Obama's Authoritarian Style

[SpacePunk]

This is more of a topic on Obama's style of governing than "ObamaCare" itself.

Wall Street Journal:

“I expect to be held responsible,” Obama said. “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

"...the passage is strangely omitted from the official White House transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-ar-fundraiser-for-State-Senator-Creigh-Deeds-8-6-09/).
Now, it is perfectly acceptable, if not presidential, for Obama to keep disparaging the Republicans and the previous administration. But “don’t do a lot of talking” crosses a line. This is America, and they have a constitutional right to talk all they want. “Get out of the way” is problematic as well. The Republicans whose terms ended after the last election are out of the way, having left office to make way for Obama, his men and his allies in Congress. What can the president possibly mean here other than that he demands that they stop participating in politics--again, something that, in America, they have a perfect right to do?"


They also mention the White House website asking: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov (flag@whitehouse.gov).”


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702042514045743411114 01651266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Thoughts?

[Machu505]

I agree.

Oh and this is not "authoritarian".

[GeeBee]

I think they should gtfo of the way, too. Haven't they done enough damage?

[Praetor]

Of course he's an authoritarian. He wouldn't have been elected if he wasn't.

[Love As Arson]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.

[justinmfi]

I think we should blow up all politicians and start this country over again...the way it was founded...freedom...not anyone telling us what kind of health care we'll be able to get/use...and all that other stupid shit that has been going on for years now.

but that is just my opinion and i am sure alot of kids in here will disagree with it...OH WELL. thats life...get on with it.

[joeag1985]

This is more of a topic on Obama's style of governing than "ObamaCare" itself.

Wall Street Journal:

“I expect to be held responsible,” Obama said. “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

"...the passage is strangely omitted from the official White House transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-ar-fundraiser-for-State-Senator-Creigh-Deeds-8-6-09/).
Now, it is perfectly acceptable, if not presidential, for Obama to keep disparaging the Republicans and the previous administration. But “don’t do a lot of talking” crosses a line. This is America, and they have a constitutional right to talk all they want. “Get out of the way” is problematic as well. The Republicans whose terms ended after the last election are out of the way, having left office to make way for Obama, his men and his allies in Congress. What can the president possibly mean here other than that he demands that they stop participating in politics--again, something that, in America, they have a perfect right to do?"


They also mention the White House website asking: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov (flag@whitehouse.gov).”


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702042514045743411114 01651266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Thoughts?

I don't mean to blatantly criticize... but this was the first thing that I thought of...

http://brooklynskeptic.files.wordpress.com /2009/07/1232386205451.jpg

Also, he just wants to be left alone to do his job. To get the world out of the mess that's been left over from the previous administration. I guess he could have worded it more politically correct, but I think most people would understand what he means.

[shit stroll]

I think we should blow up all politicians and start this country over again...the way it was founded...freedom...not anyone telling us what kind of health care we'll be able to get/use...and all that other stupid shit that has been going on for years now.

but that is just my opinion and i am sure alot of kids in here will disagree with it...OH WELL. thats life...get on with it.
um since you serve in the military doesn't the government provide you with free health care?

[saysmydoctor]

No.

[saysmydoctor]

um since you serve in the military doesn't the government provide you with free health care?
Yes.

[God damner]

I don't agree with dialogue being removed from any transcript, but the Republicans and rascist nut balls in this country have been on Barack Obama for 2 years now on everything from where he was born to him and his wife sharing a terrorist fist bump. It has been made sharply clear that Republicans are not going to let it go, so it's no surprise Barack has changed his tune on bi-particanship. Everything he says gets critizied to it's fullest extent, this is no different. Bush was the worst president in history and he wasn't attacked half this bad at his worst moments.

[bladerdude360]

Whoever wrote this article is clearly stretching and looking for any excuse to criticize Obama. Not saying he shouldn't be criticized, but this is fucking stupid.

[MattADALIE]

I'm staying out of this one knowing how the avid political posters are on this site. However, I did see the video a few days back and I agree that the transcript should not have had any omissions. If what he expressed is for the good of this country, why hide it? Just sayin...

[supersonic182]

Whoever wrote this article is clearly stretching and looking for any excuse to criticize Obama. Not saying he shouldn't be criticized, but this is fucking stupid.

I agree. I"m not so big on the 'Obamacare,' myself, but this article is a bit of a joke. If you're going to criticize his policies, at least do it right.
Personally, I think that both parties are lacking on the 'change,' and 'hope we can believe in.' This is starting to look like something in between a Jimmy Carter and a George Bush the III presidency (Iranian hostages; as in using these tactics to get Obamacare through congress and keeping an eye on people that disagree) - thankfully, I can vote in 2012 to prevent that. All the politicians, both republican and democrat, in congress right now are clearly not giving a damn about what happens to the congress - as long as they can exclude themselves from their own 'bipartisan healthcare,' and take home shitloads of cash. It's about time these guys get thrown out of the congress, honestly. I hope Obama sees through Pelosi calling opposition essentially 'Nazis,' and 'unamerican.'

[brentkid]

Give me a break. Like the last administration is solely responsible for all the problems he's facing now. Riiiight.

[GeeBee]

I don't agree with dialogue being removed from any transcript, but the Republicans and rascist nut balls in this country have been on Barack Obama for 2 years now on everything from where he was born to him and his wife sharing a terrorist fist bump. It has been made sharply clear that Republicans are not going to let it go, so it's no surprise Barack has changed his tune on bi-particanship. Everything he says gets critizied to it's fullest extent, this is no different. Bush was the worst president in history and he wasn't attacked half this bad at his worst moments.
This.
I'm staying out of this one knowing how the avid political posters are on this site. However, I did see the video a few days back and I agree that the transcript should not have had any omissions. If what he expressed is for the good of this country, why hide it? Just sayin...
For the same reason editors delete scenes from movies and tv shows. They're better without it. And I love the "I'm staying out of this" as a precursor to yet another stupid statement from you.
Give me a break. Like the last administration is solely responsible for all the problems he's facing now. Riiiight.

Yeah, 97% isn't 100%, but it's still close.

[supersonic182]

The debt's been out of control since FDR's massive spending pre-WWII.

[GeeBee]

The debt's been out of control since FDR's massive spending pre-WWII.

Keynesian economics. Read all about it.

[brentkid]

Yeah, 97% isn't 100%, but it's still close.
K.

[thefallofcorey]

I don't agree with dialogue being removed from any transcript, but the Republicans and rascist nut balls in this country have been on Barack Obama for 2 years now on everything from where he was born to him and his wife sharing a terrorist fist bump. It has been made sharply clear that Republicans are not going to let it go, so it's no surprise Barack has changed his tune on bi-particanship. Everything he says gets critizied to it's fullest extent, this is no different. Bush was the worst president in history and he wasn't attacked half this bad at his worst moments.

Okay, everyone who attacks Obama is not necessarily racist. The whole birther thing definitely involves race. If he were white, I doubt there would be any controversy. As for bi-partisanship, in the campaign he almost made it seem like he was a moderate. When he took office he went far left of center, mainly because he simply didn't need the Republicans help on getting anything passed. I think Bush didn't get attacked as much because he wasn't making speeches every other day and I think the country just went with him because we were scared of getting attacked again. Obama is one of the most front and center presidents we have ever had, and I think that fact combined with how our economy is doing leaves him open to a lot of criticism.

[Machu505]

I agree. I"m not so big on the 'Obamacare,' myself, but this article is a bit of a joke. If you're going to criticize his policies, at least do it right.
Personally, I think that both parties are lacking on the 'change,' and 'hope we can believe in.' This is starting to look like something in between a Jimmy Carter and a George Bush the III presidency (Iranian hostages; as in using these tactics to get Obamacare through congress and keeping an eye on people that disagree) - thankfully, I can vote in 2012 to prevent that.

You think this is going to be Jimmy Carter or even Bush-esque after eight months? Also, the "enemies list" claim is false (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/11/obama-enemies-list-conspiracy/).
All the politicians, both republican and democrat, in congress right now are clearly not giving a damn about what happens to the congress - as long as they can exclude themselves from their own 'bipartisan healthcare,' and take home shitloads of cash. It's about time these guys get thrown out of the congress, honestly. I hope Obama sees through Pelosi calling opposition essentially 'Nazis,' and 'unamerican.'
Could the bolded be rephrased? I'm not trying to be dickish, but I really have no idea what you're saying. But I do agree that calling people un-American is wrong, but Pelosi never called the protesters Nazis.

[Machu505]

Okay, everyone who attacks Obama is not necessarily racist. The whole birther thing definitely involves race. If he were white, I doubt there would be any controversy. As for bi-partisanship, in the campaign he almost made it seem like he was a moderate. When he took office he went far left of center, mainly because he simply didn't need the Republicans help on getting anything passed. I think Bush didn't get attacked as much because he wasn't making speeches every other day and I think the country just went with him because we were scared of getting attacked again. Obama is one of the most front and center presidents we have ever had, and I think that fact combined with how our economy is doing leaves him open to a lot of criticism.
What the balls are you talking about? The ultimate criticism of him from the left now is that he made it seem like he was a liberal in the campaign, but now in office he's a centrist.

[thepianominstre]

Obama Ignores Portions Of New Laws

Originally From the New York Times (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/B556991FFB5FA1E28625760D0082F83F?Op enDocument) (aka not Fox News or the WSJ)

"Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations... Other laws Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission and a restriction on putting troops under U.N. command."

Obama is quickly becoming guilty of everything he complained about, from frantically pushing for legislation that no one has read to accepting pork bills to appointing corrupt cronies to his positions. Now he's channeling Bush on the use of signing statements he once decried, and he clearly believes that he can ignore rules he doesn't like... when Barney Frank complains about it, you know it's bad. Any president that believes he is above the law sounds authoritarian to me.

[thefallofcorey]

What the balls are you talking about? The ultimate criticism of him from the left now is that he made it seem like he was a liberal in the campaign, but now in office he's a centrist.

Wait, so liberals have gone so far left that in their eyes Obama is a centrist now? :-| The only thing I can think of is Don't Ask Don't Tell maybe. Well, his position on the wars too. And I guess health care reform too. You know what, I've watched too much Fox News lately... :P doh!

[Machu505]

Wait, so liberals have gone so far left that in their eyes Obama is a centrist now? :-| The only thing I can think of is Don't Ask Don't Tell maybe. Well, his position on the wars too. And I guess health care reform too. You know what, I've watched too much Fox News lately... :P doh!
Stuff like this disappoint us:

Obama Ignores Portions Of New Laws

Originally From the New York Times (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/B556991FFB5FA1E28625760D0082F83F?Op enDocument) (aka not Fox News or the WSJ)

"Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations... Other laws Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission and a restriction on putting troops under U.N. command."

Obama is quickly becoming guilty of everything he complained about, from frantically pushing for legislation that no one has read to accepting pork bills to appointing corrupt cronies to his positions. Now he's channeling Bush on the use of signing statements he once decried, and he clearly believes that he can ignore rules he doesn't like... when Barney Frank complains about it, you know it's bad. Any president that believes he is above the law sounds authoritarian to me.

[apsterling]

Politics as a whole has become so bloated that everyone involved is to blame and anyone associated to any party will simply point the blame at everyone else. It's clear that each and every person with the ability to vote and voting on this based on campaigning is to blame. It's pretty simple from the start that a vast majority of campaigning is lying to the public to build support. So instead of pointing fingers maybe the people who have the ability ought to fix our country. That's the point of our bill of rights and constitution and why we're educated on the basis of this country, which strayed god-knows-how-far from its original intent.

TL;DR version: We've fucked up and we're fucked, unless we do shit to fix it.

[GeeBee]

Wait, so liberals have gone so far left that in their eyes Obama is a centrist now? :-| The only thing I can think of is Don't Ask Don't Tell maybe. Well, his position on the wars too. And I guess health care reform too. You know what, I've watched too much Fox News lately... :P doh!

If you think Obama is a liberal, you need to read about politics beyond the borders of the U.S.

[J.C.]

Wait, so liberals have gone so far left that in their eyes Obama is a centrist now? :-| The only thing I can think of is Don't Ask Don't Tell maybe. Well, his position on the wars too. And I guess health care reform too. You know what, I've watched too much Fox News lately... :P doh!

Backwards.

Obama is governing from the center, even moreso than you'd expect from someone with control in both the house and senate. His perceived left-of-center appearance from a governing standpoint has more to do with the fact that his opposition has shifted further to the fringe. The political spectrum has been skewed by the direction of the Republican party. There's really no centrist wing. The traditional moderates got pushed out last election cycle. 58% of the current party isn't even convinced our President is a United States citizen. That's loony-bin stuff.

As for the thread, the notion that he's a ruthless authoritarian who is unwilling to include the Republicans in talks on issues is comical. Name me the last President who's gone as far out of his way as Obama has in trying to accommodate the minority party. He's done it to such an extent, it's become a fault. He and the Democrats have been too eager to water stuff down in an attempt to get Republicans on board, even when it's blatantly obvious the Republicans have no desire to cooperate. I don't know how you can complain about a lack of bipartisanship when Republicans really haven't formulated much of anything in terms of counter proposals to some of the stuff Obama has put forth. Seriously, do you really believe the Republicans want to reform healthcare? They're the ones telling you we have the best healthcare system on the planet. For fuck's sake, they were just in power for most of the last 8 years and they didn't do shit on the issue. What, were they sitting on some brilliant things to implement once the Dems finally got in power? Don't be retarded. The Republicans aren't interested in working with Obama to get stuff done, they're interested in him fucking shit up so they can have something to run on next go-around.

[God damner]

To Thefallofcorey:

I agree with the obvious FACT that disagreeing with Obama doesn't make you racsist. I disagree, however, that his very exposed presidency warrents the malicious, trumped up claims that have plagued him since candidacy. And, considering his unradical policy towards change in Iraq and continuation of the Bush stimulus, I would disagree that he took office as a far lefter and argue he ran as a moderate and remained that way until now. He has recieved a lot of leftist critisicm for not ruffling feathers over the last year and the bottom line is Democrates need to show some balls. Obama's now showing us he has them, which is quite brave considering he runs a completly bi-polar country, and has had more death threats in his short term then any president in history has had over two terms. I support a single payer option and hope that positive change will prevent this country from having it's currency liquidated by our debt owners AKA China. Obama's not perfect, but he is not getting help. If you have an quarrel, adress it. But if your trying to make this, "Obama's Waterloo", then yeah, get the fuck out of the way.

[DWill]

Bill Clinton was an idiot and so was George W. Bush... There's well over a decade of mistakes here.

I'll make my final judgment on Barack Obama after a few years. Some policies I agree with, others not so much. The real problem is the political duopoly that is currently running our country into the ground. As long as America continues this two-party system bullshit our problems are likely to never be fixed.

[jeremypeele]

Give me a break. Like the last administration is solely responsible for all the problems he's facing now. Riiiight.

HEY ARNOLDDDDDDDDDDD!


I actually have no idea what this is, i don't partake in any source of news concerning any government. I guess some of you could criticize me for that, but the news is so fucking depressing sometimes.

[thepianominstre]

Obama is governing from the center, even moreso than you'd expect from someone with control in both the house and senate. His perceived left-of-center appearance from a governing standpoint has more to do with the fact that his opposition has shifted further to the fringe. The political spectrum has been skewed by the direction of the Republican party...

As for the thread, the notion that he's a ruthless authoritarian who is unwilling to include the Republicans in talks on issues is comical. Name me the last President who's gone as far out of his way as Obama has in trying to accommodate the minority party. He's done it to such an extent, it's become a fault...

Yes, governing from the center is why Obama's pushing for government reform of healthcare, why he pushed for government rescue of the car industry, why he pushed for the massive stimulus, why he's taking back his word about no new middle class taxes and doubling the deficit beyond what it was already doubled... pretty much everything Obama has done has been to increase the role of government in every industry possible, which *used* to not be centrist governing. The Republicans are useless, and they drifted so far to left in the last 8 years that they're stumbling blindly the other way trying to rediscover "fiscal discipline." But the useless failure of the GOP has nothing to do with Obama pretending to be a centrist governor.

[Praetor]

Yes, governing from the center is why Obama's pushing for government reform of healthcare, why he pushed for government rescue of the car industry, why he pushed for the massive stimulus, why he's taking back his word about no new middle class taxes and doubling the deficit beyond what it was already doubled... pretty much everything Obama has done has been to increase the role of government in every industry possible, which *used* to not be centrist governing. The Republicans are useless, and they drifted so far to left in the last 8 years that they're stumbling blindly the other way trying to rediscover "fiscal discipline." But the useless failure of the GOP has nothing to do with Obama pretending to be a centrist governor.
wut.

[thepianominstre]

wut.

Record spending and increases in the national deficit; major government intervention in education (NCLB); ridiculous government involvement in the financial industry at the end with TARP and all of the other related moves. And that's not counting all the various regulations and other things throughout the years. Bush was no friend of "free markets."

[My Broken Fever]

Yes, governing from the center is why Obama's pushing for government reform of healthcare, why he pushed for government rescue of the car industry, why he pushed for the massive stimulus, why he's taking back his word about no new middle class taxes and doubling the deficit beyond what it was already doubled... pretty much everything Obama has done has been to increase the role of government in every industry possible, which *used* to not be centrist governing. The Republicans are useless, and they drifted so far to left in the last 8 years that they're stumbling blindly the other way trying to rediscover "fiscal discipline." But the useless failure of the GOP has nothing to do with Obama pretending to be a centrist governor.
None of that has anything to do with what side of the political spectrum Obama leans to; it was what's needed to stop the economy from going apeshit, leading to a second great depression.

