Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

A balance of socialism and capitalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A balance of socialism and capitalism

    I ran across this video when I was listening to lectures on capitalism and Marxism. After listening to both pro capitalists and pro Marxists, this guy represented reality and IMO, gives us what we will eventually move towards. And it's not only logical and reasonable, but injects some morality into our capitalism as practiced. In fact, IMO, if you were to get a group of people together, that were only concerned with creating the best possible economic system for any nation, and were not held captive by ideological beliefs, what the author outlined in this video would be what intelligent people would choose. And coincidently what he talks about is what I have talked about here on this forum with the result being someone has to offer the expected, "comrade". But bi polar minds tend to do this, I seldom pay much notice.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBIXmXJwIuk

    I am interested in what the various conservatives think about what was talked about in the video. It is short, but since we will inevitably move towards such a model, out of necessity, due to social pressures, I feel it is worthy to get the opinions rolling, if for nothing else just to get an idea of how far we have to go as a people to allow intelligence to work, regardless of ideological beliefs.

    I agree with the author that pure capitalism or pure socialism are both unworkable over the long haul, and there are good reasons why this is true in both cases. So, since we already have a mixed system, we will hopefully clean it up, get rid of the bad aspects of capitalism as well as those in socialism, and arrive at the best model that humans can create. Of course this will require gov't laying down the new rules and enforcing those rules, and if you don't want a gov't at all, become a communist, for the communistic dream is to finally get rid of the State altogether. I learned that in one of those lectures today. When I heard that, the first thought I had was that hard core conservatives and communists want the same end result, no Gov't.

    I would imagine the modern liberal would agree with most of what the author of the video said, for they are capitalists and not as accused by the right wing, socialists, commies, Marxists and so on.

  • #2
    Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

    There are some essential services or products that cannot be provided by capitalists. Because there is no profit to be made.
    -They can't make a profit on public sanitation, for instance.

    Likewise, there are some behaviors that are best expressed in the private (capitalist) sector.
    -The desire to be rewarded for one's efforts, excluding those who did not contribute.

    There is the common good -general welfare- on one hand. On the other hand there is a basic need to be recognized -rewarded- for one's personal efforts.

    The central position becomes a balancing act between the two. At the same time, the centrist usually rejects attempts to solve political & economic problems with a single approach.
    The video provided one summary of the difference and why they should be integrated. I'm still waiting for socialist practice to be separated from Gov't. Central Planning (classical socialism). Instead, the emphasis can be placed at the local level -in collectives. Central Planning has the ironic qualities of distance, unresponsiveness and inefficiency. The very same failings of a monopoly or cartel in capitalism, and for the very same reasons.

    Here are two examples of "devolution", or a focus on smaller units that reward both individual effort and group cooperation:
    From a capitalist perspective, the Grameen Bank:
    http://www.grameen-info.org/index.ph...=25&Itemid=128

    From a socialist perspective (actually, a "Green/socialist" perspective), Human Scale Development
    http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/89_1.pdf

    Both recognize capitalist behavior and regulatory control as natural conditions, needed for economic development and stability.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      I ran across this video when I was listening to lectures on capitalism and Marxism. After listening to both pro capitalists and pro Marxists, this guy represented reality and IMO, gives us what we will eventually move towards. And it's not only logical and reasonable, but injects some morality into our capitalism as practiced. In fact, IMO, if you were to get a group of people together, that were only concerned with creating the best possible economic system for any nation, and were not held captive by ideological beliefs, what the author outlined in this video would be what intelligent people would choose. And coincidently what he talks about is what I have talked about here on this forum with the result being someone has to offer the expected, "comrade". But bi polar minds tend to do this, I seldom pay much notice.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBIXmXJwIuk

      I am interested in what the various conservatives think about what was talked about in the video. It is short, but since we will inevitably move towards such a model, out of necessity, due to social pressures, I feel it is worthy to get the opinions rolling, if for nothing else just to get an idea of how far we have to go as a people to allow intelligence to work, regardless of ideological beliefs.

      I agree with the author that pure capitalism or pure socialism are both unworkable over the long haul, and there are good reasons why this is true in both cases. So, since we already have a mixed system, we will hopefully clean it up, get rid of the bad aspects of capitalism as well as those in socialism, and arrive at the best model that humans can create. Of course this will require gov't laying down the new rules and enforcing those rules, and if you don't want a gov't at all, become a communist, for the communistic dream is to finally get rid of the State altogether. I learned that in one of those lectures today. When I heard that, the first thought I had was that hard core conservatives and communists want the same end result, no Gov't.

