Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Has Communism Worked Anywhere In The World?

Well has it?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27805/29/2014

The communism/government-controlled-capitalism hybrid thing that China has now certainly seems to be working for them.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 112/27/2012

How much do you want to bet this will turn into a pissing match over the definition of the word communist?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 212/27/2012

Cuba seems to be working. If nothing else it got all the rich Cuban assholes to move to Florida.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 312/27/2012

I don't know. My parents became exiles fleeing Castro's brutal dictatorship.

(I'm lying.)

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 512/27/2012

When it falls, it falls butter side down.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 612/27/2012

Don't be fooled by propaganda OP. There's a reason why those old enough to remember are nostalgic for communism in Russia, Hungary, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 712/27/2012

It suited me

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 812/27/2012

[quote]There's a reason why those old enough to remember are nostalgic for communism in Russia, Hungary, and parts of the former Yugoslavia.

It's the same reason why many are nostalgic for pre-Reagan America -- there was a cultural social security then.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 912/27/2012

If a country is so awful that its citizens would risk death or imprisonment to flee that country, it's a good bet the political system sucks.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1012/27/2012

Well, r2, you are at least partly right, I don't know about a pissing match, but OP needs to define or at least specify which "interpretation" of "Communism" is meant, eg Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. And as for it "working", it all depends on what you mean by what "works" as compared to what presumably also works (or doesn't) in societies which do not have governments headed by the Communist Party. I have read that medical care in most countries governed by Communist Parties is very good and costs a fraction of what we pay here in the US. Until OP can become a little more specific about his/her question, I think most attempts to answer it will come to nought.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1112/27/2012

[quote]OP needs to define or at least specify which "interpretation" of "Communism" is meant, eg Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. And as for it "working", it all depends on what you mean by what "works"

Oh god, you're such a douche bag.

Define what 'is' 'is'.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1312/27/2012

If what the Chinese have is communism, then it's working for 1/5 of the human race.

If what we have is capitalism, it's working for 0.1% of the USA.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1412/27/2012

Communism, socialism, capitalism are all just different tools used to control stupid people.

Ever notice how the leaders of all these countries are always filthy rich? How they have more in common with each other than the countries they lead?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1512/27/2012

Please enlighten us as to your prefered governmental and economic system, r15.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1612/27/2012

No, it has not.

And neither has any other economic system. Certainly not capitalism.

Their is no solution. The problem is not in any one system theoretically. The problem is in human beings to come together to make a manageable success with any one of them.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1712/27/2012

R13, you're being deliberately stupid, and it wins you nothing. Some questions are a little more complicated than yes/no, whether you like it or not. That doesn't excuse unnecessary complexity, of course, and for your sake, let's keep it as simple as possible.

There is the theoretical communism spoken of by Marx; Marx said relatively little about what it was supposed to look like, his thing being mainly an analysis of capitalism. Since this communism was to be the result of forces that still have not played out, there is no answer to OP's question. You can't say whether it worked out when it never existed.

On the other hand, the dictatorships claiming to be communist states can claim a few successes, like eliminating the parasitic aristocracy and promoting health and literacy among the masses...but only at enormous cost. Overall, they have not not worked, especially in comparison to the social democratic societies that have done much the same thing while increasing personal freedom.

Does that clear things up?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1812/27/2012

Has Capitalism Worked Anywhere In The World?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 1912/27/2012

Trust me. Communism sucks. My family and I came to the U.S. from Cuba in the mid-1980s. In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be. The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back. Don't let anyone fool you. Communism/socialism sounds good on paper, but the reality fucking sucks. Been there, done that.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2012/27/2012

I think Scandinavian-style social democracy in a high-trust society with strictly controlled immigration is the only socialism that really works. Even Milton Friedman admitted that you cannot have both free immigration and a welfare state.

[quote]I am in favor of the unilateral reduction of tariffs, but the movement of goods is a substitute for the movement of people. As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves. On the other hand, the welfare state does not prevent unilateral free trade. I believe that they are in different categories.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2112/27/2012

[quote]In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be.

Sounds like what HR did to me during "an Investigation."

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2212/27/2012

Cuba uses your neighbors. The US uses the NSA.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2312/27/2012

In the 20th century Communism killed more people than the Nazis - many times over. We are talking more than 150 million people executed, murdered or starved.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2412/27/2012

[quote]Trust me. Communism sucks. My family and I came to the U.S. from Cuba in the mid-1980s. In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be. The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back. Don't let anyone fool you. Communism/socialism sounds good on paper, but the reality fucking sucks. Been there, done that.

Question: do you vote Republican then?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2512/27/2012

r18 is insufferable.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2612/27/2012

[quote]Their is no solution.

Oh, dear.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2712/27/2012

It's seems that when it comes to Capitalism vs. Communism, Capitalism always seems to come out on top, even when a social safety net is necessary. The majority runs on Capitalism, with a little Socialism thrown in.

There's a difference between Communism and Fascism, and that is that Communism seeks to make things equal, why Fascism seeks to weed out the undesirables. One is working for good (but doesn't work), while the other is working for evil.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2812/27/2012

[quote]In the 20th century Communism killed more people than the Nazis - many times over. We are talking more than 150 million people executed, murdered or starved.

While in the US, the relatives of the victims continued to collect money and cheer-lead for the USSR.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 2912/27/2012

R20, it's pretty much a given here that posts which are signed with a full, common name are the work of outsiders and trolls unfamiliar with Datalounge culture. Just FYI, "Ricardo".

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3012/27/2012

R20 is right! Reject communism and socialism and just vote republican!!!

After all, that is what Cubans who came to this country do.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3112/27/2012

I'm a bisexual female and I'm a communist. I normally vote for The Worker's Party (social-deomcratic), but I have decided to vote for The Communist Party in the next election. I hate the right wing parties, and the centre parties want to work with the right wing parties, and I don't want to support that. I actually agree with the communist party on a lot of issues. I want a strong state. I'm against the privatization of health care and education. I want everyone to have a minimum, and I don't want to sell off state companies the way that the right wants. I look to Cuba. I like Cuba a lot, and I think they have succeeded with communism there. They have the best free health care in the world, and the education is also very good.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3212/27/2012

bisexual female communist, next time read the thread before you post.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3312/27/2012

R32, you're an idiot if you think we should all aspire to be like Cuba.

Cuba is basically Venezuela's bitch.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3412/27/2012

Cuba is not without faults, but communism in Cuba has actually worked pretty well. They have the best free health care in the world.. but I would't expect Americans so ingrained in capitalism to understand. You vote for Obama thinking he's leftwing, when he's not at all.. the democratic party is basically like the conservative party in my country. Obama supports capitalism and war mongering too.. he's no different than the repugs.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3512/27/2012

R34 here. I'm not "ingraned" in capitalism. I also did not vote for Obama because, like you said, he's basically a black Bush. Yet, I still think your Cuba is so great speech is BS. I do agree that Cuba has a much better healthcare program than the USA, but if healthcare is the only thing you can list about them that is positive, well that pretty much says it all.

I don't understand people who flip from one side to another just like that. It's like they're incapable of understanding the answer is in between.

The Cubans that come here are so anti-Communism that they become republicans.

Some American's like R35 are so anti-Capitalism that they think a country like Cuba is the answer.

Meanwhile, Cuba is not truly communistic and the USA isn't truly capitalistic. They are just ways their governments manipulate the uneducated masses.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3612/27/2012

The trouble with all political systems is that there are pesky humans involved.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3712/27/2012

Are you around 15 years old, r36? It would be sad if an adult actually concludes a political "analysis" by asserting "they're all just trying to fool the dumb unwashed, man! (but I'm too smart and cynical to fall for it, unlike the rest of you)."

Just sad.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3812/27/2012

The fact that China succeeds at all is due to the cultural importance of education and care for the elderly, which doesn't have that much to do with communism. Now can someone who advocates for China tell me what happens to those too mentally or physically disabled to attend school and do the required exercises, or too old or sick to be cared for at home? You don't want to know the answer.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 3912/27/2012

Has Communism been allowed to work anywhere in The World without the CIA and the US Government fucking with it at every turn?

Where would Cuba be if the USA hadn't embargoed it for the last 50 years? Might that account for some of the drug and food shortages R20 talks about?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4012/27/2012

[quote]The medicine is socialized, but there are no drugs available on the shelves in the drug stores. My grandmother died in 1983 because she could not get the care she needed. Food is rationed to almost a starving level. We escaped there in 1984 and never looked back.

This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the embargo by a hostile and powerful neighbour.

[quote]In Cuba, every move you make is watched by your neighbors and reported back to the powers that be.

It was the same under Batista.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4112/27/2012

China combines the most oppressive aspects of communism with the most exploitative aspects of capitalism. It's such a great example to us decadent Westerners!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4212/27/2012

[quote]Where would Cuba be if the USA hadn't embargoed it for the last 50 years?

Probably no longer a communist state like the rest of the former Soviet satellite states.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4312/27/2012

R25: No, I vote Democrat. I voted for Obama in November. Republicans are far too extreme for me.

R32: You are obviously delusional and/or uninformed (or reading the wrong propaganda). You have never been to Cuba. I lived there for the first 19 years of my life. The healthcare is "Free" but it a nightmare. Cuba is a beautiful country to look at, but it is also a screaming nightmare to live in. You do not understand. I cry for you and I cry for my family members still trapped in that miserable hell. Be careful what you wish for...

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4412/27/2012

Dialectic theory would claim that real Communism cannot exist until Capitalism has outstayed its welcome and collapsed if I remember my political economy classes properly. Therefore we cannot judge as true Communism has never actually existed.

Having been in pre war Yugoslavia and seeing that in the main people seemed to live fairly equally with each other then that may have been a country where a so called form of Communism worked relatively well. I was only there on my holidays of course so I am only able to judge from outward appearances.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4512/27/2012

R45 is correct. A socialist (then communist) state can't exist until the preceding capitalist state has created an industrial proletariat; developed systems and technology to support mass production; and undermined itself by pissing off the working class to the point of revolt. And more, but you get the idea.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4612/27/2012

We're ready, r45.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4712/27/2012

People think the USSR was a failure but consider this. Czarist Russia was easily defeated by Germany, but a stronger Germany under Hitler was defeated by Russian communism, giving you some idea of how quickly Russia improved under Communism. It was brutal and inhuman, but it worked just as brutal and inhuman slavery worked for a long time in the New World.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4812/28/2012

Communism has performed flawlessly for 1700+ years at the Vatican. The Vatican has perfected socialism among its clergy.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 4912/28/2012

[quote]This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the embargo by a hostile and powerful neighbour.

Un-unh. In 1983, Cuba was still backed by the USSR. If Cuba needed medicine, it had a very powerful friend to help it out.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5012/28/2012

I've never been to Israel but have been told the Kibbutz system is an excellent example of socialism. Those that are mot mentally or physically well are cared for and given needed jobs within their limitations.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5112/28/2012

What happened with Kibbutzes? We used to hear about them all the time, and then they seemed to disappear from the media.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5212/28/2012

The U.S. military: A giant government jobs program.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5312/28/2012

Whether or not they have drugs on the shelves is a bit of a red herring. Overall, Cuba has very good medical care which is borne out by stats such as life expectancy.

Our drugstores may be chock full of drugs, some of which may do as much harm as help, but that proves nothing. There are also people who cannot afford their prescriptions and other medical care.

This is not to say Cuba is a paradise but let's just be fair.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5412/28/2012

r49

Outside of turning everyone into pedophiles, it worked out well

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5512/28/2012

r24, link please. Your claims are way too outrageous and incredible to be believed. It sounds like you merely picked a large number out of thin air to create a sensation without a shred of evidence rather than provide truth. Even the Nazis, who developed highly efficient death camps didn't go much beyond a few million, for, if using the Jewish deaths of about 6 million as an example, only about a little over a third of these occurred in the death camps. The rest were shootings, starvation and disease brought on by warfare. Even the most efficient killing machine could not accomplish 150 million in a short amount of time, for which, by the way you do not give a time frame. I think you need to have your head examined.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5612/28/2012

During the last two hundred years, how many people have died of poverty in the USA? I don't know but I'm sure the figure is tens of millions.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5712/28/2012

Well, Mao alone was responsible for 70 million deaths (according to a highly acclaimed biography) - so r24's number doesn't sound too crazy to me, r56.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5812/28/2012

And which highly acclaimed biography was that r58? Did Mao go around personally and shoot all 70 million? Did someone get out there and count them all up? You are too quick to accuse someone of having a speck in their eye that you wish to remove while simply ignoring the large rock in yours. All this crap about who killed who is merely guesswork bandied about for effect. The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, it's time to move on from that mindset. I'm not trying to defend them and I'm sure there were deaths, but making fantastic claims and accusations accomplishes nothing.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 5912/28/2012

[quote]And which highly acclaimed biography was that?