[Codi23]

Backwards.

Obama is governing from the center, even moreso than you'd expect from someone with control in both the house and senate. His perceived left-of-center appearance from a governing standpoint has more to do with the fact that his opposition has shifted further to the fringe. The political spectrum has been skewed by the direction of the Republican party. There's really no centrist wing. The traditional moderates got pushed out last election cycle. 58% of the current party isn't even convinced our President is a United States citizen. That's loony-bin stuff.

As for the thread, the notion that he's a ruthless authoritarian who is unwilling to include the Republicans in talks on issues is comical. Name me the last President who's gone as far out of his way as Obama has in trying to accommodate the minority party. He's done it to such an extent, it's become a fault. He and the Democrats have been too eager to water stuff down in an attempt to get Republicans on board, even when it's blatantly obvious the Republicans have no desire to cooperate. I don't know how you can complain about a lack of bipartisanship when Republicans really haven't formulated much of anything in terms of counter proposals to some of the stuff Obama has put forth. Seriously, do you really believe the Republicans want to reform healthcare? They're the ones telling you we have the best healthcare system on the planet. For fuck's sake, they were just in power for most of the last 8 years and they didn't do shit on the issue. What, were they sitting on some brilliant things to implement once the Dems finally got in power? Don't be retarded. The Republicans aren't interested in working with Obama to get stuff done, they're interested in him fucking shit up so they can have something to run on next go-around.

This.

Very well put, I was going to post something thoughtful in here, but this is pretty much exactly what I was going to say. I agree with all of it.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

List of things Liberals and Obama have disaggreeed upon:



Stimulus: Progressive economists — including at least one Nobel Prize winner (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/stimulus-arithmetic-wonkish-but-important/) — warned that the President’s stimulus package was too small (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/09/is-stimulus-too-small_n_165076.html) to lift the sinking economy. Similarly, progressives consistently warned the President not to replace highly-stimulative spending with ineffectual tax cuts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/stimulus-features-tax-cut_n_161170.html). Nevertheless, the President rejected progressive pleas for a more substantial package and brokered a deal with made tax cuts almost one-third of the stimulus (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list). Obama allowed much of its final form to be dictated by a handful of Senate Republicans (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123332897909033591.html).
Bank Nationalization: Many progressives unsuccessfully (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/obama-on-nationalization/) urged Obama to nationalize (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09055/951102-109.stm) the failing (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/ferguson_johnson) banks (http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx021109.html), rather than risk making future bailout payments to an industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the nation’s economy.
Cap and Trade: Many of President Obama’s campaign promises (http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/05/15/climate-and-policy-experts-warn-watered-down-cap-and-trade-bill-won%E2%80%99t-prevent-catastrophic-climate-change/) for a robust cap-and-trade system have been watered down by a coalition of so-called “Brown Dog (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/cleaning-waxman-pollution/)” Democrats loyal to Big Coal.
Single-Payer: The House Progressive Caucus prefers a single-payer system (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/will_the_house_progressive_cau.html ) to the almost-exclusively private insurance-driven system proposed by the President.
Judicial Nominations: President Bush stacked the federal courts with young right-wing ideologues (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/29/leahy-stalled-nominees/) — one of whom even compared Social Security to “cannibalism (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/04/21/out-of-the-mainstream-browns-extremist-record/).” President Obama’s nominees, however, have been older (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3cd8a28f-89bb-4854-aed0-76c57227929b) and far more moderate than President Bush’s, and at least one has been actively opposed (http://www.gcilrc.org/index.php/latest-news/72-ncil-urges-members-to-oppose-judge-andre-davis.html) by disability rights advocates.
Executive Power: President Obama embraced several Bush-era assertions of power, including signing statements (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html?_r=2) and aggressive use of the state secrets doctrine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html) to avoid disclosing information in court.
Torture: President Obama initially opposed a commission (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/obama-reid-oppose-torture_n_190857.html) to investigate Bush-era torture policies. His Administration also opposes prosecuting Bush Administration officials guilty of torture (http://www.newsweek.com/id/180096).
GLBT Rights: Despite campaign promises (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/opinion/ed-marriage17) to repeal bigoted laws like DOMA and Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, President Obama is “moving slowly (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/20/podesta-acs-panel/)” in carrying out this promise. This, despite the fact that Obama has the power to unilaterally suspend DADT (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/dadt.pdf).
Sunday Show Panelists Claim That Obama Has Never ‘Opposed His Liberals’

(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/10/obama-his-liberals/)

[saysmydoctor]

This thread is big LOLWUT. Does know one factcheck what they say before they open their mouth.

[paper halo]

The subject of this thread is stupid. That is all.

[Codi23]

This thread is big LOLWUT. Does know one factcheck what they say before they open their mouth.

No, I don't think know one does.

Lol.

[simensays]

I think we should blow up all politicians and start this country over again...the way it was founded...freedom...not anyone telling us what kind of health care we'll be able to get/use...and all that other stupid shit that has been going on for years now.

but that is just my opinion and i am sure alot of kids in here will disagree with it...OH WELL. thats life...get on with it.
:lol:
this country was founded on convicts and criminals. History lesson for you. Britain sent their prisoners here to live free because they didn't want to deal with their shit. So America was founded on shitty people. Hence the reason for all the corruption now.

[thepianominstre]

None of that has anything to do with what side of the political spectrum Obama leans to; it was what's needed to stop the economy from going apeshit, leading to a second great depression.

Yes, that's what Obama administration + Bernanke + Krugman keep telling us.. Unfortunately, we'll never know what would have happened without all of that, but we will certainly live with the unintended consequences of what they did. The much bally-hooed Lehman failure actually resolved with little complication, while the federal/taxpayer bailout of AIG has just resulted in billions more dollars than initially promised and complications and controversy, not even counting the perverse incentives created. Ford survived without taxpayer dollars but we still don't know whether or not GM and Chevy will ever repay our money, and don't get me started on how "Cash For Clunkers" hurts the poor, hurts the environment, and doesn't even really help the auto industry (Just wait for future reports of car sales plummeting after funds run out). Something like 5% of the stimulus has been spent so far, and whether the economy is coming back already or not (I don't see how it can), we already knew most of it wouldn't get spent until 2011 or later, which doesn't help us now but certainly contributes further to the deficit and scares the Chinese and our other funders who we basically owe our lives to at this point.

Obama has done nothing but further expand our deficit with no real plan to get us back out (he said he'll cut the deficit in half in a few years, but what's half of a quadrupled deficit?) while telling the Republicans "I won" and trying not to "let a crisis go to waste" by ramming through whatever liberal legislation he can (stimulus, health care, energy) as fast he can without putting it up online for a week for all to read like he said he would. And he's continued to do the wrong power-hungry things Bush did, from signing statements to going soft on torture.

[Jason Tate]

Yes, that's what Obama administration + Bernanke + Krugman keep telling us.. Unfortunately, we'll never know what would have happened without all of that, but we will certainly live with the unintended consequences of what they did. The much bally-hooed Lehman failure actually resolved with little complication, while the federal/taxpayer bailout of AIG has just resulted in billions more dollars than initially promised and complications and controversy, not even counting the perverse incentives created. Ford survived without taxpayer dollars but we still don't know whether or not GM and Chevy will ever repay our money, and don't get me started on how "Cash For Clunkers" hurts the poor, hurts the environment, and doesn't even really help the auto industry (Just wait for future reports of car sales plummeting after funds run out). Something like 5% of the stimulus has been spent so far, and whether the economy is coming back already or not (I don't see how it can), we already knew most of it wouldn't get spent until 2011 or later, which doesn't help us now but certainly contributes further to the deficit and scares the Chinese and our other funders who we basically owe our lives to at this point.

Obama has done nothing but further expand our deficit with no real plan to get us back out (he said he'll cut the deficit in half in a few years, but what's half of a quadrupled deficit?) while telling the Republicans "I won" and trying not to "let a crisis go to waste" by ramming through whatever liberal legislation he can (stimulus, health care, energy) as fast he can without putting it up online for a week for all to read like he said he would. And he's continued to do the wrong power-hungry things Bush did, from signing statements to going soft on torture.
Wait wait wait, UNFORTUNATELY? Uhhhhhh.

[saysmydoctor]

It's unfortunate a global depression didn't occur.

[saysmydoctor]

:lol:
this country was founded on convicts and criminals. History lesson for you. Britain sent their prisoners here to live free because they didn't want to deal with their shit. So America was founded on shitty people. Hence the reason for all the corruption now.
Do you ever say anything factual or grounded in truth? You have the US confused with Australia.

[Praetor]

lol at you lumping Obama and Krugman together.

[simensays]

Do you ever say anything factual or grounded in truth? You have the US confused with Australia.
I feel sorry for a 19 year old that thinks he knows it all. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself a fool"
I don't know everything, but I do know American History.

[Jason Tate]

I feel sorry for a 19 year old that thinks he knows it all. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself a fool"
I don't know everything, but I do know American History.
What you said is not american history. What is wrong with you?

[Machu505]

Australia is where Britain sent prisoners, not America.

[paper halo]

Do you ever say anything factual or grounded in truth? You have the US confused with Australia.

British convicts were sent to America in time before the revolution, but plenty of colonies already existed, so it is not correct to say the US was founded on convicts.

[saysmydoctor]

I feel sorry for a 19 year old that thinks he knows it all. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself a fool"
I don't know everything, but I do know American History.
Apparently not because you were wrong.

[simensays]

What you said is not american history. What is wrong with you?
Oops, i'm sorry, British History. As that's (was) my Major.

[simensays]

Apparently not because you were wrong.
How am I wrong. It's quite common knowledge that Britain shipped it's prisoners off to BOTH Australia and North America.

[saysmydoctor]

I wasn't denying they were sent here, but we weren't founded by them.

[GeeBee]

Oops, i'm sorry, British History. As that's (was) my Major.

Struggling today, eh?

[saysmydoctor]

How am I wrong. It's quite common knowledge that Britain shipped it's prisoners off to BOTH Australia and North America.
You didn't say that, don't fucking backtrack dumbass. You said we were founded by convicts and shitty people. THAT is false. You said something inaccurate.

[Jason Tate]

Oops, i'm sorry, British History. As that's (was) my Major.
So all you've proved to me is that you should study harder ...

[ShShShark]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.

Finally, someone who actually gets it.

[ShShShark]

You didn't say that, don't fucking backtrack dumbass. You said we were founded by convicts and shitty people. THAT is false. You said something inaccurate.

Not convicts or shitty people, just people who were bitchy about taxes and decided to go somewhere else.......if only that option was still available today....*sigh*

[Jason Tate]

Not convicts or shitty people, just people who were bitchy about taxes and decided to go somewhere else.......if only that option was still available today....*sigh*
I'll buy you the plane ticket. Antarctica is waiting.

[ShShShark]

I'll buy you the plane ticket. Antarctica is waiting.

The last fronteir...

[Machu505]

When I'm President I'm invading Antarctica. Those penguins are a major threat to national security.

[simensays]

Do you ever say anything factual or grounded in truth? You have the US confused with Australia.
there you have it. Right there you state that Britain did not send prisoners to US. What are you trying to battle now. You were wrong, i was right. Open your mouth and start sucking my balls.

You didn't say that, don't fucking backtrack dumbass. You said we were founded by convicts and shitty people. THAT is false. You said something inaccurate.
You're "backtrack[ing]". I'll show you where in the next Bold font.

I wasn't denying they were sent here, but we weren't founded by them.
yes you were denying they were sent there. In case you can't keep up you said "You have the US confused with Australia"
So in the end. You're 19, I can't blame you. But pry your lips off of your ass.
Struggling today, eh?
yes i am

[GeeBee]

You're 19, I can't blame you. But pry your lips off of your ass.


LOL. Says the patriarch 22 year-old with his degree in British History?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

this country was founded on convicts and criminals. .


3zNjQecyjE8


So America was founded on shitty people. Hence the reason for all the corruption now.


3zNjQecyjE8

[Machu505]

The "someone's age disqualifies them from intelligence" logical fallacy has a name, but I can't think of it at the moment.

[J.C.]

oh, sup Ron Paul talking points

And that's not counting all the various regulations and other things throughout the years. Bush was no friend of "free markets."

Yeah, the crises that arose in the financial system and housing markets because of exploited loopholes and corporate greed were a direct result of being too heavily regulated. That's like arguing that the steroid problem in baseball was a direct result of their testing policy being too effective.

Our economy didn't go in the shitbin because the free market wasn't allowed to generate prosperity. It went in the shitbin because the people at the top of the chain gamed the system without consideration of what it did to the market in the long run.

and don't get me started on how "Cash For Clunkers" hurts the poor

All of a sudden you care about the poor? You just got done arguing on the side of corporate greed and the free market, which are infintely more detrimental to the poor than a friggin Cash for Clunkers program. Jesus H. Christ, dude. Get some perspective.

hurts the environment, and doesn't even really help the auto industry (Just wait for future reports of car sales plummeting after funds run out).

LOL No kidding, Einstein. The increase in sales is because of the program, so of course they're going to resort back to their usual levels once the program ends. The program wasn't designed to do otherwise. It's intent was to get dealers some activity they weren't seeing all while putting people in (theoretically) more fuel efficient cars.

Something like 5% of the stimulus has been spent so far

Oh look, some facts that need correcting.

15% of the stimulus money has actually been paid out so far. And roughly 30% of funds are currently avaliable.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/04/news/economy/stimulus_spending/index.htm?section=money_news_econom y

and whether the economy is coming back already or not (I don't see how it can)

I think most people recognize that it is, though I know admitting that would undermine everything you've been bitching about in this thread.

we already knew most of it wouldn't get spent until 2011 or later, which doesn't help us now but certainly contributes further to the deficit and scares the Chinese and our other funders who we basically owe our lives to at this point.

Your ass is getting quite a workout with all the facts you're pulling out of it today.

"Obama administration officials say the government is on pace, and in some areas ahead of pace, to spend about a quarter of the stimulus funds by the end of 2009 and 70% by the end of 2010."

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

The "someone's age disqualifies them from intelligence" logical fallacy has a name, but I can't think of it at the moment.

its callled a Ad hominem

[GeeBee]

The "someone's age disqualifies them from intelligence" logical fallacy has a name, but I can't think of it at the moment.
I believe I was once foolish enough to pull that card on you. For shame. (BTW...seeing RX for the first time tonight. STOKED!)
oh, sup Ron Paul talking points
I love nothing more than seeing pseudo-intellectual "libertarians" put in their place.

[simensays]

LOL. Says the patriarch 22 year-old with his degree in British History?
i like brit history. Plus now i'm in a top law school that starts in about 3weeks.

[ShShShark]

When I'm President I'm invading Antarctica. Those penguins are a major threat to national security.

Thanks for crushing my dreams

[Machu505]

its callled a Ad hominem
It falls under ad hominem?
I believe I was once foolish enough to pull that card on you. For shame. (BTW...seeing RX for the first time tonight. STOKED!)

I love nothing more than seeing pseudo-intellectual "libertarians" put in their place.
Do not underestimate the power of da Matt. And don't rub it in my face!

[Machu505]

Thanks for crushing my dreams
Don't worry. It will just be a territory so you'll have all benefits citizens get, just without all the taxes.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

It falls under ad hominem?



well attcking a persons age instead of the messege is attaching the man which is what ad hominem means right?

An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument to the man" or "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) against the claim.

[GeeBee]

i like brit history. Plus now i'm in a top law school that starts in about 3weeks.

Sw33t bragz yo!

[Machu505]

well attcking a persons age instead of the messege is attaching the man which is what ad hominem means right?
Ah I see. Makes sense.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Ah I see. Makes sense.

ya but specficlly going after someones age could have a specialized term for it idk. we should make one up! ha

[saysmydoctor]

there you have it. Right there you state that Britain did not send prisoners to US. What are you trying to battle now. You were wrong, i was right. Open your mouth and start sucking my balls.


You're "backtrack[ing]". I'll show you where in the next Bold font.


yes you were denying they were sent there. In case you can't keep up you said "You have the US confused with Australia"
So in the end. You're 19, I can't blame you. But pry your lips off of your ass.

yes i am
I was correcting the falsehood of stating the US was founded by convicts that was uttered by....you. That is false. You confused Australia with the US. I'm not backtracking. I'm reinforcing my original remarks. Reading comprehension goes a long time.

Also, congratulations on the ad hominem.

[ShShShark]

Don't worry. It will just be a territory so you'll have all benefits citizens get, just without all the taxes.

meh, apparently iits all just gonna melt away anywhow

[Mercy Medical]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.
:appl:

[thepianominstre]

All of a sudden you care about the poor? You just got done arguing on the side of corporate greed and the free market, which are infintely more detrimental to the poor than a friggin Cash for Clunkers program. Jesus H. Christ, dude. Get some perspective.
Yes, I care about the poor, which is why I care about free markets, which raise the standard of living over time. How did China lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last two decades? Not by giving them money or continuing their government communism but by expanding markets.

The increase in sales is because of the program, so of course they're going to resort back to their usual levels once the program ends. The program wasn't designed to do otherwise. It's intent was to get dealers some activity they weren't seeing all while putting people in (theoretically) more fuel efficient cars.

