• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Socialists Vs. Capitalists


  • Please log in to reply
508 replies to this topic

#481 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:13 PM

Most people need a loan to be able to buy a house. Mortgage companies give out loans and make a profit charging interest. This could be done
by the government. But then it would be socialism. And we know that socialism is evil.
Instead we have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were operated as
private companies with the executives making a bundle of money. This is capitalism and it's very good.
The very well paid people managing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made stupid mistakes. The companies were about to fail so our government
had to take over and pump a lot of taxpayers money into the companies.
This is an example of good capitalism. When the capitalists make a profit they keep it. When they fail we taxpayers pay for the mistakes.
This is good wealth redistribution. It takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich.

People, companies and institutions should be able to get insurance to protect them against a lot of things. The government could function as
an insurance provider charging a fee. But that would be socialism which we know is evil. So instead we have insurance companies where
the executives and associates make a lot of money. This is capitalism, which is good. The biggest insurance company in
the US is AIG. With the money AIG got from insurance premiums, it branched into other industries. The people in charge of AIG made
stupid mistakes and the company was about to go belly up. AIG couldn't fail. So our government gave it an $85 billion Federal Reserve loan
(can I get something like that?). This is taxpayers money that will ensure that people connected to AIG will continue to make a lot of
money. Again,this is good wealth redistribution. It takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich.

Repeat after me: capitalism is good, socialism is evil.

#482 AaronCW

  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 19 September 2008 - 04:03 AM

Most people need a loan to be able to buy a house. Mortgage companies give out loans and make a profit charging interest. This could be done
by the government. But then it would be socialism. And we know that socialism is evil.
Instead we have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were operated as
private companies with the executives making a bundle of money. This is capitalism and it's very good.
The very well paid people managing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made stupid mistakes. The companies were about to fail so our government
had to take over and pump a lot of taxpayers money into the companies.
This is an example of good capitalism. When the capitalists make a profit they keep it. When they fail we taxpayers pay for the mistakes.
This is good wealth redistribution. It takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich.

People, companies and institutions should be able to get insurance to protect them against a lot of things. The government could function as
an insurance provider charging a fee. But that would be socialism which we know is evil. So instead we have insurance companies where
the executives and associates make a lot of money. This is capitalism, which is good. The biggest insurance company in
the US is AIG. With the money AIG got from insurance premiums, it branched into other industries. The people in charge of AIG made
stupid mistakes and the company was about to go belly up. AIG couldn't fail. So our government gave it an $85 billion Federal Reserve loan
(can I get something like that?). This is taxpayers money that will ensure that people connected to AIG will continue to make a lot of
money. Again,this is good wealth redistribution. It takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich.

Repeat after me: capitalism is good, socialism is evil.


Capitalism is good, socialism is evil (read: The right to earn and keep property honestly is good, wealth redistribution is evil).

You seem to be equating the recent actions of the Feds, or 'good wealth redistribution' as you call it, with capitalism. You are aware that the US is not capitalist except in (increasingly) loose sense? We live in a mixed economy system in which the government is free to create all kinds of havoc in the marketplace and force taxpayers to pay for it.

#483 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 September 2008 - 11:25 PM

Your example of Fannie and Freddie as being capitalist is not accurate. They were and still are GSE's (government sponsored enterprises). Capitalists and free-market people have complained since the inception of Fannie and Freddie about the unfair advantage they had over regular banks in making loans.

I have to agree with AaronCW here. In my view taking money by force from one person (who earned it legally) and giving it to another person is wrong. Unfortunately we are in the minority nowadays. If current trends continue, next year, more than 50% of taxpayers in the U.S. will pay zero income tax or get money back from the government. This roughly equates to more than 50% of voters taking out and less than 50% paying in. This is a bad situation for any free country and a recipe for rapid bankruptcy, as if the government did not already spend too much money on bankrupt social programs and wars.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#484 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 September 2008 - 05:18 AM

Your example of Fannie and Freddie as being capitalist is not accurate. They were and still are GSE's (government sponsored enterprises). Capitalists and free-market people have complained since the inception of Fannie and Freddie about the unfair advantage they had over regular banks in making loans.

I have to agree with AaronCW here. In my view taking money by force from one person (who earned it legally) and giving it to another person is wrong. Unfortunately we are in the minority nowadays. If current trends continue, next year, more than 50% of taxpayers in the U.S. will pay zero income tax or get money back from the government. This roughly equates to more than 50% of voters taking out and less than 50% paying in. This is a bad situation for any free country and a recipe for rapid bankruptcy, as if the government did not already spend too much money on bankrupt social programs and wars.

Mind, does the 50% figure include people on Social Security? I think it probably does. Either that or it's only looking at federal income tax and not considering payroll taxes and state/local taxes. I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons. Back in the 80's, someone called the S&L bailout "the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy ever". This week we beat it, although perhaps not in inflation adjusted dollars.