If only I had provided a link...

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6012/28/2012

You sound like a holocaust denier, R59.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6112/28/2012

R45, you are way out of line on Mao. From 1958 to 1961, the Great Leap Forward (Mao's effort to collectivize agriculture (among other objectives) led to the starvation deaths of at least 18 million people, maybe as many as 30 million plus. It was so severe that Mao was openly criticized and lost power within the party. This led to his launching the Cultural Revolution, another disaster that led to still more mass death.

Mao, like Stalin, was a plague on humanity; their putative socialism is no excuse for any sympathy from the left. Your attempt to gloss over his crimes to win an argument is abominable.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6212/28/2012

R62 here. Apologies to R45! I was referring to R59 in my post just above, not R45.

R45 was correct. R59 is a being a dolt.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6312/28/2012

Yes.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6412/28/2012

Is it true that Communism killed more people than Fascism ever did. That doesn't make one better than the other. Karl Marx has a lot of blood on his hands.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6512/28/2012

As I had made no reference to Mao and even if I had would have scant knowledge of the regime other than my reading of wild Swans I knew you weren't referring to my post R62. Not to worry. It is one of the more interesting threads on here at present and am enjoying everyone's input.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6612/28/2012

Who did Marx kill or advocate killing, R65? Why is he responsible for Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who added their own layers of theory which Marx had nothing to do with?

Remember, Marx was mainly an analyst of capitalism, not a revolutionary theorist like Lenin and Mao, who added their own excressences, sometimes in plain contradiction to Marx.

It's like blaming Jesus for the Popes.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6712/28/2012

Thanks for being gracious, R45/66.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6812/28/2012

R66, Chinese friend explained how her grandmother was hidden via bribes in the remote outskirts of the Chinese farming community, where she was always very cold and hungry, but at least survived the "Cultural Revolution." The vast majority of her educated relatives and friends were "disappeared."

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 6912/28/2012

I was in China recently. Trust me, the Chinese don't think Communism is so wonderful. Though they'll only tell you in hushed tones when they're sure no one is listening. As for someone's assertion that they're successful because of their cultural tradition of caring for the elderly, take a look at today's news:

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7012/28/2012

R70, I was the one that stated that Chinese are expected to care for their elderly and disabled relatives. Old-age homes are generally a Western concept. Social pressure and gossip is extreme if you violate societal norms, even before the legal remedies. I asked my Chinese friend what happens if you can't stand your parents or grandparents, because they do nothing but complain and criticize. She laughed and said that everyone MUST get along, no matter what. In fact her sister had to leave her husband to return to her parents' home to care for them when they got too old. So are Chinese successful because of their cultural tradition of focusing on cooperation and care of the family unit, or because they know that if each member doesn't follow societal expectations all may end up in jail?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7112/28/2012

In Cuba today, they are starving but educated. Without a job prospect. Children are prostituted and diseased, but no medicine. Their friends include Canadians, but the money (tourist and otherwise) doesn't trickle down.

I once applauded Castro for taking children from poor families to break the cycle of poverty. But without free exchange, their virtues are for naught. Too bad they couldn't be friends with the US without US overwhelming them.

Havana Bay is gorgeous and unspoiled.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7212/28/2012

Communism has never really worked anywhere it's been tried, but it's still lingering on in a few countries around the world.

This, of course, makes it wildly successful compared to libertarianism, which has never even been implemented anywhere in anything even remotely resembling a successful way.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7312/28/2012

It improved lives for most people in Russia.

Was it horrible and tyrannical? Yes, but so was what came before and after. And since the USA also suppresses dissent and operates a surveillance state far surpassing anything the KGB ever dreamed of, it doesn't behoove Americans to get on their high horse about this.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7412/28/2012

You're an idiot, r74.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7512/28/2012

R74, I suggest you read the reports of cannibalism, when tree bark became too scarce as the only source of food, among the Soviet peasants under Stalin's reign of terror. Have you personally lived in USSR under Communism? LOL

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7612/28/2012

R76 is apparently unaware that many people in the USA have starved to death over the years.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7712/28/2012

And a quarter of the nation required food aid of some type at some point last year.

As I said, Americans are full of shit when it comes to evaluating social systems.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7812/28/2012

If the US "operate[d] a surveillance state far surpassing anything the KGB ever dreamed of", you'd be on your way to the Gulag already.

I hope you're not older than 20.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 7912/28/2012

R77, Tell me where in the US people are thrilled to find grass or tree bark and catch bugs to survive. Are you going to tell me that masses of Americans are dying of thirst as well?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8012/28/2012

I have seen some false equivalencies in my time, r78, but that's a howler. Americans are receive food aid therefore we're just as bad as a country in which people are reduced to eating tree bark. Right.

Babe, our social system provides aid when people are in need of food. Not only that, our social system provided aid to the U.S.S.R. when its people were in need of food.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8112/28/2012

R77, can you provide a 20th Century example of starvation in the US comparable to the famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s (intentionally crated by Stalin during forced collectivization) or to the famine in China during the Great Leap Forward, 1958 to 1961? That one was due to Mao's monstrous incompetence and ideological rigidity.

Anything of that order of magnitude, or even close? The Ukraine famine killed on the scale of the Jewish holocaust, China's killed tens of millions.

It does socialism no good to minimize these crimes or create false equivalencies.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8212/28/2012

He article probably exaggerated, but one Russian researcher estimated U.S.A's losses in the thirties at 8.5 million.

And yes, people ate bark.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8312/28/2012

Pellagra deaths in ten months South Carolina in 1910: 1,306. 100,000 affected in the South in 1916. Non-depression years. Starvation has been common in the USA before the 1990's.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8412/28/2012

R83, really? This researcher compared Harold Ickes and the CCC to Lavrenti Beria and the Soviet gulag system. How is anyone supposed to take that Pravda article seriously?

Try again, please.

However, you're *starting* to make sense in R84.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8512/28/2012

Please get back to us when you find reputable claims that millions of U.S. citizens died of hunger. You can find reputable reports of famine-related cannibalism in the U.S.S.R. and China. I don't think you'll find similar reports for the United States.

The United States is not perfect and never has been. It is still not as bad as the U.S.S.R. Really, truly. I'll give you another avenue of research: How many U.S. citizens died trying to escape to the communist bloc? Then ask how many citizens of Communist countries died trying to defect to the west.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8612/28/2012

yes R85 but most of what you know about Russian history reads the same to Russians as what you think about that link.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8712/28/2012

R17

That is why anarchism, especially that espoused by Murray Rothbard (called anarcho capitalism) is the only way to go.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8812/28/2012

No, R88. That is utterly ridiculous. That would be an utter nightmare.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 8912/28/2012

R23-

If our employer spies on you, but has no ability to sic the police on you, or do anything other than expose theft/fraud...no problem. If the government can spy on you, and use your employer to do it...fascism.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9012/28/2012

I am amazed at the people that point out the evils of communism haven't found out about Ron Paul. He is the ultimate anti-communist that you can love.

Free markets, but no big corporations. Sound money, and no big banks. Good health care, but no government intervention. No military adventures. No private prisons, and no drug war. No bailouts for big corps. All power devolved to the local government, which allows for competition between cities/ counties/ states for maximum human liberty.

What's not to love?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9112/28/2012

No, R87, most of what I know about Russian history comes from a university degree in Russian/Soviet Studies and two decades of subsequent reading and travel. As to how the article reads to me or anyone else, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the idea in question has factual support from credible sources.

Off the top, a Pravda article that compares Harold Ickes and the CCC to Beria and the gulags is laughable.

Again, it does socialism no good to minimize the crimes of communist dictatorships or to create false equivalencies. One reason is that it makes it harder to understand and change the evils of capitalism. Another is that it damages the reputation of serious and knowledgeable anti-capitalist critics.

It's also plain wrong.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9212/28/2012

Oh, I know R91! What's not to love is that what you describe would never happen: the locally devolved governments would mostly turn into authoritarian capitalist satraps run by the well connected rich loons.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9312/28/2012

R91, the opposite of communism is not libertarianism. Libertarianism is just as bad if not worse... there's a reason no nation has ever put it into practice. It doesn't work.

And Ron Paul is an insane nut who just happens to be correct on a few issues. You have to ignore a whole lot of crazy to support the guy over-all.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9412/28/2012

R93- without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign. Do you think that Comcast has a monopoly because of the "free market"? No, it's because the government gives it monopoly over an area.

If power devolves, down to the local level, then the wealthy have an incentive (and the means) to leave. That leaves far less for the parasites to steal. No county that taxed the wealthy at 20%, let alone 90%, would survive. Their rich people would leave, and the poor would hang the bastards that passed such stupid laws in the public square...as they deserve.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9512/28/2012

[quote]without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign

What a delusional statement... you have absolutely no data or evidence to support such nonsense of course.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9612/28/2012

What's fucking hilarious about R95's post is that he actually sees that as a good thing! As an incentive. Wow.... Just, wow....

And that's not even taking into consideration the total insanity of the proposal. Talk about your "unintended consequences!"

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9712/28/2012

[quote]without a powerful government to enforce corporate law, freedom would reign

Ah yes - like in Somalia. Sounds great.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9812/28/2012

R95 couldn't be more wrong about everything.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 9912/28/2012

Sorry, R95, I'm willing to discuss things with lots of different people, but loony Branch Paulians are not on that list.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10012/28/2012

R86, monopoly can only exist when government gives agency and the power of law.

Your ignorance makes me sad.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10112/28/2012

Good one R98!

Why don't you use that, like 3rd graders use "PSYCH!" in every post. Moron quisling Bush loving cocksucker.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10212/28/2012

[quote]monopoly can only exist when government gives agency and the power of law.

You do realize that this statement is utter bullshit, right? And that you cannot back it up with anything resembling real data? Just checking.

[quote]Your ignorance makes me sad

Not us. Your ignorance is hilarious.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10312/28/2012

It worked pretty well in the former Yugoslavia. It was helped along by the Tito personality cult and the attention that independent Yugoslavia received from both sides of the Iron Curtain.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10412/28/2012

R100, I'm sorry your ignorance of economics makes you unwilling to debate.

So, you support the drug wars?

The support the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen...?

You support putting black men in jail?

You support the ability of the prez to kill any US citizen at any time?

You support the drone strikes that kill innocent people?

You support the bailouts of the big 5 banks?

You support the bailout of GM?

You support the control of the Internet by the government in the name of "stopping terrorism"?

Wow, you are a good little Nazi fucker.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10512/28/2012

Don't you just love this guy? He can't debate what people actually write, so he has to make shit up and pretend that someone, somewhere has actually said that.

Oh, and R105, do let us know when that 50% hyperinflation that Ron Paul predicted finally gets here. We've been waiting for two years now.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10612/28/2012

R103-

Name one case, just ONE, where a monopoly wasn't due to government laws supporting it.

If you can name ONE case, I'll shut up.

But, just like my question on whether people who have never lived in the US should be forced to pay taxes to the US, or whether the NDAA (which gives the prez the power to kill any US citizen, anywhere, anytime, for any reason) is justified, you can't answer it.

You are a piece of shit, and need to shut up. Hitler would be proud of someone like you!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10712/28/2012

R105 engages in strawman arguments and hyperbole, ignoring that it's the Republican party (the party most Libertarians vote for) that support all of that the most.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10812/28/2012

[quote]Name one case, just ONE, where a monopoly wasn't due to government laws supporting it.

ROFL.... Moron, you're the one making the silly assertions. The onus is on you. Not that we're really expecting anything, since you never do even try to prove the silly assertions you post here.