60,000-70,000 clunker trades happen every month anyway, so the program had us give money to people who could already afford to buy new cars and were going to anyway, but squeezing three to six months of activity into a couple weeks. And those that decided to buy new cars because of the program essentially robbed countless other businesses of the thousands of dollars that the money would have gone to instead. But the government has decided to favor the auto industry at the expense of other less-visible industries. And since the cars have to be scrapped, that's 250,000 (now 750,000) cars that will not be entering the used car market, making it harder for those who can't afford new cars. But the Democrats would rather waste energy to destroy a perfectly use-able car and produce a new one than let a poor person drive it.

Oh look, some facts that need correcting. 15% of the stimulus money has actually been paid out so far. And roughly 30% of funds are currently avaliable.

My bad. Thanks for the correction. Krugman et. al. didn't think the stimulus package was big enough to begin with, and in fact he's arguing for a second one already, and if only spending 15% of the first one has turned the economy around, then why did we need to spend that much (and why do we need to spend more)?

Look, I hope the economy turns around soon, too. I'll even hope for the best consequences of the mammoth bills on healthcare, cap-and-trade, etc. But we can't keep counting on the world to purchase our treasuries (especially once they realize they don't need it as a "safe haven" investment anymore) to fund our deficit that's four times bigger than Bush's own record of last year... In July the government's monthly expenses-over-income reached a new record. You can ignore the deficit issue like everyone in government has for the last decade, but it's only getting worse. We're about to owe our annual GDP.



At any rate, this thread was not originally about whether Obama is governing left and/or center and/or just doing what he had to do, but whether or not Obama's style is authoritarian, and no one seems to mind too much that Obama believes he can ignore laws he doesn't like or continue the signing statements. People were practically castrating Bush for this, but as usual, both sides only complain about the problems with the other.

[Machu505]

Except, you know, me.

[GeeBee]

Yes, I care about the poor, which is why I care about free markets, which raise the standard of living over time. How did China lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last two decades? Not by giving them money or continuing their government communism but by expanding markets.
There's no such thing as a free market. It's a utopian fantasy. This whole paragraph reeks of capitalist apologetics.

60,000-70,000 clunker trades happen every month anyway, so the program had us give money to people who could already afford to buy new cars and were going to anyway, but squeezing three to six months of activity into a couple weeks. And those that decided to buy new cars because of the program essentially robbed countless other businesses of the thousands of dollars that the money would have gone to instead. But the government has decided to favor the auto industry at the expense of other less-visible industries. And since the cars have to be scrapped, that's 250,000 (now 750,000) cars that will not be entering the used car market, making it harder for those who can't afford new cars. But the Democrats would rather waste energy to destroy a perfectly use-able car and produce a new one than let a poor person drive it.

Again...absolute nonsense. Clunker trades? Cars that weren't worth 300 dollars were getting traded in for replacements that got 70-90% better mileage, for people that wouldn't have been able to afford a new car otherwise. That's a good thing. Your assertions here are as desperate as they are foolish.



My bad. Thanks for the correction. Krugman et. al. didn't think the stimulus package was big enough to begin with, and in fact he's arguing for a second one already, and if only spending 15% of the first one has turned the economy around, then why did we need to spend that much (and why do we need to spend more)?

Because unemployment is still horrible.

Look, I hope the economy turns around soon, too. I'll even hope for the best consequences of the mammoth bills on healthcare, cap-and-trade, etc. But we can't keep counting on the world to purchase our treasuries (especially once they realize they don't need it as a "safe haven" investment anymore) to fund our deficit that's four times bigger than Bush's own record of last year... In July the government's monthly expenses-over-income reached a new record. You can ignore the deficit issue like everyone in government has for the last decade, but it's only getting worse. We're about to owe our annual GDP.

Keynesian economics have been proven to work over and over. The Freidman nonsense you seem to be peddling has been confirmed by prominent economists to be the very cause of the mess we're currently in.


At any rate, this thread was not originally about whether Obama is governing left and/or center and/or just doing what he had to do, but whether or not Obama's style is authoritarian, and no one seems to mind too much that Obama believes he can ignore laws he doesn't like or continue the signing statements. People were practically castrating Bush for this, but as usual, both sides only complain about the problems with the other.

Care to name any? Care to equate them to trampling over habeas corpus?

[Love As Arson]

Yes, I care about the poor, which is why I care about free markets, which raise the standard of living over time. How did China lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last two decades? Not by giving them money or continuing their government communism but by expanding markets.
China is more of a capitalist state than our America. Moreover, since the 70's, when conservative economics became popular, wages have stagnated and we've seen an immense increase in class stratification.
At any rate, this thread was not originally about whether Obama is governing left and/or center and/or just doing what he had to do, but whether or not Obama's style is authoritarian, and no one seems to mind too much that Obama believes he can ignore laws he doesn't like or continue the signing statements. People were practically castrating Bush for this, but as usual, both sides only complain about the problems with the other.
It depends. Do you believe that every president, regardless of party, serving ruling class power is authoritarian?

[J.C.]

Yes, I care about the poor, which is why I care about free markets, which raise the standard of living over time. How did China lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in the last two decades? Not by giving them money or continuing their government communism but by expanding markets.

Nobody's arguing for full blown communism or that the free market doesn't serve a purpose. But pretending what we're currently dealing with is anything remotely equivalent to China under Mao is as absurd as relying on corporations to have our best interests at heart. An unchecked free market is no better than no free market. All the problems we've run into in the past decade or so(that end up hurting people towards the bottom of the 'food chain') would be increased ten-fold with less regulation. Perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with some of the corruption issues China deals with. I'm surprised you brought up a country with such a brutal gap between the rich and the poor(y'know, kind of a problem we deal with?) and one that made a name for itself recently by exporting lead toys and antifreeze-laced toothpaste. FUCK REGULATION YEAH.

60,000-70,000 clunker trades happen every month anyway, so the program had us give money to people who could already afford to buy new cars and were going to anyway, but squeezing three to six months of activity into a couple weeks.

Yes, that would be the point of stimulus.

You just complained in your last post about the money not having an instant effect and that funds were being pushed off too far in the future to make a difference. Now you're complaining about a relatively tiny program(in the scheme of things) that has garnered positive, tangible results.

And those that decided to buy new cars because of the program essentially robbed countless other businesses of the thousands of dollars that the money would have gone to instead.

Did you miss the part of the program where people were saving additional thousands of dollars on the purchase of their new cars?

But the government has decided to favor the auto industry at the expense of other less-visible industries.

I'm not going to sit here and defend corporate bailouts, but the judgment was made by the last administration that if the auto industry was allowed to shit the bed, those other less-visible industries would've ultimately been toast anyway. I think with the investment that's already been made in the autos, this administration's hands were tied on this issue. You can't cut the cord at this point or all the money pumped in is instantly wasted and we're left without the chance of getting a return on our investment.


Krugman et. al. didn't think the stimulus package was big enough to begin with, and in fact he's arguing for a second one already, and if only spending 15% of the first one has turned the economy around, then why did we need to spend that much (and why do we need to spend more)?

Krugman's awesome.

I'd say there's a difference between merely digging the economy out of the ditch(which I think we're doing) and getting this country in the spot it needs to be in to compete with the rest of the world. The fact is you have to spend money in order to compete. I don't think most on the left have as much an issue with the fact Bush spent money, but where/what it was spent on. Bush ran up the deficit without really investing in anything that was going to profit us down the road. That's going to be his legacy more than anything; that his 8 years were a black hole in terms of progress for this country.


At any rate, this thread was not originally about whether Obama is governing left and/or center and/or just doing what he had to do, but whether or not Obama's style is authoritarian, and no one seems to mind too much that Obama believes he can ignore laws he doesn't like or continue the signing statements. People were practically castrating Bush for this, but as usual, both sides only complain about the problems with the other.

I don't know if you just don't frequent this board enough, but Obama's caught plenty of flack here for being hypocritical/indecisive on the stuff he campaigned on.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is how he's both an authoritarian AND too liberal. There are legitimate criticisms to be made about Obama and his administration, but they get devalued when people try and play both sides of the fence.

[Jason Tate]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.
New Rule: Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn't put anything past this stupid country. It was amazing - in the minute or so between my calling America stupid and the end of the Cialis commercial, CNN was flooded with furious emails and the twits hit the fan. And you could tell that these people were really mad because they wrote entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS!!! It's how they get the blood circulating when the Cialis wears off. Worst of all, Bill O'Reilly refuted my contention that this is a stupid country by calling me a pinhead, which A) proves my point, and B) is really funny coming from a doody-face like him.

Now, the hate mail all seemed to have a running theme: that I may live in a stupid country, but they lived in the greatest country on earth, and that perhaps I should move to another country, like Somalia. Well, the joke's on them because I happen to have a summer home in Somalia... and no I can't show you an original copy of my birth certificate because Woody Harrelson spilled bong water on it.

And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.

I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try.

Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. No, they're not stupid. They're interplanetary mavericks. A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words "Bush" and "knowledge."

People +$*#+ and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%. And don't even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, "Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?"

And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.

And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? Please, this country is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything, like wars, and we can be talked out of anything, like health care. We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. "Inside the beltway" thinking may be wrong, but at least it's thinking, which is more than you can say for what's going on outside the beltway.

And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin.

Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that "pure democracy" doesn't work because "there is nothing to check... an obnoxious individual." Then, in the margins, he doodled a picture of Joe the Plumber.

Until we admit there are things we don't know, we can't even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can't stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: "My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" To which most Americans would respond: "Are you calling my mother a drunk?"

----

Short version: I don't want a real democracy.

[thespearkid]

Isn't the Wall Street Journal owned by the same fellow who owns Fox News? I wouldn't exactly trust their commentary on anything.

[Codi23]

:popcorn:

This thread is muy, muy entertaining.

[un.Starálfur]

What next? Totalitarianism!

[Codi23]

What next? Totalitarianism!

Don't you watch Fox News?? Socialism and Communism are coming!!!!

[Love As Arson]

New Rule: Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn't put anything past this stupid country. It was amazing - in the minute or so between my calling America stupid and the end of the Cialis commercial, CNN was flooded with furious emails and the twits hit the fan. And you could tell that these people were really mad because they wrote entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS!!! It's how they get the blood circulating when the Cialis wears off. Worst of all, Bill O'Reilly refuted my contention that this is a stupid country by calling me a pinhead, which A) proves my point, and B) is really funny coming from a doody-face like him.

Now, the hate mail all seemed to have a running theme: that I may live in a stupid country, but they lived in the greatest country on earth, and that perhaps I should move to another country, like Somalia. Well, the joke's on them because I happen to have a summer home in Somalia... and no I can't show you an original copy of my birth certificate because Woody Harrelson spilled bong water on it.

And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.

I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try.

Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. No, they're not stupid. They're interplanetary mavericks. A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words "Bush" and "knowledge."

People +$*#+ and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%. And don't even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, "Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?"

And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.

And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? Please, this country is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything, like wars, and we can be talked out of anything, like health care. We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. "Inside the beltway" thinking may be wrong, but at least it's thinking, which is more than you can say for what's going on outside the beltway.

And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin.

Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that "pure democracy" doesn't work because "there is nothing to check... an obnoxious individual." Then, in the margins, he doodled a picture of Joe the Plumber.

Until we admit there are things we don't know, we can't even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can't stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: "My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" To which most Americans would respond: "Are you calling my mother a drunk?"

----

Short version: I don't want a real democracy.

I read this and think about efforts put forth by average Americans to achieve reform,like civil rights,and the desire of the liberal establishment for them to take things more slowly.Do you believe this elite is going to end the war on drugs?Do you think they will end the death penalty or promote workplace democracy? Power concedes nothing without demand.And getting enough people to demand the right decisions is a difficult task if they view those surrounding them as bumpkins. As for the religious criticism,it is the elite which promote these confusing myths,so I'd be hard-pressed to trust them in that regard;if they're willing to promote these things,which other backward ideas might be purposefully disseminated?

[un.Starálfur]

Don't you watch Fox News?? Socialism and Communism are coming!!!!

Haha Fox News!

yeah, that's what I hear....oh boy!

[thepianominstre]

This whole paragraph reeks of capitalist apologetics.

If "capitalist apologetics" means pointing out inconvenient facts like freer markets (since nothing's ever truly free) lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, then I guess you're right.

Again...absolute nonsense. Clunker trades? Cars that weren't worth 300 dollars were getting traded in for replacements that got 70-90% better mileage, for people that wouldn't have been able to afford a new car otherwise. That's a good thing. Your assertions here are as desperate as they are foolish.

I have links for my 60,000 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111617646) number. Your 70-90% is actually 61% (http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/clunkers_continues/)... did you make up your 300 dollars too? The vehicles had to be insured and drivable; I haven't seen a stat on that but I bet they would have gone for a bit more than that.

Because unemployment is still horrible.

Hmm... that's decent logic. I don't agree with the overall premise, but I can see the case for that one.

Keynesian economics have been proven to work over and over. The Freidman nonsense you seem to be peddling has been confirmed by prominent economists to be the very cause of the mess we're currently in.

My, what confidence you have! I don't know that anyone understands macroeconomics well enough to soundly assert such things, but I'm pretty sure Keynesian economics hasn't been proven (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/12/fiscal-policy-a.html) to work over and over.

Care to name any?

See my first post.

Care to equate them to trampling over habeas corpus?

Woah, give the man a break, he's only had seven months to start acting authoritarian. But saying Bush's grievances were worse doesn't vindicate Obama's.

[thepianominstre]

China is more of a capitalist state than our America. Moreover, since the 70's, when conservative economics became popular, wages have stagnated and we've seen an immense increase in class stratification.

I've seen conflicting data on wages, depending on what you want to believe. On the one hand, you have it being stagnant; on the other hand you have claims that it's discounting social mobility and that 80% of the people in the lowest 20% are in a higher class after, say, 20 years (I forget the exact numbers. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics).

It depends. Do you believe that every president, regardless of party, serving ruling class power is authoritarian?

I believe any ruler is authoritarian who ignores the checks on his power or believes the rules don't apply to him.

[thepianominstre]

Nobody's arguing for full blown communism or that the free market doesn't serve a purpose. But pretending what we're currently dealing with is anything remotely equivalent to China under Mao is as absurd as relying on corporations to have our best interests at heart...

I didn't intend to compare us to China under Mao; I just wanted to note that the move by China in the direction of freer markets, while still (generally) less free than ours, has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

You just complained in your last post about the money not having an instant effect and that funds were being pushed off too far in the future to make a difference. Now you're complaining about a relatively tiny program(in the scheme of things) that has garnered positive, tangible results.

I'm complaining about all of it being an inefficient use of resources and contributing to a debt we can't repay. For the stimulus, I'm also arguing that it's not having an instant effect. For the clunkers program, I'm arguing that the "instant effect" isn't really positive at all, as it's distorting demand for new cars, destroying resources, etc.

Did you miss the part of the program where people were saving additional thousands of dollars on the purchase of their new cars?

There are two kinds of people saving money. The first are the people who were going to buy new cars anyway, and this is basically amounts to us giving some people money for no reason at all. Their "saved" money is negated by our lost money. The second are the people that wouldn't have bought a car without the program, which means they gave thousands to the car industry that would have gone to other industries, but...

I'm not going to sit here and defend corporate bailouts, but the judgment was made by the last administration that if the auto industry was allowed to shit the bed, those other less-visible industries would've ultimately been toast anyway. I think with the investment that's already been made in the autos, this administration's hands were tied on this issue. You can't cut the cord at this point or all the money pumped in is instantly wasted and we're left without the chance of getting a return on our investment.

....I do consider that a decent argument; indirect and cascading effects are hard to measure. Overall, however, I still think the program is a fail for the environment, consumers, and the industry (I've scattered those arguments on this thread, as well as detailed them here (http://joshuahedlund.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/why-arent-republicans-swinging-with-cash-for-clunkers-criticism/))

I don't know if you just don't frequent this board enough...

I don't, I only saw this article because I've started paying attention to the forum thread links on the new home page...

...but Obama's caught plenty of flack here for being hypocritical/indecisive on the stuff he campaigned on.

Well, that's good, I guess. I was hoping for the best but I can't say I've been at all surprised.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is how he's both an authoritarian AND too liberal. There are legitimate criticisms to be made about Obama and his administration, but they get devalued when people try and play both sides of the fence.

I don't think those two have to be mutually exclusive. Of course, with the Republicans mutilating "conservative" this decade I guess I don't know too much about what labels mean anymore anyways.

[zach]

I didn't intend to compare us to China under Mao; I just wanted to note that the move by China in the direction of freer markets, while still (generally) less free than ours, has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
It's also forced hundreds of millions of people into what is essentially a modern day version of indentured servitude to multi-national corporations. But hey, at least now the chinese can enjoy Big Macs too (assuming they're allowed to purchase outside of the company store.) and know who Bart Simpson is (even if it's only from sewing t-shirts with his face on it that they'll never be able to afford.)

[thepianominstre]

It's also forced hundreds of millions of people into what is essentially a modern day version of indentured servitude to multi-national corporations. But hey, at least now the chinese can enjoy Big Macs too (assuming they're allowed to purchase outside of the company store.) and know who Bart Simpson is (even if it's only from sewing t-shirts with his face on it that they'll never be able to afford.)

"China used to be thought of as the world’s factory floor - a haven of cheap labor and minimal regulatory oversight for large multinational companies. The result was a massive influx of foreign investment and rapid gross domestic product (GDP) growth. But the country has outgrown this model and is shifting from low-skill, labor-intensive industries to a higher standard of living. the wages of China’s migrant workers rose 2.8% in 2004, 6.5% in 2005, 11.5% in 2006 and 20% in 2007. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/82166-multinational-corporations-step-up-the-search-for-the-next-china)”

Funny how a higher standard of living is exactly what capitalism predicts will come when you allow freer markets. But, you know, it's a shame these evil multi-nationals didn't leave them destitute on the farms with barely enough to survive, much less afford things beyond basic amenities...

