes and tsunamis can also cause setbacks.

Really? I've never heard of someone trying to trace, say, the begining of the Great Depression to government's attempt to bring social justice. Indeed, the Great Depression seems to have come at the end of a pretty laissez faire attitude. The depressions of 1837 and 1893 also do not seem attributable to government trying to bring social justice. Perhaps the case is a little vague with regard to 1837.

Diogenes said:
I take a dim view of those who take my money by force and then make poor choices. People make choices and should be allowed to benefit (or not) from the consequences. A former neighbor of mine once sold an iPad on eBay and shipped it to the buyer in Nigeria before discovering there was no money in the PayPal account he was given. I feel no responsibility to make good his loss.

Well, the example is probably not typical. Suppose your neighbor owned an iPad warehouse with 500 workers, and it had to shut down and put those people out of a job. Whether or not this guy screwed up is a smaller issue when compared to the impact those 500 now-jobless people will have on your community. When we come together to ensure mutual survival, we give up some stuff. We are dependent creatures. There is simply no getting around that. We have social minds, and most of that raw brain-power is devoted to that end. Rugged individualism applies to tigers and polar bears. Not to us.

If you don't like that, again, I invite you to divest yourself of all goods you didn't make from raw materials you yourself gathered, and, foresaking all human help, plunge into the wilderness, where you are free to own all you can possibly gather. If that doesn't sound very good to you, it might be because you're as aware as I that very few people would last very long doing that. We are dependent creatures. We have to depend on each other to make good our mistakes. We need not do so absolutely or in every case (I, too, would feel no obligation to make good your neighbor's mistake). But there is a point where either we have to, or we may as well all just embrace the wilderness route, with all the hardship and disease it entails.

Diogenes said:
We are as close as any society has ever been to that standard.

I can think of at least a few societies I think are closer, both current and historical.

Diogenes said:
Everyone is born with different talents and different circumstances, but no other society in history has given its citizens such freedom and opportunity to change their circumstances.

I would admit we're not as bad as some on my side of the fence sometimes like to think. But I think we're hardly the best in the world on such scores.

Diogenes said:
The FDR case is a good example of the failed kind of government meddling which you seem to be proposing, which is incompatible with free markets and material progress.

It didn't seem to many at the time to have failed, though naturally some people were pretty mad about it.

Diogenes said:
When you deny property rights, you are proposing a failed society.

I'm not necessarily denying property rights, but I wonder about just what those rights ought to be. I'm afraid I do not see why a society that doesn't believe in our version (or more accurately, your version) of property rights must perforce fail.

Diogenes said:
So you actually believe that only physical resources are wealth?

No, but all wealth is based on physical resources and cannot exceed the value of physical resources by some certain portion.

Diogenes said:
And one that increases every year, with no limit in sight.

Well, there certainly is an end in sight, depending on how perspicacious we are. I pointed out last post what that end must be, if no other arrives before then.

Diogenes said:
Fraud, etc. are especially prevalent where the government has control.

I do agree that government is a traditional and primary avenue for the perpetration of exploitation and corruption. We'll have to come up with a better political system to address the economic imbalances. But that's no excuse for not attempting either and both.

Diogenes said:
Society merely provides the garden in which ideas can flourish and further benefit the society.

This just seems like a way to say the same thing I said, while ignoring the obvious consequences. If society is our garden (from which, presumably, we get our food), let's see what happens when we stop taking care of the soil...

It's interesting you mention this, because I am an avid gardener and I've often thought a garden is a good metaphor for the economy as a whole. I take the soil to be the poor and middle classes, as they are the ones out of which stuff is produced. It's the people who work in factories, on farms or fishing boats, in mines or forestry, in retail stores, etc. who actually produce and distribute goods. The rich tend to be the people who enable tracking, accounting, and exchange of those goods. There are exceptions to this, of course (doctors should probably be in the former class of people, but tend to be well off, for example). Of course, what the rich do is necessary. In the metaphor, they're rather like polinators. We could still have onions, carrots, radishes, lettuce, and such. But who wouldn't want to have tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, apples, and so on?