[quote]If you can name ONE case, I'll shut up.

No, you won't. We've proved you wrong dozens of times before and it has never stopped you. Nor will proving you wrong this time shut you up.

[quote]But, just like my question on whether people who have never lived in the US should be forced to pay taxes to the US, or whether the NDAA (which gives the prez the power to kill any US citizen, anywhere, anytime, for any reason) is justified, you can't answer it.

ROFL.... I do so love this guy.

[quote]You are a piece of shit, and need to shut up. Hitler would be proud of someone like you!

See what I mean? This guy is freaking hilarious!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 10912/28/2012

[quote]engages in strawman arguments and hyperbole, ignoring that it's the Republican party (the party most Libertarians vote for) that support all of that the most.

While it's true that he does routinely engage in those tactics, R108, in all fairness to him it must be noted that he's more of an anarchist than anything else. He loathes both Democrats and Republicans, other than his hero Ron Paul, whose well-documented hypocrisy he ignores.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11012/28/2012

...and who is a Republican, R110.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11112/28/2012

Yeah, well, like I said, our dear little libertarian/anarchist chum prefers not to think about such sordid things, R111.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11212/28/2012

And yet, R106, you refuse to answer any of the questions.

Yes, I believe that decades of spending more than we make will cause problems.

If I spent $2M a year and only made $1.6M, eventually Amex would take my black card away.

Our government has done it for 59 years. Now we are adding $1Trillion a year. It is unsustainable. When the fuckers on Wall Street (who must pay you for you to defend them the way you do) decide to "cut and run" the taxpayer will be left with dollars worth less than toilet paper.

At that point, the top .01% (you know, the ones who pay your bills for shilling on gay sites for them) will watch as the rest of us struggle...and beg for world government and "leadership".

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11312/28/2012

[quote]And yet, [R106], you refuse to answer any of the questions.

LOL.... I'm just following your example, dear, since you never answer questions. Oh, and for the record, I always answer any and all questions that are based firmly in the real world. Sadly, that doesn't apply to most of yours.

[quote]Yes, I believe that decades of spending more than we make will cause problems.

Nice non sequitur. Got anything relevant to say?

[quote]If I spent $2M a year and only made $1.6M, eventually Amex would take my black card away.

Dear, there's a reason that microeconomics and macroeconomics are separate subjects. And there's a reason you always get your ass handed to you in these encounters, because you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[quote]Our government has done it for 59 years. Now we are adding $1Trillion a year. It is unsustainable.

The deficit will shrink as the economy recovers. And now is not the time for the austerity measures you've been begging for, as we've seen in countless examples all over the world. Your remedy has been tried; it has failed miserably everywhere.

Moreover, fixing the deficit is trivially easy. All it takes is the political will.

[quote]When the fuckers on Wall Street (who must pay you for you to defend them the way you do) decide to "cut and run" the taxpayer will be left with dollars worth less than toilet paper.

Uh-huh. Do let us know when that economic meltdown and hyperinflation you've been predicting for years is close, won't you?

[quote]At that point, the top .01% (you know, the ones who pay your bills for shilling on gay sites for them) will watch as the rest of us struggle...and beg for world government and "leadership".

ROFL.... Now out here in the real world, on the other hand....

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11412/28/2012

R112, R111, R110-

Yes, I know that Dr Paul has an (R) by his name, but that's not why I like him. It's because he's an anarchist. His grandson is gay, and he is one of his favorites. When he told his mom and dad, they were upset, but Ron came to his defense. This isn't a well known story (I've known him, and Ron and Carol, for a looooong time) but he accepted him with no judgment. Thats one of the reasons Ron has been so vocal about the ONE vote he regrets- he now thinks DOMA was wrong.

Please, please, PLEASE re-read my post at R105. Can you see how the moron at R103/106/109/3tc refuses to ever offer anything but snark? No defense, just "liberty and freedom are bad" and never any defense of her position.

Please help me.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11512/28/2012

Communism hasn't worked ANYWHERE! Only dumb americans who NEVER had to live under a communist regime can even ask that. It has brought nothing but tyranny, corruption, misery, death and suffering to most.

The reason is that it contradicts human nature and because people are driven by the need for power and by greed and then they do everything to maintain it.

The only system that works is democracy with a capitalistic economic system that is supervised closely by the state.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11612/28/2012

[quote]It's because he's an anarchist.

Oddly he claims to be libertarian, and to worship Ayn Rand.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11712/28/2012

God, R114- when you graduate grade school, come back.

Those are the lamest "defenses" I've seen.

You really are just a 15 year old moronic child.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11812/28/2012

[quote]His grandson is gay, and he is one of his favorites.

And yet he's anti-gay, pro-DOMA (which is by any definition unconstitutional)... never mind his racist tendencies.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 11912/28/2012

R115, nobody here has ever EVER said "Liberty and freedom are bad".

You engage in so many logical fallacies I have to wonder if you're brain-damaged, or just trolling on purpose. Because your brain clearly isn't functioning very well. You clearly "hear" what you want to hear, not what anyone actually says. And your debating skills SUCK.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12012/28/2012

Yes, R105, the fact that I recognize you as a loon means I support all those things.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12112/28/2012

[quote]Please, please, PLEASE re-read my post at [R105].

LOL... Yes, please do. Note that nobody on this thread or anywhere else has said anything remotely like what he's claiming. And how totally disconnected those various items are.

[quote]Can you see how the moron at [R103]/106/109/3tc refuses to ever offer anything but snark?

ROFL.... Can you see how you refuse to ever offer anything but personal attacks and unsupported assertions? I have provided more than snark, of course, but since you never acknowledge your many factual errors, I usually don't bother.

[quote]No defense

I always defend what I write, dear. What I don't defend is the shit you make up. Why should I "defend" what I didn't say? When you can learn the difference between the two, we might be able to have a serious discussion, but I'm not holding my breath.

[quote]just "liberty and freedom are bad" and never any defense of her position.

LOL.... See what I mean? Q.E.D.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12212/28/2012

[quote]when you graduate grade school, come back.

Anything you say, dear.

[quote]Those are the lamest "defenses" I've seen.

And yet, you are wholly unable to offer any rational counter-argument. Just more lame personal attacks. Why is that, dear?

[quote]You really are just a 15 year old moronic child.

LOL.... Judging from your attempts at insults, I'd have to say that you're in kindergarten.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12312/28/2012

True r116 but communism is not the solution. The solution is fixing democracy. In this case, in America specifically, the whole political system is screwed and creates a situation where big money is in bed with big politics. THAT'S the problem!

So, you get president after president that's a hostage of the 1%.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12612/28/2012

[quote]A real free market works.

No, it really doesn't.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12712/28/2012

[quote]Someone trolldar [R103]/106/109/110 112/114/122/123 and then show where they made an argument that isn't "you're wrong, I'm right, hahaha" and summarize.

Someone trolldar R125 and then show where they made an argument that isn't "you're wrong, I'm right," and summarize.

Gee, this is easy. And I don't even have to think. No wonder this is the way you always debate! And isn't it funny how you always ask others to provide what you won't: answer to questions, data, etc.

[quote]I don't have time for trollz.

ROFL... No, but you sure do have the time to be one.

[quote]Thank god most people on this thread can see though your bullshit.

Oh, I think just about everyone on this thread knows who's tossing out bullshit.

[quote]Go suck GWBush dick and shut up

Case in point....

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 12812/28/2012

[quote]Anarcho capitalism is the only way to meet those needs. It destroys the big corps, big banks, big military contractors...and makes life better.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world....

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13012/28/2012

R129, you've never seen a flying horse. How can you say it doesn't work?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13212/28/2012

[quote]And yet, [R128], you still won't answer these questions-

ROFL.... Moron, I haven't been fooled by a "when did you stop beating your wife" question in years. What makes you think I'm going to play your silly games, particularly when those first two questions start from false premises, rendering the questions meaningless,

[quote]You never answer questions, just toss bullshit.

Right back at you, sweetheart. I'm just employing your own modus operandi and, boy, you really don't like it when someone uses your own tactics against you. Sucks to be you.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13312/28/2012

Oh, oh, and you've never tried arsenic! How can you say it's a poison if you've never tried it?!

I like this, R132. Got any more?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13412/28/2012

R129, it amazes me you actually believe everything you type.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13512/28/2012

You've never had a 15" double dong dildo up your ass, how do you know...

You've never visited the surface of the Sun, how do you know...

You've never seen a sane Branch Paulian, how do you know...

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 13612/28/2012

[quote]Wow- ask a simple question-- do you support killing people, or giving tax money to rich people- and this is the response?

ROFL.... Gee, I went looking for where you asked those questions on this thread and I just couldn't find that post. Maybe you can point me to it? Or you could just admit that, as usual, you made shit up.

[quote]No wonder the government wants to make sure everyone goes to public schools- you can't get that stupid without government education!

ROFL.... And what's your excuse, dear?

[quote]Are you people that retarded, so stupid you can't answer simple questions?

We're just following your example, dear.

[quote]How can you sleep, knowing that you are condemning millions of children to poverty with your glib and idiotic answers?

ROFL.... Just like Hitler!!!! How could we?! Clearly we're the scum of the earth!

Personally, I sleep quite well, thanks. I'm ever so touched by your concern. And very grateful that nobody in a position of authority will ever adopt those idiotic "solutions" of yours.

[quote]I could not live with myself if I thought so little of my neighbors, and their health and future.

So I assume that you'll be committing suicide any day now?

[quote]You people are sick.

Oh, the irony....

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 14112/28/2012

Dear heart, pointing out that you're a moron, a conspiracy loon, a troll, that much of what you write is batshit crazy, and that you have never supported any of your assertions with anything resembling real data, is not the same thing as disagreeing with every single one of your causes.

Out in the real world, away from those delusional fantasies of yours, things aren't so black and white. I can, and do, for example, believe that the Patriot Act should be repealed and that you're an ignorant loon. These are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 14412/28/2012

[quote]Good little Nazi-

I do love how everyone who points out you're a loon is a "Nazi." Thanks for invoking Godwin's Law.

[quote]A few thousand years of societal history shows that when one small oligarchy controls the system it falls apart.

Actually, you've made it very clear that you are wholly ignorant of history, so forgive us if we refuse to take your unsupported word for such matters.

[quote]Too bad your government education left you too mentally retarded to understand that.

ROFL.... You really should stop trying. You just don't have the flair for personal insults. It just comes across as lame rather than clever.

[quote]I feel so sad for you and your disability.

Really? Because I'm loving yours. You're hilarious, dude! I haven't had this much fun in weeks.

[quote]Really, I hate you're a moron. If you don't post here, though, most people are too stupid to notice. I'm sure your friends are too polite to point out your idiocy.

Whatever you say, dear. I'm ever so touched by your concern. Really.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 14612/28/2012

[quote]You mock, you pull quotes, BUT YOU DON'T GIVE ANY ANSWER.

That's right, dear. I'm just following your sterling example. Endless assertions supported by nothing at all. Sucks to be on the other side of your own tactics, doesn't it?

[quote]Are you too stupid to answer the goddamn question?

Why no, dear, not at all. Thanks for checking.

[quote]Just answer ONE question. Just one. Show the rest of us what a good little government cocksucker you are!

LOL... Gee, with incentive like that, how could I possibly refuse?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 14812/28/2012

As usual, the Americans turn this into a left-wing authoritarianism versus right-wing authoritarianism, both corporatist, because that is all they understand.

Back to whether and where communism works: Kerala, India (and West Bengal for awhile), the Nordics, various Italian governments, but temporarily only, the Schalke football club in Germany, many worker-owner business models., e.g. WL Gore, 20th century communist states in terms of literacy and scientific advancement, but not human rights.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 14912/28/2012

Okay, I'm done for the night. Sorry, folks, but this guy really is irresistible. Such an amazing combination of ignorance and arrogance. And a thin skin, to boot.

The webmaster will likely lock this thread, anyway, given how far off the rails it's gone.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 15012/28/2012

Dear Branch Paulian LOON,

You are an obsessive, disruptive turd in a punchbowl. You have done nothing but show most of the participants here that your philosophy is junk. Please go away and let the non-loons get back to what was a relatively interesting discussion.