[Codi23]

"China used to be thought of as the world’s factory floor - a haven of cheap labor and minimal regulatory oversight for large multinational companies. The result was a massive influx of foreign investment and rapid gross domestic product (GDP) growth. But the country has outgrown this model and is shifting from low-skill, labor-intensive industries to a higher standard of living. the wages of China’s migrant workers rose 2.8% in 2004, 6.5% in 2005, 11.5% in 2006 and 20% in 2007. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/82166-multinational-corporations-step-up-the-search-for-the-next-china)”

Funny how a higher standard of living is exactly what capitalism predicts will come when you allow freer markets. But, you know, it's a shame these evil multi-nationals didn't leave them destitute on the farms with barely enough to survive, much less afford things beyond basic amenities...

Okay, now you're just being ignorant. Facts and percentages don't tell the whole story, so stop posting them to somehow explain why you're opposing everything others say. Typical conservative attitude as of late is to oppose anything that gets put in front of them (unless the conservatives themselves put it there). Sure you're not a conservative?

And about China, you're wrong. Thousands are still suffering working in our factories that we placed in their country; if Capitalism means taking everyone else on planet earth to use for our needs and wants, then fuck Capitalism. I'll take "socialism" over that shit.

Young girls in foreign countries are being picked up to work in these factories/sweat shops, and by the time they're in their mid-twenties, they're legally blind. That's what's happening in our world because of our expanding, capitalistic agenda. Do you support that?

[thepianominstre]

Okay, now you're just being ignorant. Facts and percentages don't tell the whole story, so stop posting them to somehow explain why you're opposing everything others say. Typical conservative attitude as of late is to oppose anything that gets put in front of them (unless the conservatives themselves put it there). Sure you're not a conservative?

And about China, you're wrong. Thousands are still suffering working in our factories that we placed in their country; if Capitalism means taking everyone else on planet earth to use for our needs and wants, then fuck Capitalism. I'll take "socialism" over that shit.

Young girls in foreign countries are being picked up to work in these factories/sweat shops, and by the time they're in their mid-twenties, they're legally blind. That's what's happening in our world because of our expanding, capitalistic agenda. Do you support that?

I never said capitalism was perfect. I never said that there weren't still poverty-stricken Chinese or that there aren't Chinese within the corporate factories who aren't suffering or destitute. Would you rather have everyone remain destitute instead of allowing a significant percentage of them to rise above it? You are being equally ignorant if you want to claim that the (somewhat) capitalism of recent China has not alleviated the suffering of any Chinese that was not alleviated by the decades of communism. Do you prefer socialism that leaves everyone equally destitute over capitalism that lets some of them succeed?

I don't support corruption in capitalism, but corruption in capitalism is easier to root out by public outcry than government corruption, and because corporations can quickly go out of business. Corruption in government is harder to root out because they can't go out of business and people only sometimes can vote them out of office every few years. Would you rather have corrupt government keeping all of the poor in China destitute via communism/socialism, or a capitalism that has some corruption that keeps some poor but allows hundreds of millions of them to rise above poverty?

Why don't you start here and follow the links and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_ of_China. Then give me some links and facts about the corruption that is still there, and how most of these people are not better than they were before the corporations and factories showed up.

[Mercy Medical]

I never said capitalism was perfect. I never said that there weren't still poverty-stricken Chinese or that there aren't Chinese within the corporate factories who aren't suffering or destitute. Would you rather have everyone remain destitute instead of allowing a significant percentage of them to rise above it? You are being equally ignorant if you want to claim that the (somewhat) capitalism of recent China has not alleviated the suffering of any Chinese that was not alleviated by the decades of communism. Do you prefer socialism that leaves everyone equally destitute over capitalism that lets some of them succeed?

I don't support corruption in capitalism, but corruption in capitalism is easier to root out by public outcry than government corruption, and because corporations can quickly go out of business. Corruption in government is harder to root out because they can't go out of business and people only sometimes can vote them out of office every few years. Would you rather have corrupt government keeping all of the poor in China destitute via communism/socialism, or a capitalism that has some corruption that keeps some poor but allows hundreds of millions of them to rise above poverty?In regards to the bolded portion, I believe it works in theory. The theory being that if the public is not pleased with a corporation they will stop giving that corporation their money. However, in practice we've noticed that this does not actually occur. Maybe for small businesses, yes, but we've seen many corporations in the US become so large that they economy of the country and that corporation are very much entwined. A perfect example are the banks and how they were failing last fall. Yes, ideally we should have let them fail because they were bad companies with bad practices, however, they were far too large to let fail as it would have caused our entire economy to come crashing down. The same thing goes with the automotive industry. Yes, ideally we should have let them fail, but they employ so many people and are so intertwined with the local economy that it would have been catastrophic if we let that happen.

In theory, everyone works fantastic...capitalism, socialism, communism, etc...however, once you had that unpredictable factor such as people, the theories get thrown out the window.

[GeeBee]

Loving how the Ron Paul parrot in this thread doesn't see that Libertarianism is as misguidedly utopian as is Marxism or any other absolutionist -ism I could come up with.

[Mercy Medical]

Loving how the Ron Paul parrot in this thread doesn't see that Libertarianism is as misguidedly utopian as is Marxism or any other absolutionist -ism I could come up with.
Once again, Libertarianism in theory is the best possible solution (at least in my opinion) to live. A live and let live society where we don't pay taxes and we're essentially all accountable for ourselves and our actions...but that type of thing does not work in reality because there will be people out there who will scheme and take advantage of the system. It would be great if everyone got along and there was peace, happiness and rainbows, but that's not life.

And these are the reasons I stopped listening to Free Talk Live (Libertarian talk show) because they just kept saying the same old shit over and over and over again and constantly complained about the same things. It got old and annoying.

[GeeBee]

I agree, it's a lovely thought. But among the possible -isms, to me it seems the least likely for anything near success. If human nature makes communism impossible, it outright flushes libertarianism down the toilet.

In addition, any political ideology with capitalism at its roots will create a caste system by default.

[Praetor]

I think that communism and neo-liberal capitalism have a lot more in common with one another than a lot of people like to admit. For example, neither will succeed without a common sense of personal responsibility.

[apsterling]

I think that communism and neo-liberal capitalism have a lot more in common with one another than a lot of people like to admit. For example, neither will succeed without a common sense of personal responsibility.

Right with you on that, but unfortunately the social structure places the blame on nobody and everyone gets off clean without a mark. In the long run it's the way we work our social lives that will do in politics, moreso than the politics and the people in the government.

[thepianominstre]

In regards to the bolded portion, I believe it works in theory. The theory being that if the public is not pleased with a corporation they will stop giving that corporation their money. However, in practice we've noticed that this does not actually occur. Maybe for small businesses, yes, but we've seen many corporations in the US become so large that they economy of the country and that corporation are very much entwined. A perfect example are the banks and how they were failing last fall. Yes, ideally we should have let them fail because they were bad companies with bad practices, however, they were far too large to let fail as it would have caused our entire economy to come crashing down. The same thing goes with the automotive industry. Yes, ideally we should have let them fail, but they employ so many people and are so intertwined with the local economy that it would have been catastrophic if we let that happen.

Good point; however, libertarians might also argue that the only reason some of those corporations were able to get that large was because they were favored by and in bed with the government, and that when there aren't barriers to entry, competition naturally destroys monopolies. But that brings me to...

Loving how the Ron Paul parrot in this thread doesn't see that Libertarianism is as misguidedly utopian as is Marxism or any other absolutionist -ism I could come up with.

In theory, everyone works fantastic...capitalism, socialism, communism, etc...however, once you had that unpredictable factor such as people, the theories get thrown out the window.

GeeBee, I tend to parrot libertarian arguments because they tend to make the most sense to me, through both logical thought and historical evidence (such as the effect of freer markets on modern China, which I thought was commonly accepted and which I feel I've adequately defended in this thread). But I'm not sold on anarcho-capitalism, either, and I've been trying to keep an open mind through the analysis of this whole crisis, which is hard because since there's enough to blame to go around everybody can reinforce their own views. Everyday I seem to find new evidence of the ghastly unintended consequences of government intervention; it's the capacity for corporation corruption that I'm more stuck on... and it's hard to weed through how much of it is truly market failure and how much can be traced back to the government.

No system can be perfect with selfish people, but at least capitalism can play a trick on selfishness and naturally turn it into good for other people (i.e. business owners having to figure out how to satisfy customer needs so they will buy their products/services, large profit margins in an industry enticing others to enter the industry and through increased competition drive down prices for customers). Selfishness in socialism just contributes to the deathly spiral of ridiculous disincentives. But I've started toying with the idea that even capitalism can't squeeze good out of all selfishness (although I still think it does better than the others), which leads to my other increasingly confirmed theory that only Jesus could save the world by changing hearts so that people don't want to be selfish. (But, woah, we've already strayed way outside the bounds of this thread without invoking religion.)

[zach]

"China used to be thought of as the world’s factory floor - a haven of cheap labor and minimal regulatory oversight for large multinational companies. The result was a massive influx of foreign investment and rapid gross domestic product (GDP) growth. But the country has outgrown this model and is shifting from low-skill, labor-intensive industries to a higher standard of living. the wages of China’s migrant workers rose 2.8% in 2004, 6.5% in 2005, 11.5% in 2006 and 20% in 2007. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/82166-multinational-corporations-step-up-the-search-for-the-next-china)”

Funny how a higher standard of living is exactly what capitalism predicts will come when you allow freer markets. But, you know, it's a shame these evil multi-nationals didn't leave them destitute on the farms with barely enough to survive, much less afford things beyond basic amenities...

Thanks for the random quote, which doesn't even concern Chinese workers. It's really to easy to frame the wages and conditions of chinese workers improving when you have one of the worlds largest corporate ex-pat populations to fluff out your statistics. Thank you for conferming my theory that you have no critical thinking skills.

[GeeBee]

Good point; however, libertarians might also argue that the only reason some of those corporations were able to get that large was because they were favored by and in bed with the government, and that when there aren't barriers to entry, competition naturally destroys monopolies. But that brings me to...





GeeBee, I tend to parrot libertarian arguments because they tend to make the most sense to me, through both logical thought and historical evidence (such as the effect of freer markets on modern China, which I thought was commonly accepted and which I feel I've adequately defended in this thread). But I'm not sold on anarcho-capitalism, either, and I've been trying to keep an open mind through the analysis of this whole crisis, which is hard because since there's enough to blame to go around everybody can reinforce their own views. Everyday I seem to find new evidence of the ghastly unintended consequences of government intervention; it's the capacity for corporation corruption that I'm more stuck on... and it's hard to weed through how much of it is truly market failure and how much can be traced back to the government.

No system can be perfect with selfish people, but at least capitalism can play a trick on selfishness and naturally turn it into good for other people (i.e. business owners having to figure out how to satisfy customer needs so they will buy their products/services, large profit margins in an industry enticing others to enter the industry and through increased competition drive down prices for customers). Selfishness in socialism just contributes to the deathly spiral of ridiculous disincentives. But I've started toying with the idea that even capitalism can't squeeze good out of all selfishness (although I still think it does better than the others), which leads to my other increasingly confirmed theory that only Jesus could save the world by changing hearts so that people don't want to be selfish. (But, woah, we've already strayed way outside the bounds of this thread without invoking religion.)

Oh god, somehow I knew you were a christian. :rolleyes:

You have too romantic a view of capitalism, and overstate its positive effects without so much as a glance toward the negative ones.

Capitalism may bring up the standard of living overall, but it still perpetuates inequality. Rich people getting richer at the expense of those who have the least.

[thepianominstre]

Thanks for the random quote, which doesn't even concern Chinese workers. It's really to easy to frame the wages and conditions of chinese workers improving when you have one of the worlds largest corporate ex-pat populations to fluff out your statistics. Thank you for conferming my theory that you have no critical thinking skills.

How does it not concern Chinese workers? It's talking about their average wages rising. Sorry, I'm not familiar with your "corporate ex-pat" abbreviation. But are you seriously arguing that there are not hundreds of millions of Chinese who have better living conditions now than they would have without the markets of the last two decades? Follow the wikipedia link I posted earlier detailing the hundreds of millions coming out of poverty, the drastic reduction in infant mortality, the millions who can now afford bottled water, etc. Of course it's not perfect and hasn't saved everyone, but do your critical thinking skills conclude that a huge amount of them aren't better off? Or would you rather them have not had freer markets and so many more of them still be destitute and poverty-stricken?

[thepianominstre]

Oh god, somehow I knew you were a christian. :rolleyes:

You have too romantic a view of capitalism, and overstate its positive effects without so much as a glance toward the negative ones.

Capitalism may bring up the standard of living overall, but it still perpetuates inequality. Rich people getting richer at the expense of those who have the least.

Yeah, yeah, it's probably too romantic (but I admitted to glancing at the negative ones in that post). But at the same time I know that some forms of it throughout history have done a lot of good... which I don't think can really be said for socialism... can you suggest a superior alternative?

[GeeBee]

Yeah, yeah, it's probably too romantic (but I admitted to glancing at the negative ones in that post). But at the same time I know that it has done a lot of good... can you suggest a superior alternative?

Not necessarily. Capitalism just seems far too 19th century for me. In this age, it seems silly to have to have the same arguments about aristocracy vs. proletariat, doesn't it? The one principle that I like:

Capitalism= money at its heart
Communism= people at its heart

In my mind, that leaves the score 0-1 in my book.

[Codi23]

Oh god, somehow I knew you were a christian. :rolleyes:

You have too romantic a view of capitalism, and overstate its positive effects without so much as a glance toward the negative ones.

Capitalism may bring up the standard of living overall, but it still perpetuates inequality. Rich people getting richer at the expense of those who have the least.

This. Capitalism just doesn't result in any equality whatsoever; it's built to create inequality. I haven't heard a single good argument that makes it seem good for the people (and not just the rich fat cats).

Not necessarily. Capitalism just seems far too 19th century for me. In this age, it seems silly to have to have the same arguments about aristocracy vs. proletariat, doesn't it? The one principle that I like:

Capitalism= money at its heart
Communism= people at its heart

In my mind, that leaves the score 0-1 in my book.

Communism, as it was originally intended, was a very good idea; almost utopian as someone said earlier. But, as we have all seen from historical events, it failed in the real world. China may be prospering in some areas right now, but it will go through it's downfalls just like we have; it will be a complete trainwreck when it does happen. They have no foundation in their own country, just other ones.

[Praetor]

This. Capitalism just doesn't result in any equality whatsoever; it's built to create inequality. I haven't heard a single good argument that makes it seem good for the people (and not just the rich fat cats).



Communism, as it was originally intended, was a very good idea; almost utopian as someone said earlier. But, as we have all seen from historical events, it failed in the real world. China may be prospering in some areas right now, but it will go through it's downfalls just like we have; it will be a complete trainwreck when it does happen. They have no foundation in their own country, just other ones.
It's never been tried on a large scale in the real world. Successful communes on a small scale exist all over the world.

[Codi23]

It's never been tried on a large scale in the real world. Successful communes on a small scale exist all over the world.

Yeah, I meant more on a large scale; like a national level. It hasn't been successful, because man is so easily corruptible... wish I had a good quote to put here hahaha.

[Praetor]

Yeah, I meant more on a large scale; like a national level. It hasn't been successful, because man is so easily corruptible... wish I had a good quote to put here hahaha.
No, it hasn't been successful because it hasn't been tried on a large scale.

[Codi23]

No, it hasn't been successful because it hasn't been tried on a large scale.

What the... you mean communism has never been tried at a large scale?

Where the hell have you been? hahahaha. Explain. Nao.

[GeeBee]

What the... you mean communism has never been tried at a large scale?

Where the hell have you been? hahahaha. Explain. Nao.

It's true. What gets labeled as "communism" was really just Maoism and Stalinism. True Communism can't be attempted by a nation that hasn't already been successful at capitalism.

[Codi23]

No, it hasn't been successful because it hasn't been tried on a large scale.

It's true. What gets labeled as "communism" was really just Maoism and Stalinism. True Communism can't be attempted by a nation that hasn't already been successful at capitalism.

You both are correct I believe; I think I've been using the word a little too loosely.

So I'm guessing you both are talking Communism in the vein of Marxism, correct? Yeah, I suppose that hasn't been done properly. Forgive me for being stupid :-d it's been a while since I had a formal history class haha; but I'm usually pretty good with this stuff... my apologies.

[GeeBee]

You both are correct I believe; I think I've been using the word a little too loosely.

So I'm guessing you both are talking Communism in the vein of Marxism, correct? Yeah, I suppose that hasn't been done properly. Forgive me for being stupid :-d it's been a while since I had a formal history class haha; but I'm usually pretty good with this stuff... my apologies.

No problem. It's pretty cool you're discussing it in the first place.

[Codi23]

No problem. It's pretty cool you're discussing it in the first place.

I love politics/history; just never really got into it until the end of high school. Everyone seems pretty knowledgeable around here, though; the only classes I've taken since high school that relate to this stuff are Sociology and Anthropology classes. I'm going into the medical field, so I don't take history or anything haha; I just like to keep informed.

Short version: If I say something stupid, somebody call me out for it. I'm here to discuss and learn.