What I'm saying here is that we've gone too far out of balance with our concern for a certain segment of society and protecting their rights, while steadily devaluing the contribution of the rest. And that value is huge. We've devalued it through the laws we've enacted about how contracts are to be enforced, how wages and hiring are to work, and how money and ownership are to work. Without reforms which reach to a basic conceptual level, we're going to have an economic dust bowl on our hands. And people can protest all they'd like that what we did was "morally right"--it still leads to that end.

Diogenes said:
It is up to the individual to make something of it, and a free market society will reward contribution. A managed economy does not spread the wealth, it only spreads the poverty.

I think the first part of this is simply false, and the second part misconstrued. But I do not advocate for a completely planned economy. I advocate for a balanced model between competetive and cooperative forces.

Diogenes · Sep 27, 2012

ashurbanipal said:
Well, I have switched careers mid-life, but just because I did, or because millions have done so (I'm not sure this is entirely correct either), it does not follow that all people can. I would put it that when even a few people don't have that capability, we are in a state that needs rectification. In fact, I think probably many millions do not have that capability, and so we are in a state of rather severe injustice.

Agreed that millions do not have the capability to control their own destiny, and in all cases that is due to the government. In a free society, you are free to follow your dreams ("pursuit of happiness" in the 18th century terminology). The "severe injustice" you cite is self-inflicted.

Well, again, profit controls seem to have worked in at least some instances. Most guilds in the European Renaissance employed profit controls, and this was one of the better sustained economic expansions the world has ever seen.

Examples?

A system that makes sure that workers have money is a system that creates and maintains a lot of customers as well. Part of what I'm arguing is simply that we need to return to an economic model wherein the best way to make money is to be productive. Right now, I don't think we have that.

Agreed on the need to be productive. Perhaps you could explain that to the public employee unions that are giving sensible citizens so much grief. In the private sector, please note that workers are in the business of selling their labor for as much as the market will bear and are hardly the victims of exploitation that you seem to believe.

Really? I've never heard of someone trying to trace, say, the begining of the Great Depression to government's attempt to bring social justice. Indeed, the Great Depression seems to have come at the end of a pretty laissez faire attitude. The depressions of 1837 and 1893 also do not seem attributable to government trying to bring social justice. Perhaps the case is a little vague with regard to 1837.

I'm still waiting for your definition of social justice. Without that definition, it is nothing but a meaningless slogan.

Well, the example is probably not typical. Suppose your neighbor owned an iPad warehouse with 500 workers, and it had to shut down and put those people out of a job. Whether or not this guy screwed up is a smaller issue when compared to the impact those 500 now-jobless people will have on your community. When we come together to ensure mutual survival, we give up some stuff. We are dependent creatures. There is simply no getting around that. We have social minds, and most of that raw brain-power is devoted to that end. Rugged individualism applies to tigers and polar bears. Not to us.

It is often a tragedy when a business fails, as when the buggy whip factories went out of business a century ago or when the telephone switchboard operators were replaced by automation. Stuff happens, and it's time to move on. Your attitude reflects that of the socialist failures of the 20th century, when governments focused their attention on preserving yesterday's jobs instead of tomorrow's products.

I can think of at least a few societies I think are closer, both current and historical.

Examples?

I would admit we're not as bad as some on my side of the fence sometimes like to think. But I think we're hardly the best in the world on such scores.

So who is?

In fact, through this whole conversation you have only made vague petty complaints and offered no positive definitions or agenda to reach this undefined goal. Can you offer any positive arguments as to why I should not dismiss your "social justice" babble as a brain fart brought on by seeds and stems?

What I'm saying here is that we've gone too far out of balance with our concern for a certain segment of society and protecting their rights, while steadily devaluing the contribution of the rest. And that value is huge. We've devalued it through the laws we've enacted about how contracts are to be enforced, how wages and hiring are to work, and how money and ownership are to work. Without reforms which reach to a basic conceptual level, we're going to have an economic dust bowl on our hands. And people can protest all they'd like that what we did was "morally right"--it still leads to that end.

Perhaps Thoreau was right when he observed that most men have the souls of slaves, but some of us prefer to define our own lives. I return to the concept of "willing buyer, willing seller" confident that every seller would be happier to get twice the price and every buyer would be happier to get half the price. You may raise vague and frothy objections about presumed coercion, but you have nothing better to offer in its place.