#485 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 September 2008 - 04:00 PM

Mind, does the 50% figure include people on Social Security? I think it probably does. Either that or it's only looking at federal income tax and not considering payroll taxes and state/local taxes. I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons. Back in the 80's, someone called the S&L bailout "the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy ever". This week we beat it, although perhaps not in inflation adjusted dollars.


Not sure on the Social Security question, will have to do some research. Good point about the transfers going both ways. Neither is good in my view. I don't mind the idea of the government providing a framework/structural component (legal, national defense, etc) for a society, but this has been perverted way too far and most everyone has their hand out now.

#486 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 September 2008 - 09:33 PM

One big sociocultural problems in the US is the lack of theoretical flexibility. Religion is good, atheism is bad. So an atheist cannot
even dream of running for president, even if s/he's the most qualified.
Capitalism is good, socialism is evil. Thus most of other industrialized countries have a socialized health system, but not the
US. In the US you get your health insurance through the company (C1) you work at. C1 contracts with another company C2 that manages insurance
and other stuff. C2 obtains health insurance from the insurance company C3. And prescription drugs from C4. Each one of these
companies (layers) has their executives, brokers and employees which take a cut from your premium.
Parties profiting from the system spend money in advertising to convince people that this system is more efficient than a government
run health care (which would be SOCIALISM!).
For some, nothing less than laissez-faire is not capitalism. To that I'll say that a dogmatic capitalist is not any better than a dogmatic
communist.
As for the mortgage problem, to simplify things, in my previous post I lumped the whole mortgage system under Fannie and Freddie. Actually, from the banks and credit unions up to Fannie and Freddie there are many hands that grab a piece of your mortgage payments. The system worked for a long time because the government guaranteed the solvency of
Fannie and Freddie.
The government was the solution and not the problem. What was needed was more government supervision, not less. Anybody who bought a house
with a mortgage could do it only because the government was guaranteeing Fannie and Freddie. It wasn't Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

Edited by inawe, 20 September 2008 - 09:55 PM.


#487 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 20 September 2008 - 09:52 PM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.


I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

Edited by hrc579, 20 September 2008 - 09:54 PM.


#488 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 September 2008 - 10:18 PM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.


I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

I read that that in parts of Florida and Georgia government agencies were investigating some gas stations. After Ike there was a shortage
of gasoline and these stations were charging exorbitant prices. It seems that they are now going to be penalized for gouging.
So let's see laissez-faire free marketers. You barely make it to a gas station in the middle of nowhere with an empty tank. The gas station
gay sees you are desperate. Why shouldn't he charge you 50 bucks a gallon? 200?

#489 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 21 September 2008 - 12:39 AM

Anybody who bought a house
with a mortgage could do it only because the government was guaranteeing Fannie and Freddie. It wasn't Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

Portfolio lenders originate loans independent of FNMA or FHLMC. Home buyers with solid blocks of equity are good risks for purely private capital... except when real estate markets are collapsing due to speculative bubbles created by perceived government backing of loans for overpriced real estate that shouldn't have been in the first place. The need for government backing of mortgage securities, their investors, and insurers has unfortunately now become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I read that that in parts of Florida and Georgia government agencies were investigating some gas stations. After Ike there was a shortage
of gasoline and these stations were charging exorbitant prices. It seems that they are now going to be penalized for gouging.
So let's see laissez-faire free marketers. You barely make it to a gas station in the middle of nowhere with an empty tank. The gas station
gay sees you are desperate. Why shouldn't he charge you 50 bucks a gallon? 200?

Because you'll tell a reporter who will create bad publicity for the station, station owner, and oil company that supplies it, resulting in termination of staff and business relationships. In a free society, it is neither possible nor desirable to criminalize all possible ways of being an ***hole. That doesn't mean that being an ***hole must go unpunished.

#490 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 21 September 2008 - 03:29 AM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.


I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

I read that that in parts of Florida and Georgia government agencies were investigating some gas stations. After Ike there was a shortage
of gasoline and these stations were charging exorbitant prices. It seems that they are now going to be penalized for gouging.
So let's see laissez-faire free marketers. You barely make it to a gas station in the middle of nowhere with an empty tank. The gas station
gay sees you are desperate. Why shouldn't he charge you 50 bucks a gallon? 200?


There's a good reason we're not seeing any rush for investigations into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mismanagement. Most of the CEO's were Democrat appointees. The Democrats control congress and many are implicated in one way or another. I'm sure there's a few Republicans with their finger in the cookie jar too.

#491 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:06 AM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.

I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

The mechanism is the privatization of profit combined with the socialization of risk. Financial operators who are "too big to fail" can take ridiculous levels of risk, and make lots of money. If it blows up, they already have the money, since they've been taking it out all along. When the company blows up, the taxpayer steps in and cleans up the mess. Of course shareholders get screwed, but the executives and principals are smart enough to diversify their assets. They may own some fraction of the company, and they don't really want to see it fail, but when it does, they are inconvenienced, but they get to keep the mansion in the Hamptons and the Swiss Bank Account.