And you expect to be taken seriously!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 15112/28/2012

It's one one stupid Paulbot who doesn't even understand systems of government to begin with. He'll tire of himself eventually.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 15512/28/2012

R156, we've all learned a long time ago that it is a pointless waste of time to try and educate the willfully ignorant & dogmatically & ideologically deluded.

So instead we just laugh and point at your ridiculousness, made all the more humorous at your complete cluelessness at just how utterly stupid you sound to anyone educated and not brainwashed.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 15812/28/2012

Communism is as successful an operation as capitalism. They both breed contemptuous.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 15912/28/2012

Troll-dar reveals an unhinged lunatic.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 16312/28/2012

Congratulations, Loon, no one took you seriously, so you had to ruin the thread. Troll-daring you makes the thread look like it has jaundice.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 16412/28/2012

Why are we talking about that racist and whack, Ron Paul? Is he a successful communist?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 16712/28/2012

Obviously capitalism isn't working either, you've got a fourth strain in the disease.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 16912/28/2012

[quote]Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises- demonstrated why Communism, Socialism and Fascism (which are just 3 strains of the same disease) can never work.

Um no. They're not 3 strains of the same thing. Idiot.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17012/28/2012

Feel better, asshole?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17112/29/2012

R169-

The main reason we have "crony capitalism" is due to the fact that the big banks, big corps, etc. have control of our Government. Get rid of the power, and health care becomes more available and cheaper, banking becomes more helpful to the "little guy" and the government is less able to fuck with us.

Look at how the "military industrial complex" controls Congress today. Both parties are in the pockets.

That's why libertarians that want to destroy that power center are right.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17212/29/2012

Many government interventions expand freedom. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was opposed by libertarians like Barry Goldwater as an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights. Yet it was obvious that African Americans were suffering tremendously at the hands of state and local governments. If the federal government didn't step in to redress these crimes, who else would?

Since passage of the civil rights act, African Americans have achieved a level of freedom equal to that of most whites. Yet I have never heard a single libertarian hold up the civil rights act as an example of a libertarian success.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17312/29/2012

"Since passage of the civil rights act, African Americans have achieved a level of freedom equal to that of most whites."

Ahhhh, yes, they are sent to jail because libertarians oppose drug laws, and more than one in 10 black men are under some form of legal supervision- in jail, on parole, or probation. That is such a great leap forward for those poor blacks. The fact that it has left many children without fathers...and therefore on some form of government assistance, and in deep poverty, in horrifyingly inept schools... well, that's no problem.

You "good white people" will take care of them...not. No, you treat them like children, destroy their family unit, make them dependent...and then wonder why young black men are so violent?

Get rid of the drug laws and welfare, and black families will recover within 20 years. It makes me sick when white assholes think they know what is best for black people. Fuck you.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17412/29/2012

Nice.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17512/29/2012

R174, As much as I hate the present welfare system, if you wish to get rid of it what would you then advocate in its place? How would you prevent Americans from killing themselves due to drug use?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17612/29/2012

R177, I have a very delicate system, despite always having been very health conscious, and have never smoked anything or ever taken any illegal drugs. So please be careful who you falsely accuse; you could end up in jail.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 17812/29/2012

[quote]You "good white people" will take care of them...not.

Uh, passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Libertarians opposed, is merely giving the same freedoms and rights to an oppressed minority.

You're an idiot.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18012/29/2012

quit fucking talking about libertarian horseshit, this thread is about communism you fucking myopic american assholes

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18212/29/2012

[quote]I have read that medical care in most countries governed by Communist Parties is very good and costs a fraction of what we pay here in the US.

If by "very good", you mean "shit", then yes.

Cheap, absolutely, compared to what health care costs in the US, but I'd use "appalling" to describe the level of care.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18312/29/2012

I grew up in post communist Romania and it was shite. I also remember a bit about the actual communism having to que up with m nan for milk as there was only a limited amount and u had coupons and per family u was only aloud a certain amount. Food was very hard to obtain even if u had money and I mean basic food like Mille, meat, bread. There was no variety and I drunk my first coke in the 90s there was no variety in anything, clothing, cars, toys. There was no freedom and everything was regulated u wasn't allowed to b religious Wich is y so many after the communism turned way religious. It Sucked beyond belief and my former country still hasn't recovered. Fuck communism.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18412/29/2012

[quote]So, when asked if you support the impeachment of the enforcer of the PATRIOT ACT you decide to be a pussy?

ROFL... Unlike you, apparently, I have a life. I had friends to meet.

[quote]That shows how shallow and wrong your beliefs are.

Well, sure, if you're a moron.

[quote]If you think the thread is going to be shut down, defend yourself!

From what, dear?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18612/29/2012

[quote]Have any of your friends ever drank before age 21? Have they smoked pot and you didn't report them? Well, them you are an accessory to murder, and should be executed you Ironic and Stupid fuck. Or perhaps you should call the Gestapo on me for dissent? Stupid cunts like you deserve the scorn you get. How can someone be so self-righteously stupid and arrogant? Please eat a peanut- I'm sure it would save the rest of us from having to deal with your ass.

I have nothing to add to this; I just wanted to repeat it since it's so typical of this poster and so fucking hilarious!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18712/29/2012

[quote]Troll-dar reveals an unhinged lunatic.

Yup, and not the only thread he's revealed on. He's been around for several years now and his threads are always entertaining.

I did love this bit, though:

[quote]R150 thought his version of socialist utopia would win, but then spent weeks defending it and then ran away when it got destroyed.

ROFL.... I mean, what can you say to such wholly unhinged drivel? Not only have I never advocated any "socialist utopia," I haven't spent "weeks defending it," since my first post on this thread was R97. And as for anything being "destroyed," I'm afraid his "victory," as usual, exists only in his own mind. Oh, well....

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18812/29/2012

R187, Thank you for your support. I was bewildered trying to formulate a response that would make sense. You're right the poster is far out on a limb.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 18912/29/2012

Communism has never worked. It is the system most susceptible to corruption.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19012/29/2012

R190-

It can't work. The only workable system is freedom. Property rights (which mean your money, your body, your children, your religion, your home) are the only way to stop this.

The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing) are just products of government schools.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19112/29/2012

[quote]The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing) are just products of government schools.

ROFL.... The people that [sic] pretend that socialism, fascism, and communism are "essentially the same thing" are ignorant loons, products of their own fevered imaginations.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19212/30/2012

[quote]The people that cannot see the similarity between socialism, fascism and communism (since they are essentially the same thing)

Oh, dear.

You're the product of inbreeding.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19312/31/2012

[quote]#ronpaul ---- he loves the gays

My sides!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19412/31/2012

[quote]The main reason we have "crony capitalism" is due to the fact that the big banks, big corps, etc. have control of our Government.

Free Market Capitalism results in big banks, big corporations, ETC, taking control of the government.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19512/31/2012

36 countries have better health care than the U.S. The top ones are socialist.

R183 clearly hasn't been there, done that.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19612/31/2012

[quote]Libertarianism is the opposite of communism, and therefore germane to the discussion.

No, it's not, they're both totalitarian ideologies that put economic orthodoxy above what the people want and need.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19712/31/2012

Boy, somebody sure has an agenda with this thread. No, communism CAN NOT WORK.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19812/31/2012

The answer is always in the middle. Pure communism isn't freedom and doesn't work. Pure capitalism doesn't work either, it benefits only the 1% and turns the rest into serfs. The answer is a mix of capitalism with extensive gov. regulation and laws.

Which right wingers define as communism.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 19912/31/2012

R199, If those running governmental programs represented the elite in terms of intelligence and competence I'd still be a Liberal. Seeing too many idealists unable to innovate and be more efficient because of "regulations," has turned me into a Moderate. Don't you recall governmental involvement and corruption in Katrina?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20012/31/2012

R200, so you advocate an absolute free market? Do you recall A Christmas Carol where one man was enslaved by Ebenezer Scrooge? Have you heard of sweat shops? Children as young as 8 working 12 hour days? That is an absolute free market, it is proven to not work. I think the answer is in the middle. What you have to realize is that humans aren't perfect and so the answer in the middle won't be perfect either, however it's better than either extreme.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20112/31/2012

R201, I try to be a realist, not an extremist. I've seen to many failures of large organizations, private and public, where decision making is generally made at the top, you can't change even minor procedures to adapt to an unusual situation, and it's way too hard to fire incompetents who only want to do the bare minimum. I'd still be a Liberal, instead of a Moderate, if government worked the way it was designed. It's not that humans aren't perfect that's the issue. It's that public and private managers in a position of power would rather give pithy excuses for stupidity than innovate and make substantial changes to procedures to achieve greater competence. How many administrators truly encourage original thought by their underlings? Why don't they fire those that aren't there to give 110%?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20212/31/2012

[quote]It's not that humans aren't perfect that's the issue. It's that public and private managers in a position of power would rather give pithy excuses for stupidity than innovate

um, doesn't that mean the public/private managers aren't perfect? You say tomato, I say, well, I say tomato too, I think we are in agreement here.

Government is inefficient, look at the DMV and the IRS. (I found out the post office is inefficient because of Republicans attempt to sabotage it, otherwise it'd be fine). Corporations, in my opinion, are no better. Have you tried to get a hold of a human being on the phone at a large corporation? Their automated systems have you running in circles. They sell imported crap and are constantly trying to find ways to sell you less for more. Little packets of soap for the dishwasher are a perfect example, you are paying for extra packaging.

It all sucks, which is why we need regulations and yes, in many cases we are over regulated. I'm not convinced we are over taxed, I'm convinced that the taxes are going to the wrong places.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20312/31/2012

R199

You've never seen "pure capitalism" because it has never existed. The closest would be early USA, but even that was filled with cronyism and arbitrary government power.

"Pure Capitalism" is simple- I'm not allowed to lie to you to get money or favors, I'm not allowed to force you, by fraud or the threat of force, to do anything for me, I'm not allowed to steal from you and I'm not allowed to unilaterally violate a contract. It's very simple, but when one corporation- the STATE, aka the government- is allowed to all those things with impunity and immunity to prosecution...well, that's why you've never seen a free market.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20401/02/2013

R200-

Every regulation is a "price fix" and will always result in distoritions to the normal market. If you set a price floor, people will leave the market because they can't sell their wares/goods/labor at a price below the floor without bankruptcy. If you set a ceiling then shortages become common. If you outlaw it completely, black markets become common.

All of these are the result of government interference in the market.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20501/02/2013

R201-

How was he "enslaved" by Scrooge?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20601/02/2013

R202-

None of the largest banks, car makers, military manufacturers, food packagers, fast food chains, or "dry goods" retailers would exist in a free market. All of them rely on the power of the government to get tax breaks and subsidies unavailable to the "little guy" and then become obscenely wealthy in the process. When all you have to do is promise 51 Senators that their kids can get 8 figure paychecks if they support this or that bill, it becomes easy as hell to manipulate the government and the laws.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20701/02/2013

R203

Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.

The post office is a perfect example- if you look at their objective (deliver mail, every 6 days, to every person) and then look at how inefficient they are, how subsidized they are, and how their monopoly on first class mail has been the only thing that has kept them from needing MORE money from the government- you will see that they are a perfect example of government incompetence.

The only reason FedEx and UPS (and formerly DHS, until they decided the regulatory bullshit in the US was too hard to navigate and sold off their US subsidiary) don't deliver the mail (despite the fact that they come through 95% of neighborhoods each day) is because the USPS holds A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL.

If UPS and FedEx were allowed to deliver mail the USPS would be out of business within a year. Unfortunately, the US taxpayer would be on the hook for the hundreds of billions in unfunded pension plans...just like with Hostess.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20801/02/2013

R203-

About taxes-

If you could "opt out" and not pay taxes, but instead pay "user fees" for everything you used- schools, roads, GPS, national offense...I mean defense- would you do it? If you were allowed to save for retirement instead of paying 13.3% of your earnings (meaning a 13.3% raise in each week) wouldn't you be better off?

If you could designate that your tax dollars could not be used to fund the murder of children and innocent overseas, or pay for big military contracts, or be used to build "bridges to nowhere" would you opt out?