I think the first part of this is simply false, and the second part misconstrued. But I do not advocate for a completely planned economy. I advocate for a balanced model between competetive and cooperative forces.

Again, and for the last time, define your vision of a properly balanced model.

Deuce · Sep 27, 2012

Everyone wants to redistribute wealth. The differences are in how much and where to, and even those differences aren't as large as they're made out to be.

News Flash: National Defense is redistributing wealth.

Diogenes · Sep 27, 2012

Deuce said:
Everyone wants to redistribute wealth.

Not everyone. Some people want to create wealth, and all of our lives are better for their efforts.

RenoCon · Sep 27, 2012

It is in his blood. Watch "2016." He has an anti-colonialism agenda that has been deeply ingrained in him. He learned this from his father (and his surrogates in his fathers absence), Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and many others who believe in the redistribution of wealth. When he refers to the top "1%" he isn't talking about the US, he is talking about the top 1% in the world. That includes nearly all of us here in the good old USA. He told Joe the Lumber he wants to redistribute wealth and his stump speech repeatedly talks about taxing the wealthy more. Why would he want to do this? Because once the Government controls the wealth and distributes the wealth it controls everything, and control is power. Hitler knew this when he preached to the "suffering masses" and told them how opressed they were. Granted, he may not see this come to fruition in his lifetime but that does not matter. It is a philosophy he truly believes in and the slow slide to Socialism will continue as long as he is president.

winston53660 · Sep 27, 2012

RenoCon said:
It is in his blood. Watch "2016." He has an anti-colonialism agenda that has been deeply ingrained in him.

So what benefits can be derived from colonialism vs. the costs, worth and value of it?

johnny_rebson · Sep 27, 2012

RenoCon said:
It is in his blood. Watch "2016." He has an anti-colonialism agenda that has been deeply ingrained in him. He learned this from his father (and his surrogates in his fathers absence)

Obama doesn't understand foreign policy. He doesn't understand the military. What's the point of having an army if you don't use it?

American businesses need a boost. Using the military to help these companies do business in foreign lands makes good economic sense.

winston53660 · Sep 27, 2012

Diogenes said:
Not everyone. Some people want to create wealth, and all of our lives are better for their efforts.

Absolue BS. Case in point is Jack Welch. I bet the people he canned do not feel the same as you.

cpwill · Sep 27, 2012

winston53660 said:
Absolue BS. Case in point is Jack Welch. I bet the people he canned do not feel the same as you.

yup. and the people in the horse and buggy industry probably hated the automobile. pointing to the creative destruction of the marketplace does not change the aggregate system-wide improvement of that process.

LiberalAvenger · Sep 27, 2012

RenoCon said:
Gosh...Teach...do I have to write an essay on it? This isn't about me and what I think of colonialism. It is about Obama and his growing up with a philosophy of anti-colonialism and how that translates into Socialism and redistribution of wealth. The movie "2016..." explains it all, really, go see it then get back to me. I dare you. I'm more of a Free and Democratic society kind of guy.

I prefer a democrtic society too, free of republicans.

RenoCon · Sep 27, 2012

winston53660 said:
So what benefits can be derived from colonialism vs. the costs, worth and value of it?

Gosh...Teach...do I have to write an essay on this? This is not about me and what I think of colonialism. I am more of a free and democratic kind of guy. It is about Obama and his growing up learning the philosophy of "anti-colonialism" and how it translates into Socialism and the redistribution of wealth. The movie "2016: Obama's America" explains it very succinctly and objectively. D'Souza even presents evidence that he WAS born in Hawaii. Go see the movie. Then get back to me. I dare you.

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Do you think Obama wants to redistribute wealth?

Yes

No

More options

ashurbanipal

ecofarm

global liberation

274ina

274ina

Diogenes

Diogenes

ashurbanipal

Diogenes

Kane

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

Kane

LiberalAvenger

Kane

LiberalAvenger

ashurbanipal

Diogenes

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Diogenes

RenoCon

winston53660

johnny_rebson

winston53660

cpwill

LiberalAvenger

RenoCon