#492 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:19 AM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.

I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

The mechanism is the privatization of profit combined with the socialization of risk. Financial operators who are "too big to fail" can take ridiculous levels of risk, and make lots of money. If it blows up, they already have the money, since they've been taking it out all along. When the company blows up, the taxpayer steps in and cleans up the mess. Of course shareholders get screwed, but the executives and principals are smart enough to diversify their assets. They may own some fraction of the company, and they don't really want to see it fail, but when it does, they are inconvenienced, but they get to keep the mansion in the Hamptons and the Swiss Bank Account.


That doesn't exactly explain the corruption we had here with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It had more to do with the millions in bonuses that the executives made each year from the phony profits they were showing from cooking the books.

#493 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:23 AM

Anybody who bought a house
with a mortgage could do it only because the government was guaranteeing Fannie and Freddie. It wasn't Adam Smith's "invisible hand".

Portfolio lenders originate loans independent of FNMA or FHLMC. Home buyers with solid blocks of equity are good risks for purely private capital... except when real estate markets are collapsing due to speculative bubbles created by perceived government backing of loans for overpriced real estate that shouldn't have been in the first place. The need for government backing of mortgage securities, their investors, and insurers has unfortunately now become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The implied (though not actual) government backing of FNMA and FHLMC were not the cause of the real estate bubble. It was more complicated. Greenspan's reckless lowering of interest rates to 1%, and his holding them there for a long time was a big component. The other component was the existence of Collateralized Debt Obligations, or bundled collections of mortgages that could be sold like securities. The instrument that caused all the problems wasn't the CDO itself, but the Credit Default Swap (CDS) which allowed the conversion of CDOs into slices, some of which could be rated investment grade because they were "insured" by the CDS. The problem was that a Republican Deregulation hound, Phil Gramm, snuck a provision into an omnibus spending bill that forbade congress, the SEC, or the CFTC from regulating CDS's as insurance. Had their been adult supervision over the CDS's, there wouldn't have been a subprime crisis. The CDO market was so lucrative that mortgage originators were pushed to write as many loans as possible, regardless of the credit quality of the buyer. That's where things started to get out of control, but for a while that was also a mechanism for continuing to inflate the housing bubble.

#494 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:31 AM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.

I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.

The mechanism is the privatization of profit combined with the socialization of risk. Financial operators who are "too big to fail" can take ridiculous levels of risk, and make lots of money. If it blows up, they already have the money, since they've been taking it out all along. When the company blows up, the taxpayer steps in and cleans up the mess. Of course shareholders get screwed, but the executives and principals are smart enough to diversify their assets. They may own some fraction of the company, and they don't really want to see it fail, but when it does, they are inconvenienced, but they get to keep the mansion in the Hamptons and the Swiss Bank Account.

That doesn't exactly explain the corruption we had here with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It had more to do with the millions in bonuses that the executives made each year from the phony profits they were showing from cooking the books.

Fannie and Freddie are essentially private companies; they have a responsibility to the shareholder, not to mention a financial interest on the part of executives to keep the share price up. I'm not sure anyone did anything illegal or even all that unusual there, so I'm not sure corruption is the right word. At any rate, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the mortgage crisis, they were killed by it. Because of the implied Federal guarantee and the "too big to fail" nature of these companies, they should have been under more regulatory scrutiny than they were. When the country is run by ideological deregulators, that is impossible. So now we all are $700 billion dollars poorer, and counting.

#495 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:53 AM

Fannie and Freddie are essentially private companies; they have a responsibility to the shareholder, not to mention a financial interest on the part of executives to keep the share price up. I'm not sure anyone did anything illegal or even all that unusual there, so I'm not sure corruption is the right word. At any rate, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the mortgage crisis, they were killed by it. Because of the implied Federal guarantee and the "too big to fail" nature of these companies, they should have been under more regulatory scrutiny than they were. When the country is run by ideological deregulators, that is impossible. So now we all are $700 billion dollars poorer, and counting.


Niner, it may not have been illegal, but that was because the management lobbied congress to pass laws that made unethical practices legal. Like lending money to people that can't afford to pay it back, and even requiring banks to make a certain amount of these loans to qualify for more money.

#496 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 21 September 2008 - 05:41 PM

Thanks, niner, for your deeper explanation of the role of derivatives. What's mind boggling to me is that the brain power that went into the creation of complex instruments was apparently not matched by the analysts at institutions that invested in them. One would think that the incentive to make money by creating and selling securities would be matched by the incentive not to lose money by buying them, leading to balanced wars of wits between institutions. How could the institutions left holding the bag be so dumb, unless they believed in their heart of hearts that govenment was always waiting in the wings to step in (privatization of profit, socialization of risk, as you say)?