[GeeBee]

I love politics/history; just never really got into it until the end of high school. Everyone seems pretty knowledgeable around here, though; the only classes I've taken since high school that relate to this stuff are Sociology and Anthropology classes. I'm going into the medical field, so I don't take history or anything haha; I just like to keep informed.

Short version: If I say something stupid, somebody call me out for it. I'm here to discuss and learn.

Good man.

I only know because my degree is in Russian. I love politics, but I can't stand economics.

[Codi23]

Good man.

I only know because my degree is in Russian. I love politics, but I can't stand economics.

Wow, that's pretty sweet you have a degree in Russian.

I've always failed to see what was so interesting about economics :shrug: (other than it's obvious importance haha). I like geography more than that...

[GeeBee]

Wow, that's pretty sweet you have a degree in Russian.

I've always failed to see what was so interesting about economics :shrug: (other than it's obvious importance haha). I like geography more than that...

Economics of any stripe are brain-numbing to me.

I am also a fan of geography.

[Codi23]

Economics of any stripe are brain-numbing to me.

I am also a fan of geography.

Sociology and Human Anthropology are also very interesting; I had great teachers for both. That's actually where I learned a lot about sweat shops, and how it's definitely still a huge problem in places like China (and many smaller countries). I also understand a lot about the exportation of jobs/companies from the U.S. due to those classes.

Oh, and Walmart needs to be destroyed.

[Machu505]

Geography ftw.

[GeeBee]

Sociology and Human Anthropology are also very interesting; I had great teachers for both. That's actually where I learned a lot about sweat shops, and how it's definitely still a huge problem in places like China (and many smaller countries). I also understand a lot about the exportation of jobs/companies from the U.S. due to those classes.

Oh, and Walmart needs to be destroyed.

Seconded.

[Codi23]

Geography ftw.

It's quite sad what little geography Americans know :-( .

[Machu505]

It's quite sad what little geography Americans know :-( .
I swear to God one of my best friends thought there were 51 states. I died a little inside.

[GeeBee]

I swear to God one of my best friends thought there were 51 states. I died a little inside.

Puerto Rico you stupid bastard.

/sarcasm

[Codi23]

I swear to God one of my best friends thought there were 51 states. I died a little inside.

Oh. My. God.

One of my friends literally thought that Africa was a country (kinda like Palin thought haha); I was stupefied.

Puerto Rico you stupid bastard.

/sarcasm

Ahhh it would be cool if it were, but for now it's just a territory :-( sniff sniff.

[saysmydoctor]

This. Capitalism just doesn't result in any equality whatsoever; it's built to create inequality. I haven't heard a single good argument that makes it seem good for the people (and not just the rich fat cats).



Communism, as it was originally intended, was a very good idea; almost utopian as someone said earlier. But, as we have all seen from historical events, it failed in the real world. China may be prospering in some areas right now, but it will go through it's downfalls just like we have; it will be a complete trainwreck when it does happen. They have no foundation in their own country, just other ones.
Communism never occurred in China, so this is a poor example. I can't recall a truly communist society ever existing.

[Machu505]

Oh. My. God.

One of my friends literally thought that Africa was a country (kinda like Palin thought haha); I was stupefied.
Yeah. She isn't exactly the smartest person in the world.

[Codi23]

Communism never occurred in China, so this is a poor example. I can't recall a truly communist society ever existing.

I should of phrased that better; I switched to talking about China in a capitalistic light. Should've split that into another paragraph... I wasn't saying that China was a communist nation.

I would've talked about Cuba if I wanted to put in an example for what I was trying to say (even though I wasn't talking about true communism). Several people corrected me...

[Love As Arson]

I've seen conflicting data on wages, depending on what you want to believe. On the one hand, you have it being stagnant; on the other hand you have claims that it's discounting social mobility and that 80% of the people in the lowest 20% are in a higher class after, say, 20 years (I forget the exact numbers. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics).
China is actually experiencing a great deal of civil conflict as a result of the class divide.


I believe any ruler is authoritarian who ignores the checks on his power or believes the rules don't apply to him.
That has been every president. As to capitalism's trickery,it must be very good because the alleviation of suffering for workers is so sublte one barely even notices it.

[Codi23]

China is actually experiencing a great deal of civil conflict as a result of the class divide.


We've been struggling with our own class divide for a very, very long time; however subtle it may be.

Class systems are widely misunderstood, imo.

[mattmatumbo]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.

:worship:

[GeeBee]

I think republicans and democrats should move aside and make way for real democracy.

I think conservatives should retake their ship that's been hijacked by their fringe.
I think liberals should retake their ship that hasn't left the dock in the U.S. yet.

[saysmydoctor]

I didn't catch the Republicans/Democrats remark. 100% agree with that, the two parties have dominated the discourse for too long and are both too comfortable in their roles.

[Praetor]

Communism never occurred in China, so this is a poor example. I can't recall a truly communist society ever existing.
Well technically, communist societies exist on a small scale all over the world. But never a communist state, since there can be no such thing.

[thepianominstre]

As to capitalism's trickery,it must be very good because the alleviation of suffering for workers is so sublte one barely even notices it.

A classic phrase from the Resident Marxist. So the majority of American citizens move through the income brackets over the course of their lifetimes, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering. Hundreds of millions of Chinese can now afford things beyond basic amenities, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering. What's it gonna take for people to notice these things?

Thank you all for conceding my point that there are hundreds of millions of Chinese who are now better off than they would have been without the freer markets of the last two decades. Again - they're not in a perfect world, but they are much better off. Unless, of course, you're down with infant mortality or any of the other dozens of living conditions that have been improved for them.

[thepianominstre]

Not necessarily. Capitalism just seems far too 19th century for me. In this age, it seems silly to have to have the same arguments about aristocracy vs. proletariat, doesn't it? The one principle that I like:

Capitalism= money at its heart
Communism= people at its heart

In my mind, that leaves the score 0-1 in my book.

Seriously? What does communism do when people start acting selfishly? And what incentives do they have not to?

[Mercy Medical]

The fact that money is always used as an incentive to work hard really makes me disappointed in this world.

People should work hard because they want to, because they want people to be proud of their work, because they want people to know they are a hard worker, because they want to make a difference, because they want to make things better. Money shouldn't be the main cog in the wheel that drives people and if it is, well, that's pretty fucking pathetic, in my opinion.

[My Broken Fever]

The fact that money is always used as an incentive to work hard really makes me disappointed in this world.

People should work hard because they want to, because they want people to be proud of their work, because they want people to know they are a hard worker, because they want to make a difference, because they want to make things better. Money shouldn't be the main cog in the wheel that drives people and if it is, well, that's pretty fucking pathetic, in my opinion.
Money buys stuff, people want stuff. It might be sad, but it's human nature.

[paper halo]

Money buys stuff, people want stuff. It might be sad, but it's human nature.

I dissagree with this to a massive extent.

[Mercy Medical]

Money buys stuff, people want stuff. It might be sad, but it's human nature.
But that brings us to the heart of the problem. People WANT stuff. They want stuff they don't need. They're materialistic. They're shallow. They want money and they want goods and that's it.

While I understand the fact that money is necessary to live ones life and I'm not expecting anyone to live off the grid, people are still perfectly capable of having a job, working hard, getting paid and not having the mindset of WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT.

I think it's American nature more so then it's human nature.

[Mercy Medical]

If wanting money and things was human nature, we would have been fueled by that desire since our very creation and I do not believe that is the case.

While having money is necessary and all well and good, it leads to greed which takes away from other important aspects of human nature such as compassion. I've noticed in our society people have become more and more greedy and less and less charitable and compassionate. They care less about the people next to him and who can blame some of the poorer population for scheming the system when they're constantly bombarded by these ideas that the rich don't give two shits about them and they're somehow worthless because they haven't reached that level of "success."

Once again, it's rather pathetic and sad.

[My Broken Fever]

But that brings us to the heart of the problem. People WANT stuff. They want stuff they don't need. They're materialistic. They're shallow. They want money and they want goods and that's it.

While I understand the fact that money is necessary to live ones life and I'm not expecting anyone to live off the grid, people are still perfectly capable of having a job, working hard, getting paid and not having the mindset of WANT WANT WANT WANT WANT.

I think it's American nature more so then it's human nature. They're people. I don't believe that humans are capable of doing things for the greater good, maybe only when it's fashionable(like with us currently). But in the end we will all eat eachother just to get that one scrap of food more than the others.

[My Broken Fever]

If wanting money and things was human nature, we would have been fueled by that desire since our very creation and I do not believe that is the case.

While having money is necessary and all well and good, it leads to greed which takes away from other important aspects of human nature such as compassion. I've noticed in our society people have become more and more greedy and less and less charitable and compassionate. They care less about the people next to him and who can blame some of the poorer population for scheming the system when they're constantly bombarded by these ideas that the rich don't give two shits about them and they're somehow worthless because they haven't reached that level of "success."

Once again, it's rather pathetic and sad. I don't agree that compassion is even a part of human nature, humanity isn't exactly known for showing it. We're selfish creatures concerned only with our own survival or the survival of the group we happen to belong to.

[Mercy Medical]

They're people. I don't believe that humans are capable of doing things for the greater good, maybe only when it's fashionable(like with us currently). But in the end we will all eat eachother just to get that one scrap of food more than the others.
See, for as much of a pessimist as I am, I DO believe that people are capable of doing things for the greater good. It's that kind of mentality that keeps us in the state we're in. This idea that we aren't capable of certain things. We're capable of damn near anything, honestly. Yes, there are people out there like you described and yes, there are a lot of them, but I think for everyone person like that, there's a person that's the opposite.

If you accept defeat and just live based on those principles because that's "just the way it is" then it will always be that way. If you get out of those confines and try to be something different, then it may have an impact. Even simple things like just generally being polite to strangers, etc, helps the cause.

And you have to understand, this is coming from me...someone who for all extensive purposes can be a total and complete bitch and many members of this forum can attest to that.

[Mercy Medical]

I don't agree that compassion is even a part of human nature, humanity isn't exactly known for showing it. We're selfish creatures concerned only with our own survival or the survival of the group we happen to belong to.
And once again, just because it IS that way doesn't mean it has to be that way. People accept defeat that it is and just go on with life. People shouldn't accept it and they should do their best to make things different, regardless of how large or small their efforts are.

[My Broken Fever]

See, for as much of a pessimist as I am, I DO believe that people are capable of doing things for the greater good. It's that kind of mentality that keeps us in the state we're in. This idea that we aren't capable of certain things. We're capable of damn near anything, honestly. Yes, there are people out there like you described and yes, there are a lot of them, but I think for everyone person like that, there's a person that's the opposite.

If you accept defeat and just live based on those principles because that's "just the way it is" then it will always be that way. If you get out of those confines and try to be something different, then it may have an impact. Even simple things like just generally being polite to strangers, etc, helps the cause.

And you have to understand, this is coming from me...someone who for all extensive purposes can be a total and complete bitch and many members of this forum can attest to that.

And once again, just because it IS that way doesn't mean it has to be that way. People accept defeat that it is and just go on with life. People shouldn't accept it and they should do their best to make things different, regardless of how large or small their efforts are.
I just think that what you want is a huge step away from what's human nature. And maybe I phrased it wrong, I do believe humans can do things for the greater good; but not too much of a greater good. Humans will do good for the group they belong to, but not outside of that. And I simply don't believe in selfless acts.

[Mercy Medical]

I just think that what you want is a huge step away from what's human nature. And maybe I phrased it wrong, I do believe humans can do things for the greater good; but not too much of a greater good. Humans will do good for the group they belong to, but not outside of that. And I simply don't believe in selfless acts.
I really don't think it's that far away. I've seen enough people in my life do very small things to be kind that give me hope in human beings. As I said, it's there in people, but it's just hidden deep down.

I'm sorry, but we cannot just accept greed in our society and just blame it on human nature. That's bullshit. People are fully capable of change and it's out there in them, they just have to want it and if people don't speak out against such greed and poor acts, then we'll just become more and more accustomed to it.

One of the things that makes us human is our human nature and our ability to have compassion...hah, that's probably one thing that Doctor Who has taught me.

[My Broken Fever]

I really don't think it's that far away. I've seen enough people in my life do very small things to be kind that give me hope in human beings. As I said, it's there in people, but it's just hidden deep down.

I'm sorry, but we cannot just accept greed in our society and just blame it on human nature. That's bullshit. People are fully capable of change and it's out there in them, they just have to want it and if people don't speak out against such greed and poor acts, then we'll just become more and more accustomed to it.

One of the things that makes us human is our human nature and our ability to have compassion...hah, that's probably one thing that Doctor Who has taught me. The point is that greed and poor acts is the way of nature, a greedy creature will survive and a creature that shares all it's food is more likely to die. Don't get me wrong; I despise the hypocrisy and the greed that is rampant, I just don't believe there is a way out. I'm all for trying to find it, but I'm yet to see one solution that keeps in mind human nature.

I am a horrible cynic, yes.

[Mercy Medical]

The point is that greed and poor acts is the way of nature, a greedy creature will survive and a creature that shares all it's food is more likely to die. Don't get me wrong; I despise the hypocrisy and the greed that is rampant, I just don't believe there is a way out. I'm all for trying to find it, but I'm yet to see one solution that keeps in mind human nature.

I am a horrible cynic, yes.
But greed isn't about "survival." Greed is more or less a desire to have unnecessary things or have more things then you need. An animal isn't going to go out there and horde all the nuts for itself whether or not they will eat them all. It's going to get what it needs to survive. It will only take from others if it's something it needs to survive. An animal isn't going to go out of it's way to share things with others either, as it's sole goal is to survive and provide for itself and it's own...however...we are not animals and that is one thing that makes us different from animals is our ability to see past mere "survival" and the ability to provide for those who are less fortunate.

[My Broken Fever]

But greed isn't about "survival." Greed is more or less a desire to have unnecessary things or have more things then you need. An animal isn't going to go out there and horde all the nuts for itself whether or not they will eat them all. It's going to get what it needs to survive. It will only take from others if it's something it needs to survive. An animal isn't going to go out of it's way to share things with others either, as it's sole goal is to survive and provide for itself and it's own...however...we are not animals and that is one thing that makes us different from animals is our ability to see past mere "survival" and the ability to provide for those who are less fortunate. Except that we never do; humankind is always only busy with how it can provide for itself and the group it belongs to. We are animals, we just happen to be intelligent enough to be disgusted by our own nature. The second people don't have enough to eat, they stop giving a damn about the rest of the world, and I don't see how that will change. There hasn't been one viable solution yet either, capitalism thrives on it and communism is an utopia that won't arise unless humanity collectively changes its nature all of a sudden.

[Mercy Medical]

Except that we never do; humankind is always only busy with how it can provide for itself and the group it belongs to. We are animals, we just happen to be intelligent enough to be disgusted by our own nature. The second people don't have enough to eat, they stop giving a damn about the rest of the world, and I don't see how that will change. There hasn't been one viable solution yet either, capitalism thrives on it and communism is an utopia that won't arise unless humanity collectively changes its nature all of a sudden.
But the fact is, we have one thing that most animals don't have and that's the ability of free will. We are fully capable of making our own choices in life...whether we want to be greedy or if we want to be selfless or anything in between. We determine our own fate.

I'm not denying the existence of all these things, the fact of the matter is they do exist, but the fact is we are also capable of changing it...but it's up to people themselves to decide who they want to be and what path they want to follow. Constantly seeing greedy people makes one lose hope and feel as though it's not worth the effort to be the opposite of that if everyone else is the same, however, seeing people who are the opposite has the opposite effect. We can't just abandon our ability to be decent human beings because the majority are shitty.

[My Broken Fever]

But the fact is, we have one thing that most animals don't have and that's the ability of free will. We are fully capable of making our own choices in life...whether we want to be greedy or if we want to be selfless or anything in between. We determine our own fate.

I'm not denying the existence of all these things, the fact of the matter is they do exist, but the fact is we are also capable of changing it...but it's up to people themselves to decide who they want to be and what path they want to follow. Constantly seeing greedy people makes one lose hope and feel as though it's not worth the effort to be the opposite of that if everyone else is the same, however, seeing people who are the opposite has the opposite effect. We can't just abandon our ability to be decent human beings because the majority are shitty.
I absolutely agree with the last paragraph, I've just come to believe that as long as humankind exists, it will not change.

I don't entirely agree with the above paragraph, our behavior is still decided largely by instinct. Our brains are still very much animal, we just have add-ons so to speak, the reptilian and mammalian brain are still there deep down inside.

[Mercy Medical]

I absolutely agree with the last paragraph, I've just come to believe that as long as humankind exists, it will not change.

I don't entirely agree with the above paragraph, our behavior is still decided largely by instinct. Our brains are still very animals, we just have add-ons so to speak, the reptilian and mammalian brain are still there deep down inside.
And I've come to belief that having that type of mentality about it is the reason it won't change.

[GeeBee]

A classic phrase from the Resident Marxist. So the majority of American citizens move through the income brackets over the course of their lifetimes, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering. Hundreds of millions of Chinese can now afford things beyond basic amenities, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering. What's it gonna take for people to notice these things?

Thank you all for conceding my point that there are hundreds of millions of Chinese who are now better off than they would have been without the freer markets of the last two decades. Again - they're not in a perfect world, but they are much better off. Unless, of course, you're down with infant mortality or any of the other dozens of living conditions that have been improved for them.
You're oversimplifying vastly the situation in China and making a huge leap in logic to place all the credit at the feet of capitalism. I highly doubt it's just that simple.
Seriously? What does communism do when people start acting selfishly? And what incentives do they have not to?
Capitalism IS BASED on people acting selfishly. I'd much rather selfishness be the exception, rather than the rule.