      I would imagine the modern liberal would agree with most of what the author of the video said, for they are capitalists and not as accused by the right wing, socialists, commies, Marxists and so on.
      First, he spends all of the 14 minutes telling us we SHOULD create that perfect balance but, also, showing us we already HAVE a balance with all the social programs that have been put into place.

      Second, he never gets around to telling us what that perfect balance should be, so we are left to draw our own conclusions (of which, mine is that we are already doing as he suggested).

      Third, he wastes time over-selling his idea (and, as I said, NOT getting to his plan). My ol' Gramma used to tell me, never bring up a problem unless you also propose a solution.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
        First, he spends all of the 14 minutes telling us we SHOULD create that perfect balance but, also, showing us we already HAVE a balance with all the social programs that have been put into place.

        Second, he never gets around to telling us what that perfect balance should be, so we are left to draw our own conclusions (of which, mine is that we are already doing as he suggested).

        Third, he wastes time over-selling his idea (and, as I said, NOT getting to his plan). My ol' Gramma used to tell me, never bring up a problem unless you also propose a solution.
        It's the balance he is talking about. And yes I agree that in so far as safety nets, we already have them, but IMO, the corruption needs to be addressed, for being human beings, there are always those who will shoot spitballs or bully other kids when the teacher leaves the room.

        Yet I am not so sure the downside of capitalism has been addressed, to the same degree as social safety nets. We seem to have an oligarchal brand of capitalism, existing alongside of a corrupt form of social safety nets. The teacher left the room and both sides are shooting spitballs and exhibiting socially destructive selfish behavior. And some would say that the teacher was paid to leave the room, perhaps by the spit ball boys.

        The solution isn't that complicated, but given special interests from both sides, implementing change would be like trying to catch a greased pig.

        What is missing in our mixed model is the idea that a nation's economic model should exist to be beneficial to the entire working population, so that a nation's people might thrive. Our model isn't designed to so that at all. Instead, its design is one that maximizes income going to the top, which has caused a great disparity in income. It wouldn't mean a thing if it didn't take a certain level of income in order to thrive.

        IMO, the model that is construed to create a greater disparity in income, is NOT in the best interest of the People, which make up the nation. And this is what will inevitably change going into the future. So, some work needs to be done on the capitalism side of the socio economic model. A good start would be in breaking up huge corporations and banks. And there needs to be move to educate americans to see an economic model as something the People own, and something that should be designed to make the maximum number of people who work, to thrive. That is, to use capitalism, instead of capitalism being used against the majority of people. We would have to re-condition ourselves to see an economic model as the tool used by a People to bring decent living standards for as many as possible. To see it along the same lines as we see our military who defends us, the People. So it would involve a change in paradigm, in the way we see an economic model.

        Is there anyone here who thinks pure, untouched Capitalism would actually work to provide an economic model that would provide that the maximum number of americans with jobs that paid enough to live on? And has such a system ever existed, where those elites at the top didn't affect the model to only self benefit, as it affected others in negative ways? Isn't pure capitalism just an idea, that could never exist for very long, due to the negative effects? Just an ideal in the brain of man? But like Marxism, could never provide what it provided on paper?

        In regards to the author of the video offering solutions, perhaps he just wanted you to think about it? And you did, for a few seconds, and your conditioning gave us your answer. You don't see any problems with the current model, and no improvements can be made. Whereas, I see room for much improvement on both sides, the social safety nets and then our capitalistic endeavors, and suggest the future change that will inevitably occur. For I am one who thinks that human intelligence evolves, and it is evolving towards that point where the light bulb suddenly comes on, and reveals what should have been obvious a long time ago. And once this happens, all of the propaganda in the world will be powerless against this new intelligence. For once the brain actually sees the truth, it cannot go backwards from it. It's like seeing a snake and reacting by jumping, to only then discover it was an inner tube from an old bike tire. You see the truth of the matter, and you are not longer afraid of the snake. And you cannot make yourself afraid of it, no matter what propaganda is used to convince you otherwise.