#497 missminni

  • Guest
  • 1,857 posts
  • 27
  • Location:NYC

Posted 21 September 2008 - 06:30 PM

Wow, again. I agree with AaronCW and Mind completely.

I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons.


I'm curious by what mechanism would this occur? I do think that people at the top probably get wealth that is not commensurate with their skill level. However, it is an entirely different thing to say that they steal it from hard working people somehow.


Take a look at the companies that American Corporations use for manufacturing, outsourcing and importing and you will see exactly how they steal from hard working people. First and foremost by not giving the work to American workers and manufacturers, which have basically ceased to exist because of this practice, and then by exploiting cheap labor abroad using the often heard excuse that they are already being exploited by their own people. More often than not those "workers" are barefoot children. By doing business with contractors that use child labor..and most of them do...they are not only exploiting hard working people, they are exploiting children.
Also, not to be overlooked is the money they "steal" in revenues by operating abroad and being exempt from American Income Tax, yet they still make their money from America. Haliburton moving to Dubai is an example. In fact, one look at the difference in prices of prescription medications in Canada and the US shows exactly how they steal from hard working people and with the help of the FDA.
Having said that,
I don't approve of the current tax system and think an equal income tax rate, regardless of how much you make is only fair. There are many other ways to increase revenues without taxing income.


#498 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 06 May 2009 - 01:41 AM

i gotta' say somethin' lol. the problem here is people's erroneous idea of what real socialism is. there are currently no socialist nations in the world, and there never has been.....ever (at least in the last 5000-6000 yrs or so). all nations that currently exist or have ever existed (in recorded history), are simply various forms and levels of capitalist states. some are nationalized with a centralized power base, while others give a little power to their citizens to give them the illusion of freedom, but they are all capitalist for the most part. the biggest BS lie that has ever been pushed on us is that socialism exists and that it's necessarily evil. various leaders and governments/nations through out history have used the words 'socialist' or 'socialism' to describe themselves, but they have never been anything remotely close to what true socialism is. one big misconception is that 'capitalism' and 'freedom' are necessarily synonymous, and that like wise, 'socialism' and 'tyranny' must always go hand in hand, LOL!!!! simply and truthfully put, this is complete nonsense! for example, Libertarian Socialism, (including Libertarian Marxism), reject state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocate direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace 'democracy'. countries such as china, cuba, (and the old soviet morons) are/were no more socialist than ford, chrysler or medieval england LOL, capitalist tyrannies is a more appropriate definition in these cases! now, i will admit that american capitalism is preferable to the twisted capitalist garbage that is practised in china or cuba, but make no mistake, they are not socialist!

#499 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 04 July 2009 - 03:13 PM

i gotta' say somethin' lol. the problem here is people's erroneous idea of what real socialism is. there are currently no socialist nations in the world, and there never has been.....ever (at least in the last 5000-6000 yrs or so). all nations that currently exist or have ever existed (in recorded history), are simply various forms and levels of capitalist states. some are nationalized with a centralized power base, while others give a little power to their citizens to give them the illusion of freedom, but they are all capitalist for the most part. the biggest BS lie that has ever been pushed on us is that socialism exists and that it's necessarily evil. various leaders and governments/nations through out history have used the words 'socialist' or 'socialism' to describe themselves, but they have never been anything remotely close to what true socialism is. one big misconception is that 'capitalism' and 'freedom' are necessarily synonymous, and that like wise, 'socialism' and 'tyranny' must always go hand in hand, LOL!!!! simply and truthfully put, this is complete nonsense! for example, Libertarian Socialism, (including Libertarian Marxism), reject state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocate direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace 'democracy'. countries such as china, cuba, (and the old soviet morons) are/were no more socialist than ford, chrysler or medieval england LOL, capitalist tyrannies is a more appropriate definition in these cases! now, i will admit that american capitalism is preferable to the twisted capitalist garbage that is practised in china or cuba, but make no mistake, they are not socialist!

Socialism vs. Capitalism?
Why not Creationism vs. Darwinism?

Edited by Rol82, 04 July 2009 - 03:27 PM.


#500 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 06 July 2009 - 11:12 AM

Mind, does the 50% figure include people on Social Security? I think it probably does. Either that or it's only looking at federal income tax and not considering payroll taxes and state/local taxes. I agree that it's wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, particularly when the money is taken from a middle class working family that is barely making it and given to a hedge fund operator with a 55 room mansion in the Hamptons. Back in the 80's, someone called the S&L bailout "the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy ever". This week we beat it, although perhaps not in inflation adjusted dollars.


I think the actual figure is somewhere between 38% and 43%. But, with the payroll tax rebate that will last for the next few years, the percentage of households not paying a federal income tax will increase to about 48%. More troublingly, I think the percentage of households that pay more in federal income taxes than federal services is somewhere between 10% and 15%.

Also, your concern about the middle class getting soaked is misplaced, because the top 50% provides close to 98% of all federal income tax revenues. Perversely, the top 1% of households provides around 40% of all federal income tax revenues. So, I think the concern of Mind is quite valid, because the structure of our tax system reduces incentives for greater economic output.