[GeeBee]

And I've come to belief that having that type of mentality about it is the reason it won't change.

You would enjoy "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.

[Codi23]

I absolutely agree with the last paragraph, I've just come to believe that as long as humankind exists, it will not change.

I don't entirely agree with the above paragraph, our behavior is still decided largely by instinct. Our brains are still very animals, we just have add-ons so to speak, the reptilian and mammalian brain are still there deep down inside.

Your whole second paragraph is completely and utterly false.

There is no such thing as "human nature," and humans don't have any instincts. Wolves have instincts, birds have instincts; we don't, we only have needs and wants.

If we were thrown into the wild (with no previous survival knowledge), we would die very quickly compared to a normal animal, because we don't have instincts. We wouldn't know which way to go, how to get something to eat, etc. etc. We would only feel the need to eat or find shelter. No instincts for that, people.

And "human nature" really is a cop-out phrase; it only makes us humans seem like we can't make choices for ourselves, when we definitely can. It's a popular phrase, but completely false, and not rooted in any truth whatsoever.

/rant

[My Broken Fever]

Your whole second paragraph is completely and utterly false.

There is no such thing as "human nature," and humans don't have any instincts. Wolves have instincts, birds have instincts; we don't, we only have needs and wants.

If we were thrown into the wild (with no previous survival knowledge), we would die very quickly compared to a normal animal, because we don't have instincts. We wouldn't know which way to go, how to get something to eat, etc. etc. We would only feel the need to eat or find shelter. No instincts for that, people.

And "human nature" really is a cop-out phrase; it only makes us humans seem like we can't make choices for ourselves, when we definitely can. It's a popular phrase, but completely false, and not rooted in any truth whatsoever.

/rant The bolded has nothing to do with instincts, it has to do with what is learned. A lot of mammals only learn how to hunt through observing their parents, the same goes for humans.

Secondly; humankind still has a lot in common with animals as far as behaviour goes. And humans have a shitload of instincts, the one to sexually reproduce, and take care of their own come to mind.

[Codi23]

The bolded has nothing to do with instincts, it has to do with what is learned. A lot of mammals only learn how to hunt through observing their parents, the same goes for humans.

Secondly; humankind is still governed very much by instincts, we just don't recognize them.

Do you honestly think you know what you're talking about?

I've gone to school for several years, taken several advanced Anatomy/Physiology courses, and various other medical related courses.

You're wrong, and I'm very confident in that fact. Humans have absolutely no instincts; and you're a dumbass because that whole paragraph was telling you why we have none.

And if we "don't recognize them", how can you even come fucking close to backing up your argument? That's my point; we don't "recognize" them because they aren't there, plain and simple.

[My Broken Fever]

Do you honestly think you know what you're talking about?

I've gone to school for several years, taken several advanced Anatomy/Physiology courses, and various other medical related courses.

You're wrong, and I'm very confident in that fact. Humans have absolutely no instincts; and you're a dumbass because that whole paragraph was telling you why we have none.

And if we "don't recognize them", how can you even come fucking close to backing up your argument? That's my point; we don't "recognize" them because they aren't there, plain and simple.
So what exactly is the urge to mate? Or to sleep? Or the urge to eat? Those are not instincts?

[thepianominstre]

Capitalism IS BASED on people acting selfishly. I'd much rather selfishness be the exception, rather than the rule.

Thanks for not answering my question. Of course I'd rather see selfishness be the exception, too. But, I repeat, what happens in communism when people act selfishly, and how do you stop that?

I don't see capitalism as being based on people acting selfishly; I see that as humans we are inherently selfish, and that under that premise capitalism can squeeze the most good out of it... It's often forgotten by, say, evangelical Republicans, that the early church members shared all their possessions, dare I say it, like socialists, and lived without much, but I think it only worked because everyone was actively trying to deny their selfish desires. It can work voluntarily, but never forced on a group of people at large.

Communism falls apart when people realize that greater investment on their part will not lead to greater rewards, and that less investment on their part will not hurt them. But maybe I'm not up on my terms and rhetoric... even if you overcome the selfish problem, which is a pretty big deal-breaker for me, does communism to you still include central planning and ignoring price signaling as a resource allocator? You can argue that the Soviets never tried true communism as well as any libertarian can argue that America hasn't had true capitalism for however many years, but my understanding is that the Soviets certainly had central planning and that it was an epic fail, leading to the infamous and ubiquitous shortages and so forth.

[GeeBee]

Thanks for not answering my question. Of course I'd rather see selfishness be the exception, too. But, I repeat, what happens in communism when people act selfishly, and how do you stop that?

I don't see capitalism as being based on people acting selfishly; I see that as humans we are inherently selfish, and that under that premise capitalism can squeeze the most good out of it... It's often forgotten by, say, evangelical Republicans, that the early church members shared all their possessions, dare I say it, like socialists, and lived without much, but I think it only worked because everyone was actively trying to deny their selfish desires. It can work voluntarily, but never forced on a group of people at large.

Communism falls apart when people realize that greater investment on their part will not lead to greater rewards, and that less investment on their part will not hurt them. But maybe I'm not up on my terms and rhetoric... even if you overcome the selfish problem, which is a pretty big deal-breaker for me, does communism to you still include central planning and ignoring price signaling as a resource allocator? You can argue that the Soviets never tried true communism as well as any libertarian can argue that America hasn't had true capitalism for however many years, but my understanding is that the Soviets certainly had central planning and that it was an epic fail, leading to the infamous and ubiquitous shortages and so forth.

I've already conceded that communism is utopian thanks to human degeneracy.
My point still stands however. If given the option between a system that focuses on MONEY and a system that focuses on PEOPLE, I'll err on the side of people. That's fundamental. If you want to try to argue it's fallacy, be my guest.

And no, communism seeks to abolish any planning whatsoever. You're still mistaking Stalinism/Maoism for communism.

The argument that the Soviets never tried true communism= apple
The argument that America has never tried true capitalism= orange

[GeeBee]

Do you honestly think you know what you're talking about?

I've gone to school for several years, taken several advanced Anatomy/Physiology courses, and various other medical related courses.

You're wrong, and I'm very confident in that fact. Humans have absolutely no instincts; and you're a dumbass because that whole paragraph was telling you why we have none.

And if we "don't recognize them", how can you even come fucking close to backing up your argument? That's my point; we don't "recognize" them because they aren't there, plain and simple.

Sorry, bud. Humans are born with instincts.

[Codi23]

So what exactly is the urge to mate? Or to sleep? Or the urge to eat? Those are not instincts?

Those are only simple biological drives; animals have those, too, but they also have instincts; like knowing where to fly when the seasons change, year after year.

I don't think you know what an instinct is...

[GeeBee]

Those are only simple biological drives; animals have those, too, but they also have instincts; like knowing where to fly when the seasons change, year after year.

I don't think you know what an instinct is...

You're splitting hairs here. Saying humans are born without instincts is off-base.

[GeeBee]

Psychologists point to a baby's ability to suckle, grip, and tense up when sensing a "fall"...as instincts.

[Codi23]

An instinct is defined as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."

We can override biological drives, therefore they aren't instincts.

[Mercy Medical]

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of hearing "being humans we're inherently selfish" as if that is built into our nature somehow and we're all hired wired to be selfish assholes. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and merely an excuse for bad behavior.

[Codi23]

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of hearing "being humans we're inherently selfish" as if that is built into our nature somehow and we're all hired wired to be selfish assholes. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and merely an excuse for bad behavior.

Like I said earlier, human nature isn't even a plausible phrase.

[Jason Tate]

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of hearing "being humans we're inherently selfish" as if that is built into our nature somehow and we're all hired wired to be selfish assholes. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and merely an excuse for bad behavior.
Evolution disagrees. Selfish may be the wrong word ... but it's close.

[GeeBee]

An instinct is defined as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."

We can override biological drives, therefore they aren't instincts.
Again, I'd say your main disagreement is with the semantics, not the principle.
I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of hearing "being humans we're inherently selfish" as if that is built into our nature somehow and we're all hired wired to be selfish assholes. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit and merely an excuse for bad behavior.
I'm going to put on my semantics now...
I don't think "selfish" is the correct word for it...I'd say ultimately concerned more for our own self-preservation than for anyone else's, however. I do agree that too often such a statement can be used as a cop-out for bad behavior, but I think by and large, humans are simply very well-domesticated animals.
I'm going to pimp "The Lucifer Principle" here, again...

[GeeBee]

Like I said earlier, human nature isn't even a plausible phrase.

Sociology would say otherwise. Human nature could be the label slapped on the sum of all parts.

Canine nature isn't a very plausible phrase, either, but you can still make pretty darn good inferences as to how a dog will behave given a certain set of circumstances. The same applies to humans.

[GeeBee]

Evolution disagrees. Selfish may be the wrong word ... but it's close.

While you're here...you should also read "The Lucifer Principle" if you haven't. I imagine you might enjoy it.

[Codi23]

Again, I'd say your main disagreement is with the semantics, not the principle.

I'm going to put on my semantics now...
I don't think "selfish" is the correct word for it...I'd say ultimately concerned more for our own self-preservation than for anyone else's, however. I do agree that too often such a statement can be used as a cop-out for bad behavior, but I think by and large, humans are simply very well-domesticated animals.
I'm going to pimp "The Lucifer Principle" here, again...

I agree with your second paragraph.

I disagree with the whole idea that humans have instincts; my professors have stressed it, too, they don't like the word "instincts" related to humans, because we don't possess anything that resembles the actual instincts of various animal species.

Let's all just agree to disagree with this one; I'm not gonna back down from my perspective, and none of you are either. Let's just leave it at that.

[Mercy Medical]

Again, I'd say your main disagreement is with the semantics, not the principle.

I'm going to put on my semantics now...
I don't think "selfish" is the correct word for it...I'd say ultimately concerned more for our own self-preservation than for anyone else's, however. I do agree that too often such a statement can be used as a cop-out for bad behavior, but I think by and large, humans are simply very well-domesticated animals.
I'm going to pimp "The Lucifer Principle" here, again...
I'm speaking about selfish in regards to greed. Greed essentially means you are taking or want more then you actually need. People are selfish in the sense that they will look to take care of themselves and their family before worrying about others that have no impact on their lives, however I wouldn't necessarily view that as a negative type of selfishness....I think that is our survival system kicking in...however, once we get past the point of what we actually need is when it starts to get into the realm of greed.

[GeeBee]

I agree with your second paragraph.

I disagree with the whole idea that humans have instincts; my professors have stressed it, too, they don't like the word "instincts" related to humans, because we don't possess anything that resembles the actual instincts of various animal species.

Let's all just agree to disagree with this one; I'm not gonna back down from my perspective, and none of you are either. Let's just leave it at that.
I of course will concede the point to people far more educated than myself on the subject. Again, I think it's more an argument over correct labels being applied to the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself.
I'm speaking about selfish in regards to greed. Greed essentially means you are taking or want more then you actually need. People are selfish in the sense that they will look to take care of themselves and their family before worrying about others that have no impact on their lives, however I wouldn't necessarily view that as a negative type of selfishness....I think that is our survival system kicking in...however, once we get past the point of what we actually need is when it starts to get into the realm of greed.
I agree totally. There is no inherent propensity toward greed in anyone. You don't see lions out there killing a dozen gazelles. They take what they need, no more, no less.

[Mercy Medical]

Like I said, it's okay to be selfish because that's just an aspect of mere survival, however, most of the selfish behavior we see in capitalism in the USA is not the survival kind of selfish, it's the greed kind of selfish that is only fueled by a desire for money and power.

[Codi23]

Like I said, it's okay to be selfish because that's just an aspect of mere survival, however, most of the selfish behavior we see in capitalism in the USA is not the survival kind of selfish, it's the greed kind of selfish that is only fueled by a desire for money and power.

I have a question for everyone: Does Capitalism fuel our greed and need for power? Or does our need for power and our greed fuel Capitalism?

Something to ponder.

[Mercy Medical]

I have a question for everyone: Does Capitalism fuel our greed and need for power? Or does our need for power and our greed fuel Capitalism?

Something to ponder.
I think a little bit of both. I think there are some that are inherently greedy and desire power and then there are some that don't feel that until they discover it.

[GeeBee]

I have a question for everyone: Does Capitalism fuel our greed and need for power? Or does our need for power and our greed fuel Capitalism?

Something to ponder.

:head explodes:

[Codi23]

I think a little bit of both. I think there are some that are inherently greedy and desire power and then there are some that don't feel that until they discover it.

:head explodes:

I just think it's an interesting question; when you think about it, barely any of us have lived very long outside of a capitalist society; it's ingrained in our brains by now.

I think our greed and desires helped start it, but the system itself now pumps up our want want want lifestyles. It's hard to comprehend because I know no other way of living, it's pretty sad.

[My Broken Fever]

I have a question for everyone: Does Capitalism fuel our greed and need for power? Or does our need for power and our greed fuel Capitalism?

Something to ponder.
I think it's pretty much impossible to answer this. We have only seen capitalism throughout history, so all human behaviour is influenced by it (I at least can not think of a case where real communism happened on a very large scale). Unless a real communist country arises and shows us how humans behave there, it's hard to determine what influence capitalism has on us or we on it.

[Codi23]

I think it's pretty much impossible to answer this. We have only seen capitalism throughout history, so all human behaviour is influenced by it (I at least can not think of a case where real communism happened on a very large scale). Unless a real communist country arises and shows us how humans behave there, it's hard to determine what influence capitalism has on us or we on it.

It bothers me, because we don't have much choice in the matter. We kind of do; but not really.

You would have to completely distance yourself from society to experience anything different, and that really bothers me. We're the land of the free, but we're shackled to jobs and one way of living.

[My Broken Fever]

It bothers me, because we don't have much choice in the matter. We kind of do; but not really.

You would have to completely distance yourself from society to experience anything different, and that really bothers me. We're the land of the free, but we're shackled to jobs and one way of living. I agree, it's more like... Land of the Slightly More Free (I'm also including my country in this sort of) in that way.

[zach]

. We have only seen capitalism throughout history.
This isn't even remotely true. Capitalism didn't even exist for most of human history.

[My Broken Fever]

This isn't even remotely true. Capitalism didn't even exist for most of human history. Each major culture so far has had a form of capitalism.

[zach]

I'm not convinced that you know what "Capitalism" means.

[My Broken Fever]

I'm not convinced that you know what "Capitalism" means. I'm pretty sure I do. I'm pretty confused as to what point you're trying to make though. I know of no major cultures that are well documented (Roman empire, Ancient Egypt) that had a system that isn't capitalistic in form. While it might not be real capitalism; it wasnt communism either.

[Jason Tate]

I'm pretty sure I do. I'm pretty confused as to what point you're trying to make though. I know of no major cultures that are well documented (Roman empire, Ancient Egypt) that had a system that isn't capitalistic in form. While it might not be real capitalism; it wasnt communism either.
Wat!? Uh. Most historians would put the the start of capitalism around the end of the 14th century. Are you thinking of mercantilism?

[My Broken Fever]

Wat!? Uh. Most historians would put the the start of capitalism around the end of the 14th century.
I didn't say pure capitalism, I said a form of capitalism. A defining part of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned; well they were back then as well.

But really; that wasn't my point, my argument was the unless we can see the effect of a communist nation, we cannot completely know what the influences of capitalism are on humanity. So unless someone wants to point out a major culture that was truly communistic; the point stands.

[zach]

The point I'm trying to make is that we haven't seen an ideolgy that's only existed for 300 years throughout all of human history. None of the societies you mentioned had a capitalist system because most people didn't have property rights. I would suggest you look up the word "Feudalism" and then maybe you'll understand why capitalism/communism is a false dichotomy and why what you're saying makes no sense.

[zach]

I didn't say pure capitalism, I said a form of capitalism. A defining part of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned; well they were back then as well.
A defining part of grass is that it's green, but that doesn't make everything green grass.

[Jason Tate]

I didn't say pure capitalism, I said a form of capitalism. A defining part of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned; well they were back then as well.

But really; that wasn't my point, my argument was the unless we can see the effect of a communist nation, we cannot completely know what the influences of capitalism are on humanity. So unless someone wants to point out a major culture that was truly communistic; the point stands.
I can see you can read wikipedia for your definition - however, you left out the rest of it. Those were not capitalism and especially not modern capitalism as it is known today.

People's Republic of China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Nepal and Moldova...

We don't need to see the effects of a communist nation to see the influence/impact of a capitalistic one.

[My Broken Fever]

The point I'm trying to make is that we haven't seen an ideolgy that's only existed for 300 years throughout all of human history. None of the societies you mentioned had a capitalist system because most people didn't have property rights. I would suggest you look up the word "Feudalism" and then maybe you'll understand why capitalism/communism is a false dichotomy and why what you're saying makes no sense. Just because the ideology was named three centuries ago doesn't mean there weren't strong features of capitalist organization that existed in the ancient world.

[Jason Tate]

Just because the ideology was named three centuries ago doesn't mean there weren't strong features of capitalist organization that existed in the ancient world.
This is cherry picking.

[My Broken Fever]

I can see you can read wikipedia for your definition - however, you left out the rest of it. Those were not capitalism and especially not modern capitalism as it is known today.

People's Republic of China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Nepal and Moldova...

We don't need to see the effects of a communist nation to see the influence/impact of a capitalistic one. Those weren't communist nations, true communism has every good provided in abundance and no state.