        I don't know how long it will take for intelligence to evolve, that allows the proverbial light bulb to come on. It probably depends upon how soon the current paradigm fails and enough people actually suffer, as they did during the great depression. For the ability of a nation to finance social safety nets is finite. And when we reach the point where we can no longer pay for the safety nets, due to an economic model that does not employ people enough, this will perhaps aid that intelligence into evolving. Evolution is a reaction to something. The same probably goes for the evolution of intelligence. The challenge has to be there. And given the projections some have made of our current mixed model, that challenge may be here before we think. Probably within a couple decades.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          It's the balance he is talking about. And yes I agree that in so far as safety nets, we already have them, but IMO, the corruption needs to be addressed, for being human beings, there are always those who will shoot spitballs or bully other kids when the teacher leaves the room.
          As you said, it is intrinsic to the human condition that we desire to cheat the system to one's own betterment. Some of us (would that it be all or even most of us) are better than others at diffusing that temptation to cheat the system, but that still leaves human beings in the system who will cheat, given the opportunity.

          Neither ideology will ever defeat that propensity since we are all born with it.

          Insofar as remedying the corruption is concerned, I see no need for more socialism in our capitalistic process than we already have. In fact, Obamacare is a step too far, (IMO).

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

            There are certain things that socialism is better suited for, mainly in the realm of public infrastructure. The principle of infrastructure, far more than just roads, bridges and pipes, can be applied to everything the government does, and if it can't be applied to something the government is doing, the government probably shouldn't be doing it.

            For everything else however, the law of the harvest must prevail. The speaker, who possesses in his voice the cure for insomnia by the way, acknowledges the rampent tendency to abuse the system. The best way to deal people who genuinely can not support themselves is via the family. In fact the family, the most important social structure humanity possesses, is fundamentally a socialist stucture, because it provides the necessary infrastructure of life. That's also about as far as it should go.

            The problem with mixing your systems is that you only succeed in breaking both.

            I would also challenge the assertion that socialism is in anyway compassionate. That is a wholly inappropriate adjective for a system that uses the less able to encourage everyone else to not live up to their full potential.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

              Videos like this and discussions because of risk missing the point. Capitalism is an economic system, Socialism is a social and economic system and to be honest we do not have either one. This is not unlike the statism thread, where we talk about balance without any real respect to the conditions we actually have. Thus, where we are on the line of market economic models to planned economic models. Again, we are at the extreme of neither one.

              Whenever someone says "balance" in an economic system all we are really talking about is just enough government that is planned (or socialized) to avoid the end game consequence as if it was all "laissez faire" based economics. Again, which does not exist in our nation.

              The video is pretty good at presenting some basic ideals on running a mixed economic model but like Good1 says, the presenter does little to address how much should be planned vs. how much should lean market. Nor does the presenter really state we currently have enough socialistic policy, do we need more, or do we need less. Some hints, but nothing concrete in terms of economic numbers, fiscal numbers, or an real relation between entitlement and economic output (as in ratio.) Therefor, we are at the normal disconnect among all of us. How much of the economy should be planned?

              I would argue that the post 70's (roughly) entitlement mentality, and the increasing function of voting based upon treasury promise since the 50's (roughly) has upset the market economic forces / government socialistic forces mix enough to take us off the path of what is sustainable in the long term regardless of whatever economic fluctuations we go through in the duration.

              If you look at the government in terms of handling physical resources (energy, transportation, and technology) and human resources (education, health, social safety nets, and entitlements) the issue becomes obvious. Before the new deal that ratio was roughly 2:1 in favor of physical resources, which any economist tells you are the important aspects to any functional economy in the long term. Energy, transportation, and technology is what is stipulated for government to spend for influence on our economic sustainability and even more so in times of economic recovery. The human resources are those which do have social and economic purpose but tend to fall into the planned economic function far more than physical resources tend to fall into market economic function (eventually.)

              Fast forward a little and by the 70's that ratio flipped to 1:5, we already started down the path of spending too much on social matters and ignoring economic impact we could have had from energy policy changes, infrastructure improvement and technology investment. By 2000 we were already at 1:15 and estimates for 2020 will put us well north of 1:30. How all this happened was not just the social safety nets created way back then, but the constant changes to those systems (like Medicare in 1965 and Social Security reforms in the early 1970's) that all changed the basic idea of a mixed economic model. Now we are too dependent and evidence suggests we went too far with what government wants to plan and not near enough with economic output from a market model to pay for it all.