Our government is just a "gang of thieves writ large" and they are screwing all of us while they dine on caviar and drink champagne.

Google "Ludwig Von Mises" or "Murray Rothbard" and educate yourself on how evil our government really is, and how we can take it back from the neocons.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 20901/02/2013

[quote]"Pure Capitalism" is simple- I'm not allowed to lie to you to get money or favors

Which means, ta-da, that you're now talking about regulation, which means it's no longer "pure capitalism."

You're also conveniently overlooking such things as barriers to entry and economies of scale, not to mention the tools that can be employed to skew the market in one direction or another by the wealthy. "Pure capitalism" can get just as out-of-balance as what we have today. Actually, it's more likely, since there is no countervailing force.

[quote]Every regulation is a "price fix" and will always result in distortions to the normal market.

Most of the regulations are there for a damn good reason.

[quote]If you set a price floor, people will leave the market because they can't sell their wares/goods/labor at a price below the floor without bankruptcy. If you set a ceiling then shortages become common. If you outlaw it completely, black markets become common.

Strawman arguments, since that's not what regulations do.

[quote]None of the largest banks, car makers, military manufacturers, food packagers, fast food chains, or "dry goods" retailers would exist in a free market.

Utter bullshit.

[quote]All of them rely on the power of the government to get tax breaks and subsidies unavailable to the "little guy" and then become obscenely wealthy in the process.

See above about barriers to entry and economies of scale.

[quote]Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.

ROFL.... Yup, you really don't have any connection to the real world, do you?

[quote]The post office is a perfect example- if you look at their objective (deliver mail, every 6 days, to every person) and then look at how inefficient they are, how subsidized they are

Moron, they aren't subsidized, and haven't been subsidized for years. And they do a pretty damn good job. What's killing them now has to do with pension-funding requirements (that no private company needs to follow), and the mandate to serve each and every household for the same price. UPS and Fed-Ex would do no better in this space than does the USPS. They only look better by comparison because they get to cherry-pick.

[quote]The only reason FedEx and UPS ... is because the USPS holds A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL.

ROFL.... Yup, you really are a moron.

[quote]Our government is just a "gang of thieves writ large" and they are screwing all of us while they dine on caviar and drink champagne.

I do so love this guy. Wholly disconnected from reality but at least he's entertaining.

[quote]Google "Ludwig Von Mises" or "Murray Rothbard" and educate yourself on how evil our government really is, and how we can take it back from the neocons.

Definitely Google them, and laugh.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21001/02/2013

Ugh.

Although I've dealt with the cunt at R210 before, one more time I will point out her ignorance.

[quote]You're also conveniently overlooking such things as barriers to entry and economies of scale,

Those barriers to entry are 99% created by government regulations that inhibit competition. Look at how the "bipartisan" Congress has extended copyright for decades, mostly at the behest of Disney and the music companies.

Plus, name ONE barrier to entry that isn't the result of some government regulation.

As for economy of scale, most of that comes from being able to lobby for loopholes in the law that benefit large companies.

[quote]not to mention the tools that can be employed to skew the market in one direction or another by the wealthy. "Pure capitalism" can get just as out-of-balance as what we have today. Actually, it's more likely, since there is no countervailing force.

The only "tools" they use are the ones in congress. In a true free market, the only tools would be serving their customers at a lower price with better service. Instead we have cheap slave labor from China. If all transactions were free, then most companies would be able to gain an advantage just by advertising that their products were "100% free of slave labor" but government regulations prevent that.

The only reason the Ultra Wealthy can do these things is by controlling the government.

"Most of the regulations are there for a damn good reason."

Name one. If OSHA, or the FDA, or the TSA -disappeared tomorrow, do you think that companies would start beating their employees, and force them into cages at night? No, free-market rating agencies would "spontaneously" form to let consumers, retailers and wholesalers know what product was good, safe and least likely to result in lawsuits. The regulators serve their masters, like how the SEC let Jon Corzine off the hook. Or how HSBC got a slap on the wrist for fucking the US out of billions.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21101/02/2013

R210

Even better is Madoff- numerous low level SEC investigators told their bosses that Madoff was running a scheme, but since he was friends with Clinton, Bush, Greenspan and Bernanke he was ignored...until the whole thing collapsed.

That's how regulation works. If you're a small guy...good luck. If your a big player (aka Jon Corzine...who should be in jail for life but is instead starting a NEW hedge fund!) then you can get away with anything.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21201/02/2013

These kind of subsidies, that have lasted 60 years after they were passed, are the reason we have such a fucked up tax system.

----------

Because Congress was unable to pass an extension of the farm bill before the end of the year, milk prices were expected to rise to $7 or $8 a gallon in the new year because the milk subsidy program would revert back to an antiquated formula that was implemented in 1949. But a provision written by "fiscal cliff" negotiator Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was added to the "fiscal cliff" bill and Congress passed a nine-month extension of the current subsidy program, which will keep milk prices stable.

While the fix takes care of the most immediate concern to most Americans - milk prices - it also extends $5 billion worth of government subsidies for commodities such as corn and soybeans, regardless of whether farmers grow crops. While farmers covet the expensive subsidy, critics decry it as wasteful, misdirected government spending.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21301/02/2013

[quote]Corporations are an artifice of government fiat power. They exist solely due to their power to control the government.

From WIKI

An incorporated entity is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from its shareholders,[1] and may conduct business for either profit-seeking business or not for profit purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. In addition to legal personality, registered companies tend to have limited liability, be owned by shareholders[2][3] who can transfer their shares to others, and controlled by a board of directors who the shareholders appoint.

Ergo, they are an artificial, governmental construct. Are you that ignorant?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21401/02/2013

R210-

The fact that the USPS HAS A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL MEANS IT IS INHERENTLY SUBSIDIZED. If you remove that monopoly protection, and force it to compete with UPS and FedEx it will fail. It is a normal government project- it overspends, underperforms and bitches to congress when it needs more money.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21501/02/2013

You've actually proven my point, R210-

Government is just a gang of thieves writ large- since they don't provide anything we need at any level of competence (things the market could provide at a far better cost) and inflict us with things like overseas "wars on terror" and domestic "wars on drugs" that have failed at the cost of trillions.

Yes, I hope the people that read this will google Mises or Rothbard or Rockwell and see how inept and evil out government really is.

Once the Federal Reserve finally crashes the economy they will wish they had.

You can't print trillions of dollars and not expect them to cause massive inflation at some point.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21601/02/2013

[quote]Although I've dealt with the cunt at [R210] before, one more time I will point out her ignorance.

ROFL.... Since you always get your ass handed to you in these exchanges, I can hardly wait. Would it be too much to ask, this time, that you actually read what I write instead of listening to those voices in your head?

[quote]Those barriers to entry are 99% created by government regulations that inhibit competition.

LOL.... Speaking of ignorance.... Sorry, dear, but, as usual, you're wrong. Barriers to entry that have nothing to do with government intervention, or the lack thereof, exist in quite a few areas. You should educate yourself before you post again.

[quote]Plus, name ONE barrier to entry that isn't the result of some government regulation.

ROFL.... Technology. Money. Facilities. Are you really this ignorant or do you just play the fool on DL?

[quote]As for economy of scale, most of that comes from being able to lobby for loopholes in the law that benefit large companies.

Okay, yeah, you really are this ignorant. Nope, sorry. As usual, you're dead wrong.

[quote]The only "tools" they use are the ones in congress.

Here's a free clue: better to be thought a fool than to continue to post here and prove it.

[quote]No, free-market rating agencies would "spontaneously" form to let consumers, retailers and wholesalers know what product was good, safe and least likely to result in lawsuits.

ROFL.... Oh, my. This guy really has drunk the Kool-Aid, hasn't he? I just love the utopia he's envisioning that exists only in his own mind and that would never, ever exist in the real world, human nature being what it is. Oh, well.... just pity him and move on.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21701/02/2013

A better question is: Has communism ever truly existed anywhere in the world? The answer to that is NO.

China is about as communist as Mississippi is. There is no free education there, no free health care there, and no free housing there. A communist country should guarantee all those things to all. China has billions of people with no access to any of those things.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21801/02/2013

[quote]That's how regulation works

LOL.... No, dear, that's how regulation *doesn't* work. Madoff was allowed to be as free as though the market he was in was totally unregulated, with no oversight. Gee, how'd that work out?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 21901/02/2013

[quote]Ergo, they are an artificial, governmental construct. Are you that ignorant?

ROFL... Oh, the irony... Tell me, dear, did you, perchance, actually read what *you* wrote? Here, let me quote it for you:

[quote]They exist solely due to their power to control the government.

That entire post and you completely missed the point!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22001/02/2013

[quote]The fact that the USPS HAS A MONOPOLY ON FIRST CLASS MAIL MEANS IT IS INHERENTLY SUBSIDIZED.

ROFL.... NO, DEAR, IT DOESN'T. AND WRITING IT IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOUR POINT ANY MORE CONVINCING than using normal case.

[quote]If you remove that monopoly protection, and force it to compete with UPS and FedEx it will fail.

Only if you keep the restrictions on it that it must serve each and every household for the same low price. Fed Ex and UPS would equally fail under those conditions, which is why they don't even try. You can bet that if they thought they could compete, they'd be lobbying hard for the ability to do so. It's far easier and safer and more profitable for them to cherry-pick.

[quote]It is a normal government project- it overspends, underperforms and bitches to Congress when it needs more money.

Oh, garbage. Man, you *really* don't know anything about the Post Office, do you?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22101/02/2013

Good Fod, R217-

Can't you admit defeat?

You never post any rebuttal, but always post snark.

Rebut any one point- pick one, and focus on it. Instead it's

[quote]Okay, yeah, you really are this ignorant. Nope, sorry. As usual, you're dead wrong.

Or

[quote]LOL.... Speaking of ignorance.... Sorry, dear, but, as usual, you're wrong. Barriers to entry that have nothing to do with government intervention, or the lack thereof, exist in quite a few areas. You should educate yourself before you post again.

Or

[quote]ROFL.... Yup, you really are a moron.

Ad hominem attacks are great for children, but intelligent people provide some argument before they accept bullshit like that.

When you can be proven wrong (like in the case of the USPS getting massive subsidies--- anyone can google and see that they get billions in subsidies each year) but you just expect that the Average Data Loungerette will accept your bullshit.

That's why neocon fascists like you are losing the battle.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22201/02/2013

No, R218- China is all about fascism. Government control with private beneficiaries, all in service of the elite.

It's the same in Europe, and the US. look at how our banks control the Federal Reserve and craft legislation to the benefit of their cronies.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22301/02/2013

[quote]You've actually proven my point, [R210]-

LOL.... Only if you're a moron. Oh, wait....

[quote]Once the Federal Reserve finally crashes the economy they will wish they had.

It's been 100 years, dear. Shouldn't that crash have occurred by now?

[quote]You can't print trillions of dollars and not expect them to cause massive inflation at some point.

ROFL.... You really don't know anything about macroeconomics, do you? Dear heart, if your economic beliefs were accurate, we'd *already* see "massive inflation." The fact that we don't is proof that your economic beliefs are wrong. Deal with it.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22401/02/2013

I've worked in the government for 20 years and I've worked in a private corporation for 20 years.

The difference? Government workers work about 30 times harder than private company workers. You slip up the TINIEST BIT in a government job and you are fired, while private company workers play all day with no repurcussions. There's no comparison.

All this bad-mouthing of government workers is clearly by people who never worked for any government agency. Government workers are heroes in my book.

We need both government and private industry, though, to balance each other out. If you wish to work with serious, hard-working intellectuals who sincerely want to make the world a better place and who are willing to give 150% of their effort to that end, then you want to take a government job. Private industry jobs seldom have serious direction beyond looking out for yourself and behaving ruthlessly to get to the top, for no apparent reason other than making more money.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22501/02/2013

[quote]Good Fod, [R217]- Can't you admit defeat?

ROFL.... Why should I, dear? You've never managed to "defeat" me, mostly because you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about!

[quote]You never post any rebuttal, but always post snark.

Dear heart, not only are you incorrect, in that I do occasionally post "rebuttal," as well as the data to back it up, but you're also conveniently ignoring that little inconvenient fact that you never bother to actually support any of the drivel you post here! I'm just using your own tactics back against you and, boy, you really don't like that.