But, let me make myself abundantly clear, I'm not advocating a significant federal income tax cut for wealthier households, or a major hike in taxes for households exempt from such taxes. Rather, I would prefer a phased in introduction of a consumption tax on undesirable activities. But, for altering incentives, I think a minor adjustment in the corporate income tax, the dividend tax, the capital gains tax, and a reduction in the allowed exemption for corporate debt would be appropriate.

Additionally, your suggestion that hedge fund operators are receiving a large quantity of TARP money is without foundation. If I am not mistaken, not a single hedge fund independent of investment banks and depository institutions has received a loan from the 700 billion authorized by Congress. Some hedge funds might have received loans from one of the Federal Reserve banks, and most were indirectly aided by Federal Reserve schemes to revive markets for various financial instruments, but this is not the same as a tax payer funded loan. And, it should be emphasized that these loans have been albatrosses for the recipients, because the annual interest payments will be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent for most companies. But, the interest payments pale in comparison to the greater scrutiny of management and decision making, and the public humiliation executives must endure when they're subjected to Congressional inquisitions. To be sure, there is some merit to your concern about executive compensation. However, it should be noted that overall executive compensation declined by approximately 40% last year. Compared to other variables that contributed to the financial crisis, I think executive compensation is one of the least of our concerns.

Edited by Rol82, 06 July 2009 - 06:05 PM.


#501 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 06:04 PM

Good to see the issues being discussed. I have only just come across this thread so I haven't really read more then a couple of posts here, so forgive me if I repeat anything. But I thought perhaps I could give an insight into Marxism, being a Marxist and reasonably well up on the theory.

The problem is I think with the whole socialism, communism, Marxism, capitalism, liberalism all the words effectively become meaningless. They mean so many different things to so many different people. So I will simplify what I see as Marxism as the removal of the class system, that Marxism is basically the study and mapping off class struggle throughout history.

A good starting point I think to get an understanding of Marxism, what is meant by wage slaves, exploitation of the working class and what not. A good starting point is to read the Communist Manifesto, it's not that long and pretty clear I think: http://www.marxists....ifesto/ch01.htm

Marx believed that civilisations went through stages from tribalism to primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism to mass production, to communism. At each stage the change occurred because of a class struggle. Give this a quick read: http://www.cla.purdu...smainframe.html

To put it simply the difference between a Marxist view point and a capitalist viewpoint of humanity is this. In Capitalism it is believed that the system basically represents human nature, that we are all inherently greedy and look after ourselves before others. A Marxist perspective is that this is not true, that humanity on the whole is good or has the potential to be good,, to share and what not. But we live under a system that forces us to look after ourselves before others. You have two choices in capitalism you play the game (work for the system) or starve. You have charity and social reforms but these are simply admissions that capitalism doesn't work, can't work.

This is also why Marxists believe we don't live in a democracy because if you look at the main parties in most so called democracies they are effectively the riches parties. The media is of course controlled by the capitalists because you need money to distribute media on a large scale. Classes look after there interests first, however as the rich control the media, the government and the means of production they are able to distort the working classes understanding and their class consciousness goes down, as it has done considerably since the 80s. But as we have seen with the banking crisis the riches class conscious is very much alive!

#502 Loot Perish

  • Guest
  • 95 posts
  • -22

Posted 31 July 2009 - 07:17 PM

I think that you have to look at governmental structures and makeup of communities.

Leftism vs rightism is the paradigm. Left is focused on helping the majority, the masses. Right is focused on helping the minority of the rich.

The rich want control of the govt and the masses want control of the govt.

Leftism gives the masses more control.
What are the masses? The majority. Any bloc that is more than 50 percent of the citizens of a nation, state or community.

Rightism gives the rich more control and the majority less control.

When the masses have more control, there is more democracy. When the rich have more control, you have less democracy.


How do the masses get more control?
THey get more control when they are united. If they are not very united, they cannot organize and get more control of their own govt.

Organization of the masses is the necessary component of leftism.

More organization of the masses==more democracy==more leftist nation, state, community.

How do you get the majority of the populace more organized? How do you get the majority more united?

Look at the world around you: is one person better able to organize and unite than 2 people? Obviously, yes.

Two more easily organizable and united than 4? Yes.

1000 more easily organizable and united than 1 million? yes, obviously.

So the fewer people in a nation, state or community, the more united and the more easily organized, and therefore the more democratic that nation, state or community. All I say here applies in principle and in general, btw.
So, smaller nations are in general more democratic and therefore more leftist. In general.

What other factors influence ease of unity and organization?

Language, culture, race.

If I have 1000 people in a nation, state or community, are they more easily organized if they all speak one language or if there are 10 languages that they speak?

Obviously if they all speak one language, they can more easily unite and control their own government and therefore that nation, state etc would be more leftist, in general.