I never said anything about modern capitalism, once again 'a form of capitalism.' And maybe that was put too strongly, but once again we have not seen a society or economic system where every good is availible in abundance and classes are abolished; so it's impossible to see to what extent we are influenced by capitalism.

Also to Zach: Feudalism wasn't around in Ancient times.

[Jason Tate]

Those weren't communist nations, true communism has every good provided in abundance and no state.

I never said anything about modern capitalism, once again 'a form of capitalism.' And maybe that was put too strongly, but once again we have not seen a society or economic system where every good is availible in abundance and classes are abolished; so it's impossible to see to what extent we are influenced by capitalism.

Also to Zach: Feudalism wasn't around in Ancient times.
I know what communism is - and it is impossible to ever have "true" communism.

Using this a "form of capitalism" argument is like saying your town is asian because your neighbor is. It's cherry picking.

[My Broken Fever]

I know what communism is - and it is impossible to ever have "true" communism.

Using this a "form of capitalism" argument is like saying your town is asian because your neighbor is. It's cherry picking.
As I said, maybe I used the word capitalism a little too lightly. I agree on the communism, but all I'm saying is that it's impossible to know how much capitalism or any form of economy that is based on exploitation affects human nature until we can see humans outside of that system.

[zach]

Also to Zach: Feudalism wasn't around in Ancient times.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Camera/2524/misc/exhead.gif

[Jason Tate]

As I said, maybe I used the word capitalism a little too lightly. I agree on the communism, but all I'm saying is that it's impossible to know how much capitalism or any form of economy that is based on exploitation affects human nature until we can see humans outside of that system.
And we have seen humans outside of that system. By your same argument on "true" communism - we've never seen a "true" capitalistic society either.

[My Broken Fever]

And we have seen humans outside of that system. By your same argument on "true" communism - we've never seen a "true" capitalistic society either. To the best of my knowledge there has been no culture where goods were produced in such abundance that there were no classes or internal strife. Capitalism in any form thrives on exploitation, no matter what way you turn it. It's exactly like having a control sample to compare the results of another sample with in an experiment.

[Jason Tate]

To the best of my knowledge there has been no culture where goods were produced in such abundance that there were no classes or internal strife. Capitalism in any form thrives on exploitation, no matter what way you turn it. It's exactly like having a control sample to compare the results of another sample with in an experiment.
I don't think you really understand what capitalism is or means (laissez faire) ... in the purest sense, it does not thrive on exploitation. And if you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand, you'd see the argument that it can promote just the opposite (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0451147952?tag=absolutepunk-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0451147952&adid=07J8QQCHMM59WGG7P9EE&) (the truth to that, left to you). Second, having a class system or internal strife does not all of a sudden make that culture "capitalistic" (hense: Pre-capitalist class structures). History is full of "control samples." Your local library is a good place to start. Again, you're cherry picking .. and the same argument can be made toward any system if you want to pick little examples instead of looking at the big picture.

[My Broken Fever]

I don't think you really understand what capitalism is or means ... in the purest sense, it does not thrive on exploitation. At all. And if you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand, you'd see the argument that it promotes just the opposite (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0451147952?tag=absolutepunk-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0451147952&adid=07J8QQCHMM59WGG7P9EE&) (the truth to that, left to you). Second, having a class system or intennal strife does not all of a sudden make that culture "capitalistic." History is full of "control samples." Your local library is a good place to start.
I have read Rand, and the problem with her books is that they are outdated, she predicted things wouldn't happen under capitalism that have happened. If you have something more recent, I'd be glad to read it. And no, having a class system or internal strife does not make a culture capitalistic, I phrased it wrong. I meant to say there is yet to be a major culture that doesn't have an economic system based on exploitation. And you don't really want to argue that you can know the consequences of a system based on exploitation, without knowing how humankind responds to a system without exploitation?

[Jason Tate]

I have read Rand, and the problem with her books is that they are outdated, she predicted things wouldn't happen under capitalism that have happened. If you have something more recent, I'd be glad to read it. And no, having a class system or internal strife does not make a culture capitalistic, I phrased it wrong. I meant to say there is yet to be a major culture that doesn't have an economic system based on exploitation. And you don't really want to argue that you can know the consequences of a system based on exploitation, without knowing how humankind responds to a system without exploitation?
Dude, you just read the editorial review from Amazon and paraphrased it. Come on. If you had read that book you'd see the essays from Alan Greenspan as well (recent) and wouldn't then ask. Come on. For starters, her predictions were based on a capitalistic society that has never existed.

I believe exploitation is an evolutionary necessity/by-product.

[My Broken Fever]

Dude, you just read the editorial review from Amazon and paraphrased it. Come on. If you had read that book you'd see the essays from Alan Greenspan as well (recent) and wouldn't then ask. Come on. For starters, her predictions were based on a capitalistic society that has never existed.

I believe exploitation is an evolutionary necessity/by-product. Well shit, it couldn't possibly be that I read the book? And no I don't know who Alan Greenspan is, or why I should have gotten into it when I read Rand's book 4 years ago. If you want to recommend it to me that's fine, but don't tell me I stole my opinion from a review somewhere.

I agree on the necessity/by-product part, but that doesn't mean we know just how much capitalism affects human behaviour.

[Jason Tate]

Well shit, it couldn't possibly be that I read the book? And no I don't know who Alan Greenspan is, or why I should have gotten into it when I read Rand's book 4 years ago. If you want to recommend it to me that's fine, but don't tell me I stole my opinion from a review somewhere.

I agree on the necessity/by-product part, but that doesn't mean we know just how much capitalism affects human behaviour.
You clearly haven't - as you ignored the other essays and asked for something more "recent." And pulled a direct quote from the first review on the amazon page I linked. Come on. Just man up. You don't know who Alan Greenspan is? Google that one. Sorta makes any other conversation in this thread with you about economics irrelevant.

Yes - by looking at non/pre-capitalistic societies.

[My Broken Fever]

You clearly haven't - as you ignored the other essays and asked for something more "recent." And pulled a direct quote from the first review on the amazon page I linked. Come on. Just man up. You don't know who Alan Greenspan is? Google that one. Sorta makes any other conversation in this thread with you about economics irrelevant.

Yes - by looking at non/pre-capitalistic societies.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capitalism-Signet-Shakespeare-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250287411&sr=8-1 This is what I get to if I press your link, and I don't see a bloody review anywhere.

[Jason Tate]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capitalism-Signet-Shakespeare-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1250287411&sr=8-1 This is what I get to if I press your link, and I don't see a bloody review anywhere.
That's not what you get if you click my link. I put my affiliate ID in the link I gave you to see if you'd view it, I can see you saw the page I linked ... now you're just making shit up to try and save face.

[My Broken Fever]

That's not what you get if you click my link. I put my affiliate ID in the link I gave you to see if you'd view it, I can see you saw the page I linked ... now you're just making shit up to try and save face. No now I just linked a wrong link myself because when I type in amazon I go to the UK site, I see the review; it might've been that I read it before. My apologies.

Either way; I didn't mean to use the word capitalism above that but an economic system based on exploitation, and so far human society has always had that; there was always an alpha-male or a class of priests that controls the other classes in some way. I just don't believe that until we have a system free of exploitation we can truly see what the exploitation does to humankind. And I agree, that we will probably never have a system free of exploitation, so that makes it incredibly hard to say how much we are influenced by it; and that is my only point.

[Jason Tate]

No now I just linked a wrong link myself because when I type in amazon I go to the UK site, I see the review; it might've been that I read it before. My apologies.

Either way; I didn't mean to use the word capitalism above that but an economic system based on exploitation, and so far human society has always had that; there was always an alpha-male or a class of priests that controls the other classes in some way. I just don't believe that until we have a system free of exploitation we can truly see what the exploitation does to humankind. And I agree, that we will probably never have a system free of exploitation, so that makes it incredibly hard to say how much we are influenced by it; and that is my only point.
And again, I believe exploitation is an evolutionary trait - which makes your question irrelevant.

[My Broken Fever]

And again, I believe exploitation is an evolutionary trait - which makes your question irrelevant.
I never said it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know how much of the extremes of exploitation we have today comes from the influences of a system based on exploitation, or on exploitation being a by-product of evolution.

[Jason Tate]

I never said it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know how much of the extremes of exploitation we have today comes from the influences of a system based on exploitation, or on exploitation being a by-product of evolution.
Debating "how much" is a pointless endeavor.

[My Broken Fever]

Debating "how much" is a pointless endeavor. I disagree on that matter. Either way: I went through the trouble of finding out about Rand: I read an article on that in a slightly left-ist Dutch magazine that voiced the same points as the review on amazon, I confused that book with another book I've read, my apologies.

[thepianominstre]

I've already conceded that communism is utopian thanks to human degeneracy.
My point still stands however. If given the option between a system that focuses on MONEY and a system that focuses on PEOPLE, I'll err on the side of people. That's fundamental. If you want to try to argue it's fallacy, be my guest.

I'm not talking about what system you would personally choose for yourself (voluntary communism). I asked if you had a superior alternative to the (pseudo-)capitalism that has done a lot of good for the world but has arguable problems, and I'm asking, if you replaced that system with your communism, what would selfishness do to that system or how would you stop that? If you can't answer that, then I can not conclude that communism is a superior alternative to the system that has at least done some (I would say a whole lot of) good. I'll take greedy people in a capitalist system (where at least some greedy people are driven to produce products that people want/need to get their money... or if a greedy person charges outrageously for a product, another person can come along and offer it cheaper and steal all their customers unless they lower it too... greed can make consumers win) over greedy people in a communist system (where people have an incentive to not work or even just not work as hard but reap the same benefits as everyone else, and what about greed by those in charge of distribution?).

And no, communism seeks to abolish any planning whatsoever. You're still mistaking Stalinism/Maoism for communism.

I was, thanks for the correction. I may have other misconceptions, too.... Are all resources pooled and everyone shares, the whole "each from his ability and to his need" thing? What stops the greedy from gaming that system? People can take more than they need if no one's in charge of distribution, and if someone is, than they have an incentive to game the system for themselves. At least with capitalism, greed can sometimes be naturally stamped out or lead to good for the non-greedy. With communism - at least as I (perhaps poorly) understand it, greed destroys the system, or at least can't help the non-greedy at all. As I said, there's no problems with voluntary communism, but I don't see how voluntary communism is a legitimate alternative to capitalism as long as there are going to be greedy, selfish people involved.



p.s. should we take this to another thread or something? None of ours or anyone's posts have been related to the title for awhile, now... we got capitalism/communism going on here, instincts and drives over here.... *shrug*

[thepianominstre]

Well shit, it couldn't possibly be that I read the book? And no I don't know who Alan Greenspan is, or why I should have gotten into it when I read Rand's book 4 years ago. If you want to recommend it to me that's fine, but don't tell me I stole my opinion from a review somewhere.

I agree on the necessity/by-product part, but that doesn't mean we know just how much capitalism affects human behaviour.

Ouch.


Then again, if you're from the Netherlands, I don't know who your former central bankers are... or the EU's former central bankers... or... however that works over there these days. So it's ok. But, still, whether or not you want to retrospectively label him a hero or a villan, Greenspan's a pretty important character, especially in the context of our current crisis.

[Burn That Shit]

Give me a break. Like the last administration is solely responsible for all the problems he's facing now. Riiiight.

You're right, Reagan and friends fucked up the country a whole bunch too.

[Codi23]

p.s. should we take this to another thread or something? None of ours or anyone's posts have been related to the title for awhile, now... we got capitalism/communism going on here, instincts and drives over here.... *shrug*

I think it's fantastic; this thread has been hijacked by all of us and turned into this huge discussion thread about Communism, Capitalism, instincts, etc.

It's hilarious; I don't think you guys should stop.

:popcorn:

[vodyanoj]

Thoughts?

It's not authoritarian.

[vodyanoj]

Okay, everyone who attacks Obama is not necessarily racist. The whole birther thing definitely involves race. If he were white, I doubt there would be any controversy. As for bi-partisanship, in the campaign he almost made it seem like he was a moderate. When he took office he went far left of center, mainly because he simply didn't need the Republicans help on getting anything passed. I think Bush didn't get attacked as much because he wasn't making speeches every other day and I think the country just went with him because we were scared of getting attacked again. Obama is one of the most front and center presidents we have ever had, and I think that fact combined with how our economy is doing leaves him open to a lot of criticism.

LOL. He is still far right of me, and hence, a centrist. Calling Obama "far left" is just silly.

[vodyanoj]

Wait, so liberals have gone so far left that in their eyes Obama is a centrist now? :-| The only thing I can think of is Don't Ask Don't Tell maybe. Well, his position on the wars too. And I guess health care reform too. You know what, I've watched too much Fox News lately... :P doh!

Right and left are not relative to the observer; there are meaningful distinctions between the two. And by those standards, Obama is a classic centrist, perhaps a bit right-of-center.

[vodyanoj]

When I'm President I'm invading Antarctica. Those penguins are a major threat to national security.

Yes, but they are likely to be extinct by then...

[vodyanoj]

[quote=GeeBee;51428892]Keynesian economics have been proven to work over and over. The Freidman nonsense you seem to be peddling has been confirmed by prominent economists to be the very cause of the mess we're currently in.[quote]

Including Greenspan himself.

[vodyanoj]

Yeah, yeah, it's probably too romantic (but I admitted to glancing at the negative ones in that post). But at the same time I know that some forms of it throughout history have done a lot of good... which I don't think can really be said for socialism... can you suggest a superior alternative?

Huh? Sweden.

[vodyanoj]

Your whole second paragraph is completely and utterly false.

There is no such thing as "human nature," and humans don't have any instincts. Wolves have instincts, birds have instincts; we don't, we only have needs and wants.

If we were thrown into the wild (with no previous survival knowledge), we would die very quickly compared to a normal animal, because we don't have instincts. We wouldn't know which way to go, how to get something to eat, etc. etc. We would only feel the need to eat or find shelter. No instincts for that, people.

And "human nature" really is a cop-out phrase; it only makes us humans seem like we can't make choices for ourselves, when we definitely can. It's a popular phrase, but completely false, and not rooted in any truth whatsoever.

/rant

Actually human nature, and its genetic basis, are well-established concepts. And of course we have instincts; they are just different from those of other animals. Except for those that drive our reproduction: that's pretty much the same across the spectrum of all species. Also things like breathing are instinctual behaviours as well.

[vodyanoj]

I of course will concede the point to people far more educated than myself on the subject. Again, I think it's more an argument over correct labels being applied to the phenomenon, rather than the phenomenon itself.

I agree totally. There is no inherent propensity toward greed in anyone. You don't see lions out there killing a dozen gazelles. They take what they need, no more, no less.

There is a link between that and the problem of sugar in our diet. We evolved to enjoy sugary foods, since those were a quick source of energy and relatively scarce in our environment at the time. Now that (instinctual!) predilection makes us overindulge and contributes to an epidemic of diabetes.

Greed can be looked at as a similar leftover. In days of scarcity it was good to hoard things (such as food) since you never knew where your next meal came from. Nowadays it becomes counterproductive. And, of course, it has always been a question of status (see Veblen, for "conspicuous consumption").

[Codi23]

Actually human nature, and its genetic basis, are well-established concepts. And of course we have instincts; they are just different from those of other animals. Except for those that drive our reproduction: that's pretty much the same across the spectrum of all species. Also things like breathing are instinctual behaviours as well.

LOL.

[vodyanoj]

LOL.

Why, I could give you a list of books and research papers. I stand by my words, and furthermore, if your professors told you otherwise, I assert that they are ridiculous ideology-driven lunatics. But I doubt that they did.

EDIT: Actually, I can see how someone would deny the existence of human instinctual behaviour. Since its existence has been demonstrated conclusively, far better to redefine the word "instinct" and then equivocate between the two meanings of the word. After all, that is what the opponents of sociobiology and evo-psychology have pretty much been doing for the last 30 years.

2nd EDIT: My, I am scatterbrained today. I forgot to conclude: instinctual behaviours span a whole range of complexity, from basic (like blinking and breathing) to very complex (like mating rituals and nesting behaviour). Human mating rituals are largely instinctual, when stripped of their particular cultural veneers. Birds prancing about each other is the same across all species. The shift in the usage of the word came about for mostly the same reasons many people refuse to admit that viruses are living entities now. It was argued whether they were, but the basic biological consensus was that yes, they were borderline life, simplest life, but still life. However, after the first polio virus was synthesized from scratch er, about 10 years ago, suddenly the rush was on to declare them non-living. It was simply a face-saving attempt by those who would have "life" be something weird, unexplainable and impossible to create in the lab. Once we build a human being from scratch the same people would probably deny that it is alive, or has instincts. Or, likely, they would use something even more stupid and claim that such an entity does not have a soul.

[Codi23]

Why, I could give you a list of books and research papers. I stand by my words, and furthermore, if your professors told yoou otherwise, I assert that they are ridiculous ideology-driven lunatics. But I doubt that they did.

EDIT: Actually, I can see how someone would deny the existence of human instinctual behaviour. Since its existence has been demonstrated conclusively, far better to redefine the word "instinct" and then equivocate between the two meanings of the word. After all, that is what the opponents of sociobiology and evo-psychology have pretty much been doing for the last 30 years.

:-d haha you're funny!

[vodyanoj]

:-d haha you're funny!


I am glad you think so; since I prefer to inject some humour into my teaching style, always.;-)

[Codi23]

Why, I could give you a list of books and research papers. I stand by my words, and furthermore, if your professors told you otherwise, I assert that they are ridiculous ideology-driven lunatics. But I doubt that they did.