Should you ever start trying to defend the crap you post, I'd be happy to actually engage in a real debate. I'm not holding my breath, though; I've been issuing that challenge to you for at least two years now and you've never once taken me up on it.

[quote]Rebut any one point- pick one, and focus on it.

Support any one point- pick one, and focus on it. Instead it's nothing but unsupported assertions and attacks. Recognize yourself, dear?

[quote]Ad hominem attacks are great for children, but intelligent people provide some argument before they accept bullshit like that.

ROFL.... What's your excuse, then, dear? Ad hominem attack is one of your favorite tactics, dear, or has that really escaped your notice that I'm doing *exactly* what you do?

[quote]When you can be proven wrong (like in the case of the USPS getting massive subsidies--- anyone can google and see that they get billions in subsidies each year)

ROFL.... Yup, like I said, you really don't know anything about the Post Office. Oh, and I will note, for the record, that you utterly failed to provide those Google links that show that the USPS gets "billions in subsidies." Why is that, dear?

[quote]but you just expect that the Average Data Loungerette will accept your bullshit.

Actually, I don't really care, dear. Do you?

[quote]That's why neocon fascists like you are losing the battle.

LOL.... And which "battle" is that, dear?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22601/02/2013

Wiki 1 that shows USPS monopoly on mail.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22701/02/2013

First Class mail volume (which is protected by legal monopoly) peaked in 2001[30] and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions.[31]

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22801/02/2013

[quote]Wiki 1 that shows USPS monopoly on mail.

Dear heart, you said "billions in subsidies each year." You're posting a link to a fact I've already acknowledged!

[quote]First Class mail volume (which is protected by legal monopoly) peaked in 2001[30] and has declined 29% from 1998 to 2008, due to the increasing use of email and the World Wide Web for correspondence and business transactions

And now a link to an article that is entirely irrelevant.

This is hilarious! This was the best you could come up with? A point I never disputed and a point that is irrelevant? And still not one shred of evidence to back up what you actually asserted!

Now do you see why you always get your ass handed to you?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 22901/02/2013

Lord, R229-

You never post a fact (like the fact that the Federal Reserve has printed over $4T in the last 4 years to give to the banks) and never link to anything of substance, and just defend the government at all costs.

I don't know why I reply to your utter shite.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23001/03/2013

I hope that anyone reading this will troll dar R210/217/219/220/221/ 224/226/229 and see that she provides no support for her assertions.

It's simple- when the government prints too much money and gives it to the banks and big corporations, they make money while the rest of us suffer. They get richer, and we pay for it. She is just an apologist for the big banks, and never offers anything to support her claims.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23101/03/2013

R229

Please explain this, if you think "regulations" are working-

If you don't think Wall Street insiders have captured the SEC, read this from a Michael Smallberg report:

If you’re looking for evidence of the revolving door that spins between the federal government and Wall Street, look no further than Daniel Gallagher, President Barack Obama’s recently announced nominee for Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner...

Obama’s nomination of Gallagher to help lead the agency during a critical time in its history is also the latest example of the agency’s coziness to the industry it oversees.

Gallagher is currently a partner at WilmerHale. The pricey law firm’s high-profile clients have included Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and other Wall Street giants regulated by the SEC. If the Senate confirms him, this would be Gallagher’s second spin through the revolving door — he previously left WilmerHale to join the SEC in January 2006, only to return to the firm in 2010. And he would be the latest on an ever-expanding list of WilmerHale alumni at the SEC, including the current general counsel, deputy general counsel, associate general counsel, corporation finance division director, enforcement division chief counsel and deputy secretary.

Of course, the revolving door spins in both directions. Many former SEC employees leave the agency to join WilmerHale and other legal, accounting and consulting firms that represent clients in the securities industry. Several recent reports by the SEC Inspector General have raised troubling questions about whether the promise of future employment representing Wall Street causes some SEC officials to treat potential employers and their clients with a lighter touch.

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), where I work as an investigator, just released a new report and database showing that hundreds of former SEC employees have recently taken jobs representing clients before the SEC.

All told, POGO’s database shows that 219 former SEC employees filed 789 statements between 2006 and 2010 announcing their intent to appear before the SEC or communicate with its staff on behalf of private clients. One former employee had to file 20 statements during this time period in order to disclose all his clients and the issues on which he expected to appear before the SEC. Another former employee filed his first statement just two days after leaving the agency.

Bottom line: Power centers such as the SEC are regularly captured by the elite in the regulated industry. The industry employs former regulators so that they can skate by regulations, while lobbying for regulations which will limit, if not completely stop, those attempting to enter the industry and compete against the controlling giants.

The only solution to this problem is to eliminate the agencies that become the power centers. The SEC seldom catches any fraud at an early stage, the Bernie Madoff scheme is evidence of that. Meanwhile, the agency allows government operated Ponzi schemes to go on without interference and runs blocking schemes for the big boys, like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.

The SEC should be among the first agencies to go, if serious budget cutting ever comes about. It's nothing but a training school for future technocrats of the Wall Street oligopoly.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23201/03/2013

Here is the thread, showing how many former banksters rotate in and out of government positions in order to help out their bankster buddies and screw the littl guy.

You think laws and regulations stop these sociopaths?

Eliminate regulation, bring back gold, allow a REAL free market (meaning I can pledge my 200 year old oak tree, or 100 sq ft of land, or whatever) as collateral for a "cash card" (totally unregulated by the government) and get rid of the dollar.

Too bad your simple mind cannot grasp how such a system would work- guess what, I can't either...but I know it would be superior to letting the government control the money supply. I know I'm too ignorant to know what shapes freedom will take, but smart enough to know that freedom is better than slavery.

Are you, or do you think people NEED people like you to control them, and tell them what to do?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23301/03/2013

[quote]Government workers work about 30 times harder than private company workers. You slip up the TINIEST BIT in a government job and you are fired

LMFAO. Uh, no. Government workers have unions. It's next to impossible to get fired.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23401/03/2013

R234-

I know. Shit like that makes laugh, and wonder what planet they're from.

As a kid 20 years ago I worked for the government in my home county, and 2-3 times a week the boss (a friend of mom's) would tell me to take a late lunch (while the girls went to Chik-fil-a) and then after they got back, she would tell them we were taking lunch and then going to the other branch office to do paperwork.

While they were gone we would review all the transactions ( I had a head for numbers, and patterns) and if everything was cool we left as soon as they got back and either hit the sleaziest bar (even the two girls who weren't Fundies wouldn't come in there) and play pool and talk shit, or meet the deputy mayor or some other official and talk politics over martinis.

She would tell me stories about how the vice mayor embezzled money, or how the sheriffs son smoked weed all the time in the basement, or how two cute deputies were lovers and stole cocaine from the lab.

Even though there were "scandals" (and one of the deputies did resign for using "excessive force" on a teenage boy, off duty...aka rape, but since he had a badge...) the guy still claimed disability and now is in his early 50s and hasn't worked a day since, but still gets (as of 15 years ago) $4000+ a month, and I've seen him repairing roofs, etc. He even came to my mom's house one day asking if she needed help on her roof, and when she asked if he was xxxxxx he said no and left.

I got paid for 40 hours, and rarely worked more than 25. Plus benefits.

That is your government at work.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23501/03/2013

R225, Perhaps you should talk to some of the people who lived through Katrina, and find out what they think of most governmental employees. I have worked in several branches of government. I've seen massive fraud and incompetence, particularly in the Census Bureau in two states, from the very top on down. No one cared about the huge falsification of answers I repeatedly witnessed. President Obama is completely negligent in not bringing the census into modern day technology.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23601/03/2013

R236

You are the reason I stay on this board.

Read this, and guess who wrote it---

Texans and all Americans have responded wonderfully to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, opening their wallets and their homes to help displaced victims. Private donations already have topped $600 million. This outpouring shows there is hope for rebuilding and breathing life back into New Orleans and other destroyed communities, if the American entrepreneurial spirit is permitted to operate freely.

When it comes to government relief efforts for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Congress must be very careful with the nearly $52 billion dollars approved last week — almost all of which goes to FEMA. The original $10 billion authorized by Congress for hurricane relief was spent in a matter of days, and there is every indication that FEMA is nothing but a bureaucratic black hole that spends money without the slightest accountability. Any federal aid should be distributed as directly as possible to local communities, rather than through wasteful middlemen like FEMA. We cannot let the Katrina tragedy blind us to fiscal realities, namely the staggering budget deficits and national debt that threaten to devastate our economy.

Why does Congress assume that the best approach is simply to write a huge check to FEMA, the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made — before and after the hurricane. Yet in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. We should not be rewarding failure.

Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23701/03/2013

See link-

Excerpt----

This seems shocking to those who have never been subjected to the secondary disaster that is the arrival of FEMA on the scene of a catastrophic event. But explaining FEMA’s ineptness is not the same thing as saying no one should help people affected by disasters. Quite the opposite.

Victims of disasters should get any and all help possible, and there is virtually no limit to the generosity and compassion of good American people after devastation hits. One only need to remember the outpouring after Katrina to know this is true. FEMA, however, did more to get in the way of relief than to actually provide and facilitate it. The examples are numerous. When the call was put out for volunteer firefighters, they volunteered by the thousands. It was FEMA, for reasons of control and bureaucratic ineptitude, who made sure they were not, in fact allowed to actually help. When a group of firefighters arrived from Houston, instead of being put immediately on the job, they were told to sit around and wait. After waiting for two days doing nothing, they were simply sent home. One thousand volunteer firefighters were sent to Atlanta to undergo sexual harassment training while fires actively raged in the city. The ones that remained through this stupidity were sent to escort the president around or to distribute fliers instead of putting out fires. Computer engineer Jack Harrison was told his skills were needed to rebuild technological infrastructure. After being given the runaround for about two weeks, he was misallocated as head of security on the cruise ship FEMA had leased, when he should have been using his skills to help. All manner of help was turned away or mismanaged by FEMA while people suffered and waited. Even the Red Cross had its hands tied by FEMA.

It has only gotten worse since 9/11. Compare the stories of two flotillas – one after 9/11 and one after Katrina. Within an hour of the 9/11 attacks, the largest boatlift in history was organized spontaneously by locals who saw an immediate need and responded immediately. Over 500,000 terrified New Yorkers were taken off the island by ferries, tugboats, pleasure crafts, fishing boats and barges when all other access points had been shut down. A similar flotilla attempt was privately organized after Katrina. 500 boats caravanned to New Orleans to rescue patients from hospitals that were out of supplies and desperate. Unfortunately, FEMA had taken over by then and they were turned away, empty, while the patients languished, still stranded. Tragically, the Vermont Air National Guard helicopters were in Iraq when Irene hit, and they were desperately needed here.

The establishment of FEMA is symptomatic of a blind belief in big government's ability to do anything and everything for anyone and everyone. FEMA is a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucracies, while staffed with well-meaning people, are notoriously slow and wasteful by their very nature. When people are starving, injured and dying they need speed and efficiency, yet FEMA comes along with forms and policies and rubber stamps. This sort of thing is bad enough at the DMV, but in matters of life and death where seconds count, this is just not acceptable.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23801/03/2013

[quote]You never post a fact (like the fact that the Federal Reserve has printed over $4T in the last 4 years to give to the banks) and never link to anything of substance, and just defend the government at all costs.

ROFL.... You don't read very well, do you? What's hilarious is that you can't deal with what I wrote in R229, so you go into full attack mode, as usual.

[quote]I don't know why I reply to your utter shite.

I don't know why, either, since it always ends with you getting your ass handed to you, but I love it that you do, since I have a great time reading your incoherent posts, silly claims, and loony conspiracy theories. I feel like I should pay you for the entertainment!

Oh, and I'm still waiting for all of those Google links on those "billions in subsidies each year." Were you planning to provide those links anytime soon?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 23901/03/2013

[quote]I hope that anyone reading this will troll dar [R210]/217/219/220/221/ 224/226/229 and see that she provides no support for her assertions.

I hope that anyone reading this will trolldar R231 and see that he provides no support for his assertions.