How about if 1 million people are all of one race or 4 races? Which is more easily united to control their own govt and fight against the rich?

Culture? Same thing.

So, in general, we can say that leftism is directly proportional to homogeneity and inversrly proportional to size. The more diverse and the larger a nation, the less able the majority is to unite and act together to control their own interests.

The more different factions in any nation, state or community, the less able that they are to unite and act together.

So if there are 3 races (3 factions) in nation A and 1 race (1 faction) in nation B, then nation B will be more democratic and more leftist, all other things being equal.

Suppose nation state or community X has 50 percent of its population of race A and 50 percent of race B.

Now Suppose nation state or community Y has 100 percent of its population of race A.

In which nation will the masses be better able to unite and organize to control their own govt?

Obviously nation Y will have the population that is better able to unite and control their own govt, and so nation Y will be more democratic and more leftist, in general.

How about if nation X had 80 percent of its population of race A and 20 percent of race B. Will nation X now be more democratic and leftist? Yes, it should, because now race A will have more chance to form a majority coalition that is more easily organized.

So the more unbalanced and less diverse a nation, state or community, the more easily the majority can unite and control its own govt.

Diversity is inversely proportional to democracy and to leftism.
In fact this prinicple is the primary axiom of the American constitution. James Madison the father of the constitution, wrote (in federalist paper 10 and his notes on the constitutional convention and in a letter to Jefferson) the following things:
1. Democracy is not what he wanted in America.
2. The primary goal of the American constitution he designed was to preserve the wealth of the rich and to protect the rich minority from the majority.
3. the way to protect the wealth of the rich was to prevent the majority from uniting and discovering their common interest.
4. The way to prevent the majority from uniting was to increase the number of factions in each political district.
5. The way to increase factions in districts was to enlarge districts. The federal govt offices of the president and the senator was the best examples of how to do this.

Now, as evidence of how this worked in real life, I give you America, Russia, China, Brazil, Mexico on one side and on the other Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Switz, Belgium, Finland.

Consider the primary characteristics of leftist nations--progressive taxation and national healthcare paid for by income taxes and a high quality of life for as many people as possible, along a strong welfare state. Which nations have those and which do not? Which nations have diverse populations, many races, etc. Which have less diversity? Which nations are larger?

Which nations have more factions, more races, more political districts, more languages, etc? Which have fewer factions? Which nations are more diverse?

Which nations have a majority bloc that is better able to unite and organize and control their own govt and prevent the rich from controlling the govt?

Sweden or America?

Norway or Russia?

Denmark or China?

Belgium or Brazil?


Now look at governmental structures.

Which nations have voting district that have fewer faction, i.e., are less diverse?

Which nations have parliamentarian govts, which have small voting districts?

Which nations have federal republic, presidential systems, where the president is elected by popular vote across the largest possible voting district--the entire nation?

Which nations have weak upper houses where the upper house politicians are elected across districts comprised of the districts of the lower houses?

A strong upper house means MORE factions.
A weak upper house means LESS factions.

Less factions means more democracy.

Long story short, the parliamentarian democracies are more democratic and therefore more leftist than the federalist republic-presidential system nations.

Which nations of the ones I listed are parliamentarian? I will tell: norway, sweden, denmark, switz, belgium, netherland, finland, etc.

Which are presidential system republics? America,, russia, brazil etc. China is an oligarchy.

I hope you learned something today.

But I doubt it...

Edited by Reverend_X, 31 July 2009 - 07:49 PM.


#503 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 31 July 2009 - 07:31 PM

Good to see the issues being discussed. I have only just come across this thread so I haven't really read more then a couple of posts here, so forgive me if I repeat anything. But I thought perhaps I could give an insight into Marxism, being a Marxist and reasonably well up on the theory.

The problem is I think with the whole socialism, communism, Marxism, capitalism, liberalism all the words effectively become meaningless. They mean so many different things to so many different people. So I will simplify what I see as Marxism as the removal of the class system, that Marxism is basically the study and mapping off class struggle throughout history.

A good starting point I think to get an understanding of Marxism, what is meant by wage slaves, exploitation of the working class and what not. A good starting point is to read the Communist Manifesto, it's not that long and pretty clear I think: http://www.marxists....ifesto/ch01.htm

Marx believed that civilisations went through stages from tribalism to primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism to mass production, to communism. At each stage the change occurred because of a class struggle. Give this a quick read: http://www.cla.purdu...smainframe.html

To put it simply the difference between a Marxist view point and a capitalist viewpoint of humanity is this. In Capitalism it is believed that the system basically represents human nature, that we are all inherently greedy and look after ourselves before others. A Marxist perspective is that this is not true, that humanity on the whole is good or has the potential to be good,, to share and what not. But we live under a system that forces us to look after ourselves before others. You have two choices in capitalism you play the game (work for the system) or starve. You have charity and social reforms but these are simply admissions that capitalism doesn't work, can't work.