EDIT: Actually, I can see how someone would deny the existence of human instinctual behaviour. Since its existence has been demonstrated conclusively, far better to redefine the word "instinct" and then equivocate between the two meanings of the word. After all, that is what the opponents of sociobiology and evo-psychology have pretty much been doing for the last 30 years.

2nd EDIT: My, I am scatterbrained today. I forgot to conclude: instinctual behaviours span a whole range of complexity, from basic (like blinking and breathing) to very complex (like mating rituals and nesting behaviour). Human mating rituals are largely instinctual, when stripped of their particular cultural veneers. Birds prancing about each other is the same across all species. The shift in the usage of the word came about for mostly the same reasons many people refuse to admit that viruses are living entities now. It was argued whether they were, but the basic biological consensus was that yes, they were borderline life, simplest life, but still life. However, after the first polio virus was synthesized from scratch er, about 10 years ago, suddenly the rush was on to declare them non-living. It was simply a face-saving attempt by those who would have "life" be something weird, unexplainable and impossible to create in the lab. Once we build a human being from scratch the same people would probably deny that it is alive, or has instincts. Or, likely, they would use something even more stupid and claim that such an entity does not have a soul.

I like your critical thinking skills, sir; but I just don't agree about instincts :shrug:.

As I said earlier, when you weren't here, I don't want to discuss it anymore. So, don't push your ideas as complete fact. I'll believe what I believe based on what I've experienced. You can think whatever you want.

[vodyanoj]

I like your critical thinking skills, sir; but I just don't agree about instincts :shrug:.

As I said earlier, when you weren't here, I don't want to discuss it anymore. So, don't push your ideas as complete fact. I'll believe what I believe based on what I've experienced. You can think whatever you want.

And I believe what I believe simply because of what I know about evolutionary biology, evo-psychology and philosophy of mind. I recommend, for starters, Pinker's Blank Slate (easy and popular, but quite insightful) and, of course Cosmides and Tooby's The Adapted Mind (a more complex collection of original papers, more of a grad-style anthology, but fascinating nevertheless). Those may change your mind.

Nuff said!:-d

[Codi23]

And I believe what I believe simply because of what I know about evolutionary biology, evo-psychology and philosophy of mind. I recommend, for starters, Pinker's Blank Slate (easy and popular, but quite insightful) and, of course Cosmides and Tooby's The Adapted Mind (a more complex collection of original papers, more of a grad-style anthology, but fascinating nevertheless). Those may change your mind.

Nuff said!:-d

Well, if you say so... I always thought breathing was an autonomic function, kind of like how your heart beats without you asking it to; but I guess I'm wrong? :shrug: No idea how you think that's an instinct.

[vodyanoj]

Well, if you say so... I always thought breathing was an autonomic function, kind of like how your heart beats without you asking it to; but I guess I'm wrong? :shrug: No idea how you think that's an instinct.

Autonomic functions are simple examples of instincts.

[Codi23]

Autonomic functions are simple examples of instincts.

Bullshit.

So, your heart beating is an instinct? Your organs have instincts? I'm never going to read those books/essays if they tell you things like this...

[Machu505]

Never thought about it that way.

[vodyanoj]

Bullshit.

So, your heart beating is an instinct? Your organs have instincts? I'm never going to read those books/essays if they tell you things like this...

There is a grade of behaviours from fully autonomous (heartbeat, and, you are correct, breathing) to simple instinctual (blinking in response to a bright light?) to more complex (fucking, nesting) to even more complex (sexual preferences, keeping one's head above water, balancing, clutching, simple mathematical behaviours such as counting and estimating distances for throwing) to purely intentional and learned (reading, complex mathematics). Humans, of course, have all of those, and other animals all but the last (and that is questionable: look up Alex the parrot). There is no difference between us and other animals except for a simple (and profound) one: being able to consciously refuse to act on any of those instinctual behaviours.

Compare the behaviour of town-hall protesters with that of a pack of angry baboons. Jumping, arm-waving, emitting shrill sounds--all the way down to facial expressions. All of those are instinctual and shared across human cultures. Another fun one is hip-to-waist ratio: regardless of the cultural specifics of female attractiveness, the preferred ratio is the same across cultures. Speaking of those as purely instinctual is perhaps too simplistic, since all of them lie on a continuum of behaviours, but the only true "rational" human behaviours are the ones we have to learn specifically. We are also not that good at them: it takes a major effort to learn quantum mechanics and much less to learn how to throw a rock, or to swim, because QM has no underlying autonomous/instinctual basis. This is also the same reason why we are afraid of snakes and spiders but not electrical sockets and automobiles: the former fear has been built into us by natural selection, and is therefore instinctual. It is also the reason why it's easier to manipulate people by fear rather than logic: the former is an emotional, instinctual response, the latter is learned (not by all!).

And human nature--modular, malleable to a degree, but still restricted--exists. You can have sex with another man even if you are not gay, but how much will you enjoy it? Or, you can deny your sexuality and reproductive urges completely, but, as history shows, such a denial does no good for our mental state. And, as I have mentioned, our predilection for sugar and pretty bright objects is an evolutionary leftover that is positively maladaptive to both the individual and the society now (not that evolution gives a fig for groups: it's only your specific genes it is interested in)...

EDIT: Oh, and keep in mind that most of human mental processes take place below the threshold of awareness, and are cognitive only in the loosest sense. Even those decisions that you think you have reached by conscious deliberation have been shown to originate in your brain up to 0.3 sec before you are consciously aware of them. Again, I would say that complex mathematical/logical problems are the only ones that take place largely in conscious mind. The rest of human behaviour is triggered subconsciously, and is instinctual in that sense. Gut feelings and snap judgements (Gigerenzer writes about them, fascinatingly) are another example of that.

Oh, and I also recommend Lakoff and the whole ideea of embodied consciousness. That is, we cannot look at human thought processes without taking into account the physical brain upon which they run: consciousness is not substrate-independent.

[Codi23]

There is a grade of behaviours from fully autonomous (heartbeat, and, you are correct, breathing) to simple instinctual (blinking in response to a bright light?) to more complex (fucking, nesting) to even more complex (sexual preferences, keeping one's head above water, balancing, clutching, simple mathematical behaviours such as counting and estimating distances for throwing) to purely intentional and learned (reading, complex mathematics). Humans, of course, have all of those, and other animals all but the last (and that is questionable: look up Alex the parrot). There is no difference between us and other animals except for a simple (and profound) one: being able to consciously refuse to act on any of those instinctual behaviours.

Compare the behaviour of town-hall protesters with that of a pack of angry baboons. Jumping, arm-waving, emitting shrill sounds--all the way down to facial expressions. All of those are instinctual and shared across human cultures. Another fun one is hip-to-waist ratio: regardless of the cultural specifics of female attractiveness, the preferred ratio is the same across cultures. Speaking of those as purely instinctual is perhaps too simplistic, since all of them lie on a continuum of behaviours, but the only true "rational" human behaviours are the ones we have to learn specifically. We are also not that good at them: it takes a major effort to learn quantum mechanics and much less to learn how to throw a rock, or to swim, because QM has no underlying autonomous/instinctual basis. This is also the same reason why we are afraid of snakes and spiders but not electrical sockets and automobiles: the former fear has been built into us by natural selection, and is therefore instinctual. It is also the reason why it's easier to manipulate people by fear rather than logic: the former is an emotional, instinctual response, the latter is learned (not by all!).

And human nature--modular, malleable to a degree, but still restricted--exists. You can have sex with another man even if you are not gay, but how much will you enjoy it? Or, you can deny your sexuality and reproductive urges completely, but, as history shows, such a denial does no good for our mental state. And, as I have mentioned, our predilection for sugar and pretty bright objects is an evolutionary leftover that is positively maladaptive to both the individual and the society now (not that evolution gives a fig for groups: it's only your specific genes it is interested in)...

EDIT: Oh, and keep in mind that most of human mental processes take place below the threshold of awareness, and are cognitive only in the loosest sense. Even those decisions that you think you have reached by conscious deliberation have been shown to originate in your brain up to 0.3 sec before you are consciously aware of them. Again, I would say that complex mathematical/logical problems are the only ones that take place largely in conscious mind. The rest of human behaviour is triggered subconsciously, and is instinctual in that sense. Gut feelings and snap judgements (Gigerenzer writes about them, fascinatingly) are another example of that.

Oh, and I also recommend Lakoff and the whole ideea of embodied consciousness. That is, we cannot look at human thought processes without taking into account the physical brain upon which they run: consciousness is not substrate-independent.

I agree with everything you say here; but the bolded statement is exactly the reason I don't consider what humans have as "instincts." Maybe it's just a vocabulary/word choice issue here haha. I just don't like to call those things instincts :shrug:. I do agree they are autonomous, and the things you considered are "learned", I believe the same thing.

I guess the only thing I disagree with is the word used to represent things; only thing I disagree with you on. Thank you for explaining your thoughts, though! The town hall protesters being compared to angry baboons example is pretty much spot-on :-d .

[vodyanoj]

I agree with everything you say here; but the bolded statement is exactly the reason I don't consider what humans have as "instincts." Maybe it's just a vocabulary/word choice issue here haha. I just don't like to call those things instincts :shrug:. I do agree they are autonomous, and the things you considered are "learned", I believe the same thing.

I guess the only thing I disagree with is the word used to represent things; only thing I disagree with you on. Thank you for explaining your thoughts, though! The town hall protesters being compared to angry baboons example is pretty much spot-on :-d .

I suppose that I look at any behaviour that is not fully (or at least mostly) intentional as instinctual. What else would you call it? Again, sexuality (hm, everybody's favourite subject!) is one such: simple physiological responses are of course, simply autonomous, but the degree to which we judge potential partners to be attractive is a built-in, subconscious, evolved--hence, instinctual. Perhaps rather than using the simple term "instinct" we can qualify it as "instinctual" behaviour. Meh, so many redefinitions...:-0

EDIT: And remember, simply being able to refuse to act on our instincts is no guarantee that we will refuse to act on them. In fact, everyone (myself included) acts "instinctually" all the time. When I try to chat up a comely wench at the bar, certain behaviours, body movements et al are completely automatic--but not autonomic...

[jawstheme]

I suppose that I look at any behaviour that is not fully (or at least mostly) intentional as instinctual. What else would you call it? Again, sexuality (hm, everybody's favourite subject!) is one such: simple physiological responses are of course, simply autonomous, but the degree to which we judge potential partners to be attractive is a built-in, subconscious, evolved--hence, instinctual. Perhaps rather than using the simple term "instinct" we can qualify it as "instinctual" behaviour. Meh, so many redefinitions...:-0

EDIT: And remember, simply being able to refuse to act on our instincts is no guarantee that we will refuse to act on them. In fact, everyone (myself included) acts "instinctually" all the time. When I try to chat up a comely wench at the bar, certain behaviours, body movements et al are completely automatic--but not autonomic...

:lol: Your vocabulary is awesome

[paper halo]

I'm not talking about what system you would personally choose for yourself (voluntary communism). I asked if you had a superior alternative to the (pseudo-)capitalism that has done a lot of good for the world but has arguable problems, and I'm asking, if you replaced that system with your communism, what would selfishness do to that system or how would you stop that? If you can't answer that, then I can not conclude that communism is a superior alternative to the system that has at least done some (I would say a whole lot of) good. I'll take greedy people in a capitalist system (where at least some greedy people are driven to produce products that people want/need to get their money... or if a greedy person charges outrageously for a product, another person can come along and offer it cheaper and steal all their customers unless they lower it too... greed can make consumers win) over greedy people in a communist system (where people have an incentive to not work or even just not work as hard but reap the same benefits as everyone else, and what about greed by those in charge of distribution?).

You're asking him to construct a convincing argument based purely on speculation?

[GeeBee]

I'm not talking about what system you would personally choose for yourself (voluntary communism). I asked if you had a superior alternative to the (pseudo-)capitalism that has done a lot of good for the world.

And I keep repeating...Capitalism will always be inferior in my mind to any ideology that doesn't place money on a higher pedestal than people.

You're asking him to construct a convincing argument based purely on speculation?
Which I can't and won't do.

[Love As Arson]

A classic phrase from the Resident Marxist. So the majority of American citizens move through the income brackets over the course of their lifetimes, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering.
Source? Here is mine:

The key findings relating to intergenerational mobility include the following:

*
Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.
*
Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.
*
Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.
*
African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.
*
The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.
*
After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.
*
By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

Key findings relating to short-run, year-to-year income movements include the following:

*
The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.
*
Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.
*
The middle class is experiencing more insecurity of income, while the top decile is experiencing less. From 1997-98 to 2003-04, the increase in downward short-term mobility was driven by the experiences of middle-class households (those earning between $34,510 and $89,300 in 2004 dollars). Households in the top quintile saw no increase in downward short-term mobility, and households in the top decile ($122,880 and up) saw a reduction in the frequency of large negative income shocks.
*
For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.
*
The median household was no more upwardly mobile in 2003-04, a year when GDP grew strongly, than it was it was during the recession of 1990-91.
*
Upward short-term mobility for those in the bottom quintile has improved since 1990-91, with no significant offsetting increase in downward short-term mobility.
*
Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf

Hundreds of millions of Chinese can now afford things beyond basic amenities, but they barely notice the alleviation of suffering. What's it gonna take for people to notice these things?
SHANGHAI, China - The gap between China’s richest and poorest citizens is approaching a dangerous level and could lead to social unrest, state media reported Wednesday, citing a government study.

The most affluent one-fifth of China’s population earn 50 percent of total income, with the bottom one-fifth taking home only 4.7 percent, said the report by the official Xinhua News Agency, carried in newspapers Wednesday.

“The income gap, which has exceeded reasonable limits, exhibits a further widening trend. If it continues this way for a long time, the phenomenon may give rise to various sorts of social instability,” it said.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

The reports reflect a growing public recognition of the simmering discontent that has provoked protests and sometimes violent clashes in disputes over labor, pollution and other issues. But apart from adjusting income taxes to reduce the burden on middle-income earners, there have been no signs the government plans to confront the problem with any major policy changes.

Attention has focused especially on mistreatment of migrant laborers from the countryside, in the wake of a case involving a construction worker who killed four people when he despaired about his pay.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9424936/

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/chin-d22.shtml

[saysmydoctor]

Anybody who has taken an intro to Sociology course knows that those numbers Dom ran off.

Not mention class stratification in China is outrageous. I'll have to dig for those charts my professor showed us one time.

[thepianominstre]

And I keep repeating...Capitalism will always be inferior in my mind to any ideology that doesn't place money on a higher pedestal than people.

Then please explain to me how your understanding of Communism works, and don't make it "too romantic." So far the only thing you've given me is that it's built upon better intentions, and I fully agree with you there. But better intentions don't mean squat if they don't produce better results. Governments have good intentions for many of the things they do, but they often make things worse for the very people they're intending to help (see Rent Control (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html)). If enacting rent control makes it harder for the poor to find affordable housing, then it becomes irrelevant to argue that its intention was to make housing more affordable for them. If you want to help people, and you support a program or system because it intends to help people, it's disingenuous or downright deceitful to support that program or system if it actually hurts people. And so far, I'm not convinced that Communism can help people, only that its intentions are better.

Anyone can invent a system that has the best intentions, heart, etc, in the world, but if its application leaves everyone completely destitute, it's incredibly inferior to a system that's built upon money but doesn't leave everyone completely destitute, and actually allows many of them to succeed.

[GeeBee]

Then please explain to me how your understanding of Communism works, and don't make it "too romantic." So far the only thing you've given me is that it's built upon better intentions, and I fully agree with you there. But better intentions don't mean squat if they don't produce better results. Governments have good intentions for many of the things they do, but they often make things worse for the very people they're intending to help (see Rent Control (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html)). If enacting rent control makes it harder for the poor to find affordable housing, then it becomes irrelevant to argue that its intention was to make housing more affordable for them. If you want to help people, and you support a program or system because it intends to help people, it's disingenuous or downright deceitful to support that program or system if it actually hurts people. And so far, I'm not convinced that Communism can help people, only that its intentions are better.

Anyone can invent a system that has the best intentions, heart, etc, in the world, but if its application leaves everyone completely destitute, it's incredibly inferior to a system that's built upon money but doesn't leave everyone completely destitute, and actually allows many of them to succeed.

I'm stating that capitalism creates the "results" you speak of off the backs of the weak and the destitute, no matter how far down the totem pole it goes.

[Love As Arson]

Then please explain to me how your understanding of Communism works, and don't make it "too romantic." So far the only thing you've given me is that it's built upon better intentions, and I fully agree with you there. But better intentions don't mean squat if they don't produce better results. Governments have good intentions for many of the things they do, but they often make things worse for the very people they're intending to help (see Rent Control (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html)). If enacting rent control makes it harder for the poor to find affordable housing, then it becomes irrelevant to argue that its intention was to make housing more affordable for them. If you want to help people, and you support a program or system because it intends to help people, it's disingenuous or downright deceitful to support that program or system if it actually hurts people. And so far, I'm not convinced that Communism can help people, only that its intentions are better.

Anyone can invent a system that has the best intentions, heart, etc, in the world, but if its application leaves everyone completely destitute, it's incredibly inferior to a system that's built upon money but doesn't leave everyone completely destitute, and actually allows many of them to succeed.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/07paulwahlberg.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/27/grim-year-ox
http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001946.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10588
http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/docs/Eglitis/Global_Poverty.pdf
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1732&more=1&c=1