              My evidence... we have more on the government take now vs. then, the war on poverty has clearly failed, the divide between the income quintiles is more pronounced, the labor participation rate is at a record low, the tax code makes little economic sense, and we now add debt regardless of where we are in the economic cycle. Most importantly, we swapped being an export and production economic model to a weaker import and consumer debt economic model. Dependence breeds dependence just as much as self-reliance breeds self-reliance. Politically a mess was bound to ensue as we politicized the economy, while the power players in charge tend to create policy devoid of economic sense.

              The balance of what in our economic is planned vs. what is market is the consequence anyway. If one was to say we need more of our economy to be planned (or socialistic) to handle the fallout from market (or capitalism) consequence, I would argue we have already gone too far and developed an economic model now purely dependent upon government spending. That was then, and is now, a mistake making this argument on capitalism vs. socialism questionable at best. We already tilted the table towards socialism enough to develop system life long dependence *and* we are clearly on an unsustainable fiscal and monetary path because of. Said another way, we are doing what has ended previous empires and doing so with a bipartisan political smile while we try to discuss a phantom balance our government has no real practical interest in discussing.
              Last edited by Sluggo; 07-22-2014, 02:14 PM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                Perhaps the discussion should center on what methods are best to reconstruct an economy after the gov't. spending-dominant model fails. Because the failure is most apparent due to "socialism", I'd expect the capitalists to argue for a dominant position in the solution.

                That only points to one form of socialism as a failure. If gov't. patronage for a spoiled constituency is one form of failed socialism, while communism was another variation on failed socialism (dictatorship of the morons), we have still have successful forms in western europe. What did they do to make a mixed economy succeed, where ours is failing in the US? I strongly suspect they controlled the constituency angle much better than we did. We should also look at how they controlled poverty; if our war on poverty failed, they got much better results.

                We'll get capitalist-dominant arguments, likely ignoring socialist controls to our peril. As if the old west were a successful model, or pretending capitalist utopias exist in Singapore or some other place (ignoring the fact they still provide health care to the working class). We'll get what I call the "Big Sexy" as part of the solution for our rotting Republic. That is, we'll be going for the brass ring, offering bribes to multi-national corporations to settle back in the US, regardless of their long term track record as reliable employers.

                We could go back to the basics (see my link on the Grameen bank, post #2) and build a solid foundation -capitalism rooted in small groups, with goods and assets controlled by managers who work very closely with the workers, if they are not essentially the same actors who execute both functions. Mom and Pop was not considered as an economic model to get us out of this current economic crisis, even though that is the essence of capitalism. So that model won't be considered even if all the drizzlies hit the fan and the whole economy has to be re-built from the ground up. The Big n' Sexy, MNC argument will dominate, despite those executives preferring countries that are not failed Republics with a spoiled electorate and hopelessly sycophantic leadership in both the gov't. and economic sectors.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  Perhaps the discussion should center on what methods are best to reconstruct an economy after the gov't. spending-dominant model fails. Because the failure is most apparent due to "socialism", I'd expect the capitalists to argue for a dominant position in the solution.

                  That only points to one form of socialism as a failure. If gov't. patronage for a spoiled constituency is one form of failed socialism, while communism was another variation on failed socialism (dictatorship of the morons), we have still have successful forms in western europe. What did they do to make a mixed economy succeed, where ours is failing in the US? I strongly suspect they controlled the constituency angle much better than we did. We should also look at how they controlled poverty; if our war on poverty failed, they got much better results.

                  We'll get capitalist-dominant arguments, likely ignoring socialist controls to our peril. As if the old west were a successful model, or pretending capitalist utopias exist in Singapore or some other place (ignoring the fact they still provide health care to the working class). We'll get what I call the "Big Sexy" as part of the solution for our rotting Republic. That is, we'll be going for the brass ring, offering bribes to multi-national corporations to settle back in the US, regardless of their long term track record as reliable employers.