This is also why Marxists believe we don't live in a democracy because if you look at the main parties in most so called democracies they are effectively the riches parties. The media is of course controlled by the capitalists because you need money to distribute media on a large scale. Classes look after there interests first, however as the rich control the media, the government and the means of production they are able to distort the working classes understanding and their class consciousness goes down, as it has done considerably since the 80s. But as we have seen with the banking crisis the riches class conscious is very much alive!



Yes, you mention good points, capitalism can have its problems, but communism has many more! That's why all countries that attempted to go full-communism failed. Empirical data so far has totally torn socialist theories to pieces, while showing how great a system capitalism is, comparing to other systems.

In a discussiong between economic theories where both appear theoretically valid, i'll take the one that has shown the better results in the real world, which is what really matters in the end.

Edited by forever freedom, 31 July 2009 - 07:31 PM.


#504 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 08:03 PM

Yes, you mention good points, capitalism can have its problems, but communism has many more! That's why all countries that attempted to go full-communism failed. Empirical data so far has totally torn socialist theories to pieces, while showing how great a system capitalism is, comparing to other systems.

In a discussiong between economic theories where both appear theoretically valid, i'll take the one that has shown the better results in the real world, which is what really matters in the end.


I'm not sure it's had more, we haven't seen full communism anywhere in the world.

The closest was probably the Commune de Paris, which was pretty successful until the Republican army was sent in and massacred them all.

Russia did indeed start out as a workers mass movement however never really achieved Communism for a number of reasons. Firstly the movement got taken over by Stalinism. Russia was a backwards country at the time, so had an up hill struggle and in order for it to win the revolutions in the industrliaised countries had to succeed. However as we saw in German the communist revolution failed and the Nazis won and executed all the communists and socialists, followed by the Jews, then the blacks gays and Gypsies...

So Russia became isolated and as Marx said Communism must be international, it cannot work surrounded by Capitalist nations who wish to see it fail. So the workers movement degenerated into a nationalist Stalinist nightmare which isn't communism, socialism, Marxism.

Cuba also started out as a genuine movement. However because of the trades embargo from America and Cuba being a small country it was forced to turn to the soviet union so also became a Stalinist state.

I don't think capitalism has a very good record though does it? Even when we compare it to a brutal regime like Stalinism Capitalism is responsible for more deaths. From imperialist wars like the first world war, Vietnam and many others, to the hundreds of millions that have died from unsafe working practises to the majority of the world that live in poverty which gets worse and worse with the continuation of the colonies re-branded. Look at the growth of globslaition and how poverty has risen. In 1970 poverty in Africa was around 30%, now it's 70%!

In the so called rich west the 'boom' was an illusion. It was mass credit that made everyone think we were getting richer, we weren't. In the last 30 years we have basically seen wages stagnate for most people, working hours sky rocketing and less benefits, but that has been ok as we have had endless credit, which like an elastic band has it's limits, it got pulled back very far and now we are in a real mess because of unregulated capitalism. It has proven not to work, capitalism always failed, boom and bust, and it is always the poor that pays. The bankers get bail outs and the workers get laid off.

#505 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 31 July 2009 - 08:36 PM

In the so called rich west the 'boom' was an illusion. It was mass credit that made everyone think we were getting richer, we weren't. In the last 30 years we have basically seen wages stagnate for most people, working hours sky rocketing and less benefits, but that has been ok as we have had endless credit, which like an elastic band has it's limits, it got pulled back very far and now we are in a real mess because of unregulated capitalism. It has proven not to work, capitalism always failed, boom and bust, and it is always the poor that pays. The bankers get bail outs and the workers get laid off.

These are not so much failures of capitalism per se as they are failures of capitalism American style, as well as American governance, circa 1975-2008. The economic blow-up we just witnessed was a failure of deregulation, not a failure of capitalism. Communism denies our basic human nature in that we are concerned for our own best interests. Economic and political systems at the opposite extreme also deny our basic human nature in that we are social animals. Neither extreme is ever going to work well for humans.

#506 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 31 July 2009 - 09:35 PM

These are not so much failures of capitalism per se as they are failures of capitalism American style, as well as American governance, circa 1975-2008.


This isn't the only time Capitalism has failed, what we have seen in the last 30 years as an extreme form of capitalism, with a divide surpassing even Victorian Britain! Even with social reform however capitalism fails to provide for everyone, poverty exists, in less extreme ways of course but while liberalism and social reforms aren't socialism/communism they are socialist communist ideas, that prove Capitalism doesn't work. These Libertarians scare the hell out of me!

The economic blow-up we just witnessed was a failure of deregulation, not a failure of capitalism.