What's hilarious is that I'm just doing what this troll always does and, boy, he really doesn't like it when his own tactics are used against him. Oh, and as for my gender, I'm afraid his claims there are as accurate as his other claims.

[quote]It's simple- when the government prints too much money and gives it to the banks and big corporations, they make money while the rest of us suffer.

Well, sure, if you're a moron who doesn't understand economics, finance, or the role of the federal reserve. For the rest of us, that statement of yours is laughably stupid and not even remotely an accurate description.

[quote]They get richer, and we pay for it. She is just an apologist for the big banks, and never offers anything to support her claims.

ROFL.... Neither do you, dear. Funny how that works.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24001/03/2013

[quote]Please explain this, if you think "regulations" are working-

Dear heart, every example you provide shows what happens when the regulations *don't* work, i.e., the world you are trying desperately to make happen. You're undercutting your own arguments, time and time again, hilariously unaware that you're doing so!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24101/03/2013

R237, Thank you. I've thought of doing a "comedy routine" of all the ridiculous things I've witnessed from governmental managers.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24201/03/2013

R18, any book recommendations? Thanks!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24301/04/2013

Someone mentioned Kibbutz on a previous page - my mother emigrated to Israel in the 1950s and lived on a Kibbutz for many years. She always said they were the one example of communism that worked, but she also had a lot of problems with them and had to leave for the sake of her mental health (after winding up in a psychiatric hospital). Though I think the 60s culture might be to blame for that, partly. They still exist - I spent a week in one a couple of years ago. It's nice enough. A bit dull and worthy but the people seem happy. Felt a bit like summer camps in the US.

The thing with Kibbutz is, first they were/are always entirely voluntary and people could leave whenever they chose, and second I think what I call the 'national psyche of Israel' played an important part. The whole idea of the Jewish homeland, especially after the Holocaust, was so potent. I know my mother talks a lot about how, even when the Kibbutz was not good for her, they felt so much pride and strength from the knowledge they were physically creating the Jewish homeland where they could be safe. Nearly all of them experienced the persecution in WWII first hand or had a near relative who had and that has to change how you view the world. Having said that my mother was part of an illegal bacon smuggling ring at one point, so I guess the lure of capitalism is pretty strong.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24401/04/2013

R244-

Voluntary communism is a good thing. I have no problem with it.

Forced communism, where the leaders kill you (aka China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Cambodia under Pot, etc.) is the problem. QE4eva is turning the USA Into a communist state. I don't blame Obama, since Bush and Clinton started it, but the system has metastasized over the last 20 years. Bernanke is the devil.

R242-

It is ripe for comedy. The mental gymnastics they have to perform makes my brain hurt.

Watch some Geroge Carlin routines. He was the ultimate anarchist/ libertarian. His routines always showed how incompetent the government was at everything.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24501/04/2013

What's hilarious about the anti-government folks is the blind worship of the private sector. It makes me wonder just how many of them have actually spent time working in the private sector, since the horror stories of incompetent managers, lazy employees, long lunch breaks, bizarre behavior, etc., are just as prevalent there as in the public sector. Hell, just read half the threads here on DL!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24601/05/2013

We need to take the best ideas from capitalism and communism. Pure capitalism and pure communism do not work.

We need government and private business both. Getting the right balance between the two is our challenge.

We need publicly-funded infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) or we are 3rd world countries where no wealth can be generated.

We need public libraries and public schools shared by all. Without them, we also become a 3rd world country.

We need private schools and private airplanes and private food suppliers.

We need private doctors. But that does not mean that we could not benefit from a system of publicly-funded health care. The two can and should coexist, just as public and private schools coexist.

It's just common sense and looking at what has worked in the world's most successful, humane countries.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24701/05/2013

R247-

Wilhelm Röpke named his philosophy of a free society that avoided the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and collectivism as "The Third Way." John Zmirak's new biography, Wilhelm Röpke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist (Wilmington, Del.: ISI, 2001), defends this philosophy not only as the height of wisdom but as the only way of preserving freedom in a collectivist age. Is he right?

Röpke: Free-Market Liberal?

Was Röpke a classical liberal who stood in the tradition of Jean Baptiste Say, Lord Acton, and Ludwig von Mises? Zmirak says categorically that he was not, for Röpke rejected laissez-faire capitalism, radical individualism, and the night-watchman theory of the state ("deputized to defend property rights and national borders"). Instead, he endorsed a "social market" that not only permitted but required judicious state interventions to mitigate the destructive tendencies within capitalism and stave off even worse interventions from socialists.

Nevertheless, before one dismisses Röpke for having given the game away before it started, one must concede that by the standards of the present day, he is not that bad. His views are sufficiently antistatist and free market to earn the opprobius epithet "neoliberal" were he still living and writing in Europe. Writing during an age in which the expropriation of the means of production by the state and the imposition of full-scale socialism with central planning was a real possibility even in Western Europe, Röpke bravely defended private property, the free market, free international trade, and market-determined prices and wages.

He had learned from Mises the crucial importance of unregulated prices to the efficient functioning of the market. He had also learned the futility of attempting to generate wealth through the printing press. He was a strong proponent of the gold standard. While out of step with the prevailing economic orthodoxies of his time (Keynesianism, command-and-control economies, socialism), Röpke nevertheless helped save at least part of his fatherland from the poverty and stagnation that would have followed inexorably from the statist economic policies favored by German social democrats and Anglo-American occupiers.

In the years after the war, western Germany was suffering not only from the enormous destruction wrought by allied bombing and a catastrophic military defeat but from a depreciated currency and chronic shortages brought on by an oppressive system of price controls. The economy was literally paralyzed. Germans were having trouble just finding enough to eat, much less were they able to rebuild their country. The prevailing idea was that Germany needed more central government planning and control to turn things around and make Germany a productive, wealth-producing country again.

The neoliberal economists of the German Freiburg School, Walter Eucken and Wilhelm Röpke, denied that what Germany needed was more government control of the economy. What Germany needed, they argued forcefully, was less government and more market freedom. They recommended that government price controls be lifted and that a new currency be substituted for the inflated and discredited Reichmarks. Germany was fortunate that the finance minister of the Anglo-American occupation zone in western Germany, Ludwig Erhard, had been influenced by the neoliberal school and that he was listening to the recommendations of Röpke and Eucken and giving them more weight than the statist proposals coming from German social democrats, British Labor socialists, and American New Dealers.

In 1948, he pushed through crucial free-market reforms to save his country from full-scale socialism. The two most important were the introduction of a sound currency (the Deutschmark), the inflation of which would be carefully limited and controlled by an independent central bank (the Bundesbank), and the immediate end of price controls. The new Deutschmark was not a gold mark, but it was certainly preferable to what it replaced. Given the statist intellectual climate of the times, as well as the need to gain Anglo-American approval for any free-market reform, such limited reforms were the most German liberals could hope for. The alternative was not a gold standard, private banking, and complete free trade, but a socialist planned economy with the nationalization of industry, wage and price controls, and hyperinflation.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24801/07/2013

American social democratic imperialists are continually boasting that "the German Miracle," the revival of the German economy and the rebuilding of that country, of the late 1940s and early 1950s was due to the Marshall Plan. Yet the truth is that the miraculous German recovery was due far more to the neoliberal market reforms instituted by Erhard than to generous infusions of American money beginning in 1948. After all, the United States government and allied banks have been showering various Third World regimes with U.S. foreign aid, cash grants, low-interest loans, and debt relief and forgiveness for decades without a single repeat of the German postwar miracle. Why is that?

Röpke and the Federalist Principle

If there is one area in which Röpke's ideas can be praised without qualification it is in his advocacy of political and economic decentralism and the closely related idea of subsidiarity. Röpke understood that historically the concentration of political and economic power has been followed by a corresponding diminishment of political and economic freedom. His experience as an exile in Switzerland during the world war persuaded him that it was possible to have a decentralized, truly democratic and voluntarist society that was also modern and technologically advanced. Thus Switzerland became his ideal society, the model on which he crafted his social and economic philosophy.

Röpke pointed out that Switzerland was more genuinely democratic than any other Western country because political power was divided between a federal parliament and numerous self-governing cantons. In addition, constitutional changes and federal tax increases had to be submitted to popular referenda. He contrasted this populist federalist system--where the voter had real power, participated in political life at the local level, and kept himself informed on political matters--with the elitist centralized systems prevalent elsewhere in the Western world, where largely passive, apathetic, gullible, and ignorant citizens were either manipulated or ignored by elites.

According to Zmirak, Röpke opposed the supranational economic and political organizations that began emerging in the wake of the Second World War. He regarded the European Community (EU), the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and various UN agencies as irresponsible bureaucracies and nondemocratic institutions that had little to do with free trade or economic liberty. They stood for managed trade and international corporatism. Although Röpke defended the autonomy of historic regions within larger political entities, he also defended the independence of the sovereign nation-state as a bulwark against the emergence of such supranational bureaucracies.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 24901/07/2013

Röpke and the Conservative Critique of Capitalism

According to Zmirak, Röpke accepted many of the socialist (Marxist) and traditionalist criticisms of historic capitalism. Röpke thus stands in a tradition that includes the English Catholic distributists (G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc), the Southern Agrarians, and Russell Kirk and other American paleoconservatives. According to this conservative critique of capitalism, the unfettered free market was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it had produced enormous wealth and raised the standard of living for millions of Western citizens. On the other hand, it had polluted and defaced the natural world, depleted precious resources, and undermined traditional society. It had subverted natural social hierarchies, destroyed communities, weakened the traditional family, subverted religious faith and patriotism, and rendered rewarding work and real property ownership the privilege of only a privileged few. In its stead, it had substituted excessive labor specialization, dehumanizing work, subsistence wages, crass materialism, social atomism, personal alienation, the excessive concentration of wealth, unhealthy factory production, and the proletarianization of society.

Some thinkers in this tradition went so far as to charge capitalism with destroying the social and cultural preconditions that made capitalism possible in the first place. It did this by causing displaced, confused, and exploited workers to turn to the government for economic security and protection. Unbridled capitalism created an environment so intolerable that the masses chose socialism and the welfare state as preferable alternatives. Even worse, untrammeled capitalism led inexorably to concentrations of irresponsible wealth and economic power--monopoly capitalism. The conclusion: laissez-faire capitalism led inexorably to socialism. Röpke made this argument in The Social Crisis of Our Time (1942), as Belloc had done in his Servile State, and as Joseph Schumpeter would do throughout his writings.

What is to be done? Röpke argued that the destructive tendencies implicit in capitalism could only be restrained by strong independent social structures--the family, the church, community, and widespread ownership of land and small businesses. However, as such restraining institutions were themselves vulnerable to the assaults of revolutionary capitalism, it was necessary that the state intervene to shore up these institutions and in general restrain the worst excesses of the free market. Thus, Röpke advocated antitrust laws (to break up monopolies and preserve competition), estate taxes on the rich (to help diffuse property ownership), a safety net of social services (to help the unemployed and other victims of capitalism's creative destruction), and various subsidies and tax breaks to support family farms, small businesses, and home ownership.

Röpke understood that he needed to formulate some kind of rule to distinguish the limited and "market-friendly" interventions that he favored from the unlimited market-hostile interventions favored by social democrats and other Fabian-style socialists. One rule was that market-"compatible" interventions were those that did "not interfere with the price mechanism," while "incompatible" interventions were those that "paralyzed" this essential mechanism. Zmirak explains that Röpke had other criteria as well. Interventions had to be "warranted by some grave social necessity," designed to "counteract the corrosive elements inherent within the market economy," to preserve "the social and political framework that made freedom possible over the generations." However, they should "interfere as little as possible with the free economic choices of individuals," and never go so far as to "subject men's lives to constant bureaucratic tinkering" or "radically distort the incentives that drove private enterprise."

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25001/07/2013

You forgot to denote where you copy and pasted that from, R248/R249.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25101/07/2013

Can Röpke or Mises Rescue Us from a Collectivist Age? Röpke made a fatal concession to the socialist cause in agreeing that unrestrained capitalism had proven socially destructive and unsustainable. He compounded this error with an even worse one in allowing for a role for the state in defending freedom from the steady advance of socialism and totalitarian politics. Röpke's proposed "solution" only served to further entrench an increasingly integrated corporatist welfare state by providing additional justifications for intervention and allowing the defenders of government to pose as defenders of a free society and market in opposition to communist central planners and big-business robber barons.