                  We could go back to the basics (see my link on the Grameen bank, post #2) and build a solid foundation -capitalism rooted in small groups, with goods and assets controlled by managers who work very closely with the workers, if they are not essentially the same actors who execute both functions. Mom and Pop was not considered as an economic model to get us out of this current economic crisis, even though that is the essence of capitalism. So that model won't be considered even if all the drizzlies hit the fan and the whole economy has to be re-built from the ground up. The Big n' Sexy, MNC argument will dominate, despite those executives preferring countries that are not failed Republics with a spoiled electorate and hopelessly sycophantic leadership in both the gov't. and economic sectors.
                  Capitalism is doomed anyways. For consumerism, if even china joins in will cause such an economic model to implode as finite resources are exhausted. For capitalism as we know it to continue on, we must be able to leave the planet and mine for resources elsewhere.

                  Capitalism will be a luxury that was created in order that a few might be extremely wealthy, and not created as a viable economic model that feeds an entire nation. It is analogous to a cancer that destroys its host. This is fairly obvious if one can look at the big picture, and make logical inferences of where consumerism inevitably leads.

                  If suddenly you could turn china's billion plus people into car owners, the amount of fuel needed to fuel those cars could not be extracted from this earth. Yet we want to turn her billions into just that, car owners, American cars preferably.

                  So capitalism as we know it cannot be sustained over the long haul, and that means we will have to create a different economic model. I am not sure what it will look like, but I am sure of what it won't be. And it won't be capitalism as we know it. So forget about capitalism being a cure all for what ails us. But it will continue to be a model beneficial to the elites for as long as humanity can afford that luxury.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    Capitalism is doomed anyways. For consumerism, if even china joins in will cause such an economic model to implode as finite resources are exhausted. For capitalism as we know it to continue on, we must be able to leave the planet and mine for resources elsewhere.

                    Capitalism will be a luxury that was created in order that a few might be extremely wealthy, and not created as a viable economic model that feeds an entire nation. It is analogous to a cancer that destroys its host. This is fairly obvious if one can look at the big picture, and make logical inferences of where consumerism inevitably leads.

                    If suddenly you could turn china's billion plus people into car owners, the amount of fuel needed to fuel those cars could not be extracted from this earth. Yet we want to turn her billions into just that, car owners, American cars preferably.

                    So capitalism as we know it cannot be sustained over the long haul, and that means we will have to create a different economic model. I am not sure what it will look like, but I am sure of what it won't be. And it won't be capitalism as we know it. So forget about capitalism being a cure all for what ails us. But it will continue to be a model beneficial to the elites for as long as humanity can afford that luxury.
                    Load of crap, BD. Now you hate the rich, too? Let's blame everything on the rich.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      Capitalism is doomed anyways. For consumerism, if even china joins in will cause such an economic model to implode as finite resources are exhausted. For capitalism as we know it to continue on, we must be able to leave the planet and mine for resources elsewhere.

                      Capitalism will be a luxury that was created in order that a few might be extremely wealthy, and not created as a viable economic model that feeds an entire nation. It is analogous to a cancer that destroys its host. This is fairly obvious if one can look at the big picture, and make logical inferences of where consumerism inevitably leads.

                      If suddenly you could turn china's billion plus people into car owners, the amount of fuel needed to fuel those cars could not be extracted from this earth. Yet we want to turn her billions into just that, car owners, American cars preferably.

                      So capitalism as we know it cannot be sustained over the long haul, and that means we will have to create a different economic model. I am not sure what it will look like, but I am sure of what it won't be. And it won't be capitalism as we know it. So forget about capitalism being a cure all for what ails us. But it will continue to be a model beneficial to the elites for as long as humanity can afford that luxury.
                      There is very little in this post that is factual. We do not run a pure market economy now, there is no reason to assume that all economic models that lean to market economy are doomed. That is just wishful thinking under the assumption commerce will eventually give way to a more planned economic model as if we are all going to live in a Star Trek episode. Capitalism, "as we know it," has yet to be tried to the extent you are painting here to suggest it produces failure.

                      What cannot be sustained over the long haul is oligarchy, which takes more than just a market leaning economy but also a complicit government authority heavily involved for self serving reasons. The reason is business venture and aristocracy protections have brought down more empires over history than just about all other factors. The Ottoman Empire, several Chinese Dynasties, Rome, etc... can all be traced to decisions with severe economic consequence. Just about everything the US does today with monetary manipulations and involvement in business venture has been tried at various points throughout history to varying degrees of eventual failure. Summed up, the likely effect of government decision that has bad economic consequence.

