The coming financial crisis

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Oh, this is another one of those internet arguments where one participant simply claims victory?  Got it.

You lack basic understanding of the workings of the U.S. economy, so it's really not worth continuing, especially when it looks like the President and congress are going to go ahead and prove how wrong you are.  It may take 10-15 years to fully realize it, but I can wait it out.  We'll both be in the same bread lines together.

[Diomedes]

I understand how this thing works just fine.  Labor creates all value in the system.  No one gets anywhere, no goods are made, no salaries paid, no services rendered, and no profits realized, without labor.  The principal capital and driving engine is labor.

Capitalism works well, I don't argue that.  But when it rewards those who do and make the least value with the bulk of the wealth, it fails.  Luckily, it will always have socialism to bail it out at that point, which is what we're seeing now.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Are you promoting a cyclical system of capitalism and socialism?

[Diomedes]

Capitalism as practiced in the United States periodically runs wildly out of control to the point of self destruction, at which point socialist tools are employed to check it.

Without public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, etc, American capitalism would have failed utterly.  Without government bailouts and regulation, rabid moneylovers would have broken the system to the point where they have only each other to employ and sell things to, because the rest of the country would be effectively enslaved by ignorance poverty and sickness.

There are limits to how freely capitalism can be successfully practiced.  Those of you who think the rich are the economic core of the economy, who think that massive individual wealth is earned and deserved, who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being, would land the country in exactly the same place that Stalin put his country, only by a different route.

A mix is required and the current mix is off. 

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Punishing irresponsible use of wealth or dispersion of money?  Yes.

who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being

Yep, that isn't in direct contradiction at all.  Good point.

Is it just more comfortable for you to stereotype and lump me in with some preset group in your head?  Otherwise, I'm confused at why you seem to be completely incapable of noticing where we might actually agree and incapable of critical thought in general.

[Diomedes]

to me you're Ayn Rand and to you I'm Marx

the circle of life is marvelous

[ATV]

Our country and economic system is much more efficient when the very few have all the money and everybody else is sitting on their asses at home. That's how we get things done in this country. This is because the very few work so much more harder (when they're not sitting on their $35,000 toilets) than everybody else. This is just the natural order of economics, so it must be good for the country.

[Rome]

Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.

Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.

Hahaha.  Stalker is straight out of a Limbaugh lunchtime listening group.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

to me you're Ayn Rand and to you I'm Marx

the circle of life is marvelous

I heard that "Atlas Shrugged" has become a very relevant re-read, but I don't plan on wasting my time.  Do you have a copy of the manifesto?

[rjs246]

I farging hate Ayn Rand. Couldn't get more than a few dozen pages into her books because she write for shtein. Dumb bitch.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Would you rather read Todd's recap of the next Temple basketball game?

[stalker]

More to the point... will someone please outline the Republican Party's platform right now? Any conservative belief that they haven't defiled? I understand what being 'conservative' means but I really don't understand how the current Republican party even begins to represent what conservatives stand for...

For now, they are happy to set themselves up as the opposition party.  However the democrats move will define the Republicans because they will stand opposed to it.  In the meantime, they'll have to rediscover fiscal conservatives and find a way to gain some traction outside of Redneck America and Filthy-Rich America.  The Southern Strategy is dead, and with it the Republican party as we have known it since Nixon.  The country is less white, less rural, and less racist by the day; they need to find a new way of defining themselves if they want any chance of regaining power again.  It should be interesting to see how that goes,  because there are no moderate Republicans in the House and very few in the Senate.  With a bunch of fundie, anti-immigrant, anti-city, race-baiting leaders in office, it's going to be real interesting to see how they adapt.  Right now, it's a big gamble to place their hopes on Obama failing, but since they've got nothing else, they're sticking to it.

I know that doesn't really define their platform though.  If they return to a platform that is fundamentally conservative, it would shock me.  Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, they haven't shown any real fiscal conservatism in ages.  To all of a sudden rediscover that in this bunch of kooks seems to me unlikely.  It doesn't seem like a conservative view point for instance to support the federal prohibition on state's setting their own laws regarding emissions...isn't this the state's rights party?  I suppose they see that an issue of business vs. regulation, and of course they always side on business.  But when that stance brings them to the point of arguing against the freedom for the states to govern as they please, then you're not looking at  a conservative, you're looking at a federal corporatist or something like that. 

They have talked a lot of small government, but done nothing to reduce or reform government when they've had power.  In fact, it's increased.

Yeah, I'm rambling.  I'll stop.

Thanks for stating my thoughts.

Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.

Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.

Hahaha.  Stalker is straight out of a Limbaugh lunchtime listening group.

I listen to Howard Stern damn near exclusively. I haven't listened to Limbaugh in over 10 years. He is a blow hard. Hannity is a douche. I watch a little O'Reilly.

[rjs246]

I like the term Federal Corpratist. It better defines many current 'republicans'.

[Diomedes]

I've read Rand and Marx, have copies of them still.  I liked Atlas Shrugged a lot, excepting Galt's ludicrously long repetitive manifesto towards the end.  It's pure fantasy, but I was entertained, and I'm glad I know what she's about.

[Phanatic]

Capitalism as practiced in the United States periodically runs wildly out of control to the point of self destruction, at which point socialist tools are employed to check it.

Without public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, etc, American capitalism would have failed utterly.  Without government bailouts and regulation, rabid moneylovers would have broken the system to the point where they have only each other to employ and sell things to, because the rest of the country would be effectively enslaved by ignorance poverty and sickness.

There are limits to how freely capitalism can be successfully practiced.  Those of you who think the rich are the economic core of the economy, who think that massive individual wealth is earned and deserved, who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being, would land the country in exactly the same place that Stalin put his country, only by a different route.

A mix is required and the current mix is off. 

I agree that a mix is required. US capitalism is a mix now. It cracks me up when I hear a super rightie talking about how horrible socialism is when it is already a very large part of our government. If we eliminated all of the socialistic aspects of our government what would be left? I really think the current batch of "Federal Corpratists" want that. No social security, no public education, a flat tax system, and everything ruled by the free market while being controlled by corporations. Would some argue that this can work?