It was, although you have to look at this from a wider perspective. This is history repeating itself, after the major crash in the 30s which was caused by identical issues, unregulated markets and what not the Capitalists and politicians jumped on the 'we need more regulation, capitalism is ok we just need more regulation!', the same people that for years had said we need less regulation. It's the same now from the 80s up until this all started everything was great and it was unregulated markets that made it great! Then it crashes and they all jump on the regulation bagwagon once again! The problem with regulating the markets is that sooner or later the capitalists will just begin to start unravelling it again. They accept having some of their power reduced now as in the long run it will save their system.

Not to mention free markets are totally at odds with freedom for people, they restrict freedom as everything including people are turned into commodities, and everything is divided into property. The majority don't own much, and usually just the rich own the means of production (factories, offices, etc). If you don't own this then you must sell your time for a wage. So you produce for the system yet are rewarded with a fraction of what you produce, usually 1-10% while the upper classes get even richer, and can invest even more into the system owning even more, making even more. While the worker who is only paid enough to get by can't reinvest as they have no surplus. Very few ever make it out of their class. For every rockafella, millions suffer, its not a fair or just system! It rewards luck and gambling and punishes the actual producers.

Communism denies our basic human nature in that we are concerned for our own best interests.


Well this is were we fundamentally disagree, I don't think it's human nature to look after our own best interests before everyone else's, I think there are a million and one example of that not being true. Rising kids, open source software, science, art, unions, labour movements, revolutions

Economic and political systems at the opposite extreme also deny our basic human nature in that we are social animals. Neither extreme is ever going to work well for humans.


If you stand in the middle of the road you're going to get run over- Trotsky ;)

#507 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 01 August 2009 - 10:00 PM

The problem with the U.S economy is that it doesn't leave room for everyone in the system to survive. This is one of the reasons so many people resort to welfare as their source of income. The other reason (and this applies to the homeless dilemma as well) is that there is a population of mentally ill people, either by chemical imbalance or environmentally induced states of mental decay or both.

I would estimate that 7 out of every 10 homeless people has some sort of either drug addiction or mental disturbance. I know this figure holds up because 2 years ago I did an internship at a homeless shelter and the majority of the people I spoke with were mentally afflicted or trying to enter the shelter for drug related reasons. The point is these people are also left out of the economical frame work of american corporate capitalism.

People can vicariously paint socialism what ever way they want to, but no matter what the people of countries like france, sweden and the UK live higher quality lives than the average U.S citizen. We are very low on the scale of life expectancy as well, compared to about 60 other regions of the world. We have more people on the threshold of poverty than any of these other nations. We are lagging behind scientifically, environmentally, economically.

You can use the specious argument 'any system that redistributes wealth is evil' but that argument is pure bullshit for one reason. Any system that redistributes wealth also includes those systems which decide professional athletes deserve to be paid, on average, 500 times more than meteorologists, doctors, scientists of all calibers (when the latter provide services that effect our lives a thousandfold greater than the former). You don't believe these professionals deserve to be paid equal, if not more than athletes and actors?

What about a system that treats the people who do all the filthy grimy work like subhumans? You know, the people who pick up your garbage, keep the streets clean and do your disgusting plumbing work for you? Yea, the people who are always in a shitty mood because they get paid next to nothing for their filthy grimy work. Don't you think wealth should be redistributed a little so to them so these people have greater incentives to want to keep their jobs?

Do you know that if every single actor and professional athelete received a pay cap of just 100,000$ annually that money could feed and cloth every homeless person in the world for the next 50 years? That is the kind of redistribution that I think we need. I don't care how evil it is, it is not anywhere near as evil as paying entertainment workers millions of dollars while someone else is starving to death right outside their door, begging for change. Pathetic, evil, call it what you will. But it is much worse than socialism like the kind you see in france, sweden etc

#508 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 August 2009 - 05:11 AM

Communism denies our basic human nature in that we are concerned for our own best interests.

Well this is were we fundamentally disagree, I don't think it's human nature to look after our own best interests before everyone else's, I think there are a million and one example of that not being true. Rising kids, open source software, science, art, unions, labour movements, revolutions

Economic and political systems at the opposite extreme also deny our basic human nature in that we are social animals. Neither extreme is ever going to work well for humans.

If you stand in the middle of the road you're going to get run over- Trotsky :)

Something tells me that you do not support yourself, or that you are a healthy young student with few cares.

#509 captainbeefheart

  • Guest, F@H
  • 201 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Bristol, UK

Posted 02 August 2009 - 03:07 PM

Communism denies our basic human nature in that we are concerned for our own best interests.

Well this is were we fundamentally disagree, I don't think it's human nature to look after our own best interests before everyone else's, I think there are a million and one example of that not being true. Rising kids, open source software, science, art, unions, labour movements, revolutions

Economic and political systems at the opposite extreme also deny our basic human nature in that we are social animals. Neither extreme is ever going to work well for humans.

If you stand in the middle of the road you're going to get run over- Trotsky :)

Something tells me that you do not support yourself, or that you are a healthy young student with few cares.


I should find a new source as it's incorrect! I graduated last year and work in web development. I also have many cares, namely this terrible, destructive system we live under!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users