                      You are even contradicting the video from the OP, who claims there is a plausible best balance of market and planned economies and here you are saying capitalism is doomed. So make up your mind, do you agree with the non-specific balance suggested by the OP or is a strictly planned economy the only plausible future economic model we can run in the long term?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                        Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                        Load of crap, BD. Now you hate the rich, too? Let's blame everything on the rich.
                        That is what I am trying to get at. Even in the most planned economic models we have seen in history several things are still true. There is still the development of aristocracy, there is still those with "wealth" or some other accumulation and still those that are poor (even to the extent of social or economic slaves,) and there is still economic consequence from poor handling of resources to match societal needs. Take your pick from military empires to the smallest of tribalism social and economic models, there is no system that removes "wealth" entirely. And all we end up changing is what wealth is defined by, and we still end up with divide.

                        And I thought BD was well off the mark with sciences, turns out we can add economics as well.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                          BD's response needs to distinguish between "small capitalism" and "Big Capitalism". Good1's response is a superficial defense of capitalism.

                          I believe the citizens' two most valued qualities for capitalism are the ability to personally sell a good or service for a profit, and it's ability to provide reliable employment.

                          Hypothesis: small capitalism provides more employment than Big Capitalism. This is true.

                          http://bobdingethal.com/?p=753

                          Neither the GOP or Democrats have made this part of their longer term agenda. Perhaps the GOP is too involved with the Big Money in Big Capitalism, while the Democrats are going for the votes thru labor unions, the environment and other traditional leftist issues. Small business is able to go from capitalism to non-profit, therefore it has the potential to be more responsive to our use of resources. It should be a natural fit for Democrats, especially if the GOP fails to pick up on the better employment angle.

                          It is essential that we are able to "take it or leave it" when it comes to Big Companies. The same goes for the wealthy as a class. No need for envy, just a need to impose law and order as we are supposed to do for everyone.
                          Last edited by radcentr; 07-23-2014, 02:19 PM. Reason: image

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            BD's response needs to distinguish between "small capitalism" and "Big Capitalism". Good1's response is a superficial defense of capitalism.

                            I believe the citizens' two most valued qualities for capitalism are the ability to personally sell a good or service for a profit, and it's ability to provide reliable employment.

                            Hypothesis: small capitalism provides more employment than Big Capitalism. This is true.

                            http://bobdingethal.com/?p=753

                            Neither the GOP or Democrats have made this part of their longer term agenda. Perhaps the GOP is too involved with the Big Money in Big Capitalism, while the Democrats are going for the votes thru labor unions, the environment and other traditional leftist issues. Small business is able to go from capitalism to non-profit, therefore it has the potential to be more responsive to our use of resources. It should be a natural fit for Democrats, especially if the GOP fails to pick up on the better employment angle.

                            It is essential that we are able to "take it or leave it" when it comes to Big Companies. The same goes for the wealthy as a class. No need for envy, just a need to impose law and order as we are supposed to do for everyone.
                            Well sure, your small capitalism is capable of being sustained longer. Yet I was speaking mostly of consumerism, where an economy is based upon consumption, and must consume more and more in order to be considered successful. This kind of capitalism must grow, grow, grow, and that simply is not sustainable over the long haul.

                            Capitalism doesn't have to work like the current model, and it can take various forms, depending upon what emphasis is used, and whether or not we use capitalism as a means to provide for all that work in a society, or if we only use it with the goal of making a few people extremely wealthy. This latter type is what is not sustainable, for it doesn't provide for all in a society who must work in order to survive. So, the type we have now, which emphasizes and who's major goal is to make a few extremely wealthy is what cannot be endured, nor will the populace allow it to exist at some point.

                            An example of what consumerism will do is to do a thought experiement, that I mentioned earlier. Allow china to have the same rate of car ownership as the US, do the math on gasoline that would be needed weekly, and it exceeds the current yearly production. Which means, it is impossible for china to have the same rate of car ownership as America does today. If fossil fuel is used to power these cars. This isn't rocket science here, it just speaks of finite resources, and the ability to provide gasoline if the world starts to look like America.

                            Consumerism along with finite resources presents a factual problem at some point in time. Pull out the logic and work it out.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: A balance of socialism and capitalism

                              Commonunity works doesn't equal socialism, nor does mercantilism equal capitalism.
                              The common argument that socialism thrives in the. U.S. due to the power and success of the model of the military is nonsense as the military is statist at it's core, not socialist.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X