There are three inherent weaknesses with Röpke's distinction between compatible (market-friendly) and incompatible market interventions. First, no government intervention is market friendly. They all produce market distortions of one kind or another, infringe upon private property, restrict liberty, and affect prices. Second, in the real world it is impossible to draw a line to permit only a certain kind or level of interventionism. Once the principle of even moderate interventionism is admitted and then carried out, further more radical interventions are sure to follow. There is far too much subjectivity involved in making distinctions between interventions that are harmful or beneficial to a free and healthy society. What goes too far for one does not go far enough for another. Once the door is open and the principle that the state can intervene has been conceded, then nothing is left but to fight over the details of each and every proposed intervention endlessly.

The inside dust jacket deserves to be quoted at length to illustrate how easy Röpke 's ideas lend themselves to providing legitimacy to social democratic expropriation and coercion masquerading as socially responsible freedom:

A passionate critic of socialism and the welfare state, Röpke was nonetheless keenly attuned to capitalism's destructive elements and the intrinsic limits of the market. Röpke's influence can be seen in the ascendance of political ideas--including "compassionate conservatism," which draws explicitly on Röpke's work--that seek to give the market its due while also recognizing the claims of higher, communal goods. . . . Röpke's "Third Way" provided a way to make principled distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate government interventions in the market place and became the basis of Christian Democratic public policy. [italics mine] What is Bushite "compassionate conservatism" if not an endorsement of the permanent and ever increasing welfare state and the implicit condemnation of any free-market or libertarian opposition as mean-spirited, selfish, and extremist? What does the German Christian Democratic Party stand for if not the mixed economy, the welfare state, and national corporatism? While George Bush's speechwriters and Christian Democratic spokesmen are clearly not justified in invoking Röpke as a legitimate authority for their hyper-statism, they can get away with it precisely because Röpke failed to draw a firm theoretical line against all government intervention in principle. Röpke 's analytical imprecision, concessions to the socialist and traditionalist critiques of capitalism, and allowances for minimal government allowed him to be used by Anglo-German social democracy masquerading as "conservatism" and "free-market" capitalism.

While the conservative critique of capitalism identifies many of the worst features of modern life, it errs in attributing these ills to capitalism and the free market (freedom). For example, to ascribe the erosion of Christian faith, traditional values, and the nuclear family to capitalism seems to fall in the category of the bum rap. After all, the collapse of religious belief began well before the age of industrialism. Besides, such an explanation conflicts with the Christian idea of personal moral responsibility.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25201/07/2013

Furthermore, Röpke and other traditionalists have failed to observe how a truly free market reinforces culturally conservative and socially healthy mores. Commercial society with minimal government rewards personal initiative, hard work, saving, and long-term planning. Governmental welfare policies, compulsory wealth transfers, punitive taxation, and currency inflation reward precisely opposite mores. Economic exchange and social cooperation both require and reinforce personal reputation and trustworthiness and individual responsibility. Government coercion does the opposite. Even such mundane capitalistic practices as the credit report institutionalize personal accountability. Compare the service, efficiency, and financial accountability of a private corporation with a government bureaucracy. Is there any comparison at all? It is the state, not private enterprise, which is the destroyer of traditional society, Christian mores, natural hierarchy, and social diversity (inequality).

Not only can most of the ills of modern life more fairly be ascribed to the rise of democracy and the growing power of centralized states, but so can the rise of socialistic welfare statism. Is it a coincidence that democracy was followed by the welfare state, or that socialist and communist parties have found their mass support among those with little or no property? Was it the disruptive tendencies of capitalism or the opportunity to expropriate their neighbor's property, get something for nothing, and shake down their betters that motivated such voters? A Christian or a writer well versed in classical political philosophy should have no hesitation in answering that question. Röpke was wrong. It was democracy that led to socialism and the welfare state, not free-market capitalism.

Consider "the problem" of the concentration of economic power, especially the emergence of giant corporations and agribusinesses. In a free market, market combinations that are not creative, productive, or profitable will collapse of their own weight through the pressure of competition. Concentrations of economic power seem to be a problem only when the state encourages or sustains them through tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of state capitalism. Once again, Röpke got it wrong. It was corporatism that led to harmful, inefficient, and predatory forms of economic concentration, not the free market.

Röpke also failed to learn from Mises the dynamic of escalating interventionism. Initial state interventions in the nineteenth century created a dynamic that led to additional interventions in the twentieth. Initial welfare state measures created a sense of entitlement and expectation among beneficiaries for additional measures. Protective tariffs, state subsidies, and central bank-induced credit inflations sustained uncompetitive and inefficient enterprises, misallocated resources and capital, and caused business cycles resulting in mass bankruptcies and unemployment. The people then blamed private enterprise and turned to the state to rescue them.

This pattern of statist remedies for problems created by previous statist remedies is with us still.

Röpke's argument that the state must intervene in the economy to preserve freedom and prevent future interventions that are even worse is self-defeating and contradictory. Freedom needs no help from the state--which is its natural enemy, not its ally. Freedom promotes natural order, inequality, and the decentralization of enterprise, wealth, and culture. It is government that imposes false kinds of order, false equality, uniformity, and centralization. We need Mises, not Röpke, to save us from the despotic hand of the modern Welfare Corporatist State.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25301/07/2013

The freepers just won't quit until they've derailed every thread.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25401/07/2013

R247-

As shown above, there can be no "third way". Only a pure free market (with no corporations- - product of the state) and pure property rights, and full legal consequences for individual and collective action.

Any "third way" will result in Nazi Germany, or present day USA.

H.A. Scott Trask is a Kurzweg Fellow of Ludwig von Mises Institute. Strask@mises.org. See also Wilhelm Röpke: Architect of Liberty by Zmirak, John. See also Wilhelm Roepke: Humane Economist.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25501/07/2013

If you want to learn more, and more fully understand why an "anarchic" system works better than the paternal "soft fascism" that characterizes the USA and EU today, here is a link. There are thousands of articles that explain in detail why giving monopoly power to a small group is dangerous.

I hope you will take time to read this, and seek to understand how giving unlimited powers to flawed people, no matter how well-intentioned they are, will always result in a police state.

If you do not think that the present day USA is a police state...well, then you are either too willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid to understand.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25601/07/2013

R251-

Thank you for the link.

I was leaving it to the end, but I appreciate you looking it up and posting it.

Can you believe that people still think a "third way" is possible?

The state, aka "The Bureaucracy" always seeks to grow, as described by the Ratchet Effect (see link) and is the bane of both large private enterprises (which exist only due to the government charter anyway) and inside the government.

Much worse is the present day "public/private partnership" (aka fascism) that characterizes all of the large banks, military contractors, new organizations, etc.

I'm so glad someone else on this site can see through the propaganda.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25701/07/2013

R254

Freeper? Really?

Someone who wants to pardon all criminals charged with non violent drug crimes is a freeper?

Someone who wants to end the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and God knows where else, and prevent war with Iran, and China, and Russia- that's a freeper?

Someone who wants to stop the warrantless wiretapping, and spying on emails, and tracking average citizens is a freeper?

Someone who opposes giving trillions to the big banks while raising taxes on the poor is a freeper?

Someone who thinks we should be allowed to marry whomever we want is a freeper?

If so, I'm a freeper.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25801/07/2013

These Mises and Rockwell kooks are so wordy!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 25901/07/2013

I jumped ahead in the queue away from the tiresome libertarian troll. No, government is not perfect, but libertarianism is not a magic wand to fix everything.

I have spent a lot of time in Romania. Communism was clearly very damaging there. It destroyed a lot of great architecture and cultural patrimony. It decimated their agriculture system which is only now recovering from decades of soil degradation. And it kept the country stunted, paranoid and poor. Romanians remember recent food shortages and widespread hunger -- something not comparable in the US, pellagra stories from 1916 notwithstanding. Romania is in the EU, but it ain't normal yet.

Brazil and Uruguay are experimenting with more social investment and it seems to be yielding results. Maybe this is a cap/com hybrid that can work.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26001/07/2013

R260-

Your reply shows you "skipped over" the proof that hybrid cap/comm

Always.

Ends.

In.

A.

Police.

State.

Pull your head put of your ass!

Learn about the world!

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26101/07/2013

Simple question-

Do you think the US is a nascent police state?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26201/07/2013

I know quite a bit about the world. I just don't agree with your version of it.

And I hate people who yell.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26301/07/2013

R263

The world exists, no matter what "version" of it we believe in. Our best hope is to find a framework that best explains it, and makes the world better.

A socialist view of it results in death and destruction and strife and disease, and provides no way for the individual to mitigate them. They are just a cog for the state.

A libertarian view contains these things, but provides a way of mitigating them, and gives us the power to make the whole society richer and happier by our individual selfish actions.

That's why the Third Way will never work.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26401/07/2013

[quote]Your reply shows you "skipped over" the proof that hybrid cap/comm Always. Ends. In. A. Police. State.

That's. Because. No. Such. "Proof." Exists. And. Using. Idiotic. Flourishes. Like. This. Doesn't. Make. Any. Of. Your. Nonsense. Any. More. True.

[quote]Learn about the world!

Right back at you, sweetheart. Coming from someone who has already shown that they know nothing of history, this is rich.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26501/07/2013

[quote]The world exists, no matter what "version" of it we believe in.

Yes, well, there's the real world and there's your fantasy world. Regrettably, the two just don't mesh. So while you're having fun in your fantasy world, we'll be just fine out here in the real world. You should join us here someday.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26601/07/2013

@R264 Do you think the Tea Party can lead the US to economic and social prosperity?

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26701/07/2013

R264 isn't a Freeper or a Tea Partier. He's a Ron Paul/Libertarian/Anarchist/Conspiracy Loon/Gold Bug/Gun Nut/Anti-Fed moron.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26801/07/2013

R268-

So what?

I think printing money to give to the big banks while the poor go hungry is wrong.

I think killing innocent people in the middle east is wrong.

I think putting people in jail for smoking pot is wrong.

I think spying on (and imprisoning) innocent US citizens in wrong.

I think letting the government define marriage is wrong.

If you believe that these things are right, then go to your tailor and get your Brown shirt.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 26901/07/2013

[quote]So what?

Just making sure that you are properly identified, dear.

You also believe that gold is going to climb ten-fold over its current price. That we are on the brink of a massive economic meltdown the likes of which we have never seen before. That massive hyperinflation is just around the corner. That Ron Paul knows what he's talking about and isn't a blatant, and ignorant, hypocrite. That Social Security is "bankrupt" and that nobody will get any money out of it. That anarchism is the most desirable form of government. That government can't do anything well. That private medical insurance/care outperforms government-run medical health insurance/care.

If you believe these things, then go to your tailor and get your straitjacket.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27001/07/2013

[quote]or too biologically stupid to understand

And it looks like our favorite freeper is a eugenicist who thinks that people are too stupid to think for themselves and need someone else to think for them. [italic]Shocking.[/italic]

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27101/08/2013

I missed that post, R271, amidst all the drivel that the PaulDroid posted yesterday. I really do love the statement, though:

[quote]If you do not think that the present day USA is a police state...well, then you are either too willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid to understand.

Free clue, dear: until you've lived in a *real* police state, pretending that the US is one demonstrates that you are "willfully ignorant or too biologically stupid" to know the difference.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27201/08/2013

This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.

But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27301/12/2013

Dear heart, posting something 20 times doesn't make it any more compelling than posting it once does. It just makes you look really foolish for thinking it applies to anything happening in the real world.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27401/14/2013

Communism is evil.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27501/20/2013

ROFL.... You bumped your thread to add that ridiculous bid for attention, R275? That's just pathetic.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27601/20/2013

Socialism, aka communism, will never work.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27705/29/2014

Many nomadic tribalistic societies were very much communistic/socialistic. Many native American tribal societies were communal, no one owned property and most of what the tribe had was shared.

Ant colonies are communistic all is shared for the good of the community.

It has worked, you can debated how well it has worked, it is not impossible for it to work. It has flaws, so does Capitalism.

by Sgt. Pinkoreply 27805/29/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.