tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6405811606030801472..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Editor of Socialist Magazine explains why Obama isn't one of themVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7236625852677191402010-11-10T04:09:00.784-07:002010-11-10T04:09:00.784-07:00For the sanest comments that I've read on Chri...For the sanest comments that I've read on Christianity and Politics:<br /><br />http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2010/10/on-getting-involved-in-politics_15.htmlMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56375981729671321952010-11-09T15:57:12.712-07:002010-11-09T15:57:12.712-07:00Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we hav...Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we have a period of laissez faire policy in the US? Or, at least, a period of much less regulation? I believe it was called the Robber Baron period. And it was called that for a reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25648503577448767652010-11-09T09:05:40.932-07:002010-11-09T09:05:40.932-07:00Bob Prokop writing:
Is that like how "ideal&...Bob Prokop writing:<br /><br />Is that like how "ideal" communism would work, if only we didn't have real people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43131229072670216492010-11-09T08:46:01.080-07:002010-11-09T08:46:01.080-07:00Clayton asked:
---
there were no government regula...Clayton asked:<br />---<br />there were no government regulations, these companies would be smaller?<br />---<br /><br />1) Companies would never get larger than market demand wanted them to be. If demand increases, companies increase; demand decreases, companies decrease. They'd be tied directly to it.<br /><br />2) Companies would not be kept artificially alive despite the market demand, propped up by government regulation. If a company isn't needed, it changes goods/services or it goes out of business. If the market cannot support that large of a company, it *NEEDS* to fail.<br /><br />3) Consumers would not be hurt, because anyone could start a new, smaller company, should the market demand it, and should they wish to do so.<br /><br />Not that this could be implemented given our current deficiency in education and such, but that's how the "ideal" would work.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57089407554215696962010-11-08T13:31:27.598-07:002010-11-08T13:31:27.598-07:00I'm an enigmaI'm an enigmaMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31595657148058026232010-11-07T17:44:15.091-07:002010-11-07T17:44:15.091-07:00Mr. Veale -- you intrique me more and more.
I AM ...Mr. Veale -- you intrique me more and more.<br /><br />I AM CANADIAN.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48332150030750128912010-11-07T14:08:32.615-07:002010-11-07T14:08:32.615-07:00"I would argue that if we did go laissez-fair..."I would argue that if we did go laissez-faire then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Companies never would have gotten too big to fail, and there wouldn't be any monopolies in control over giant sectors of America."<br /><br />You would? How would that argument go? If there were no government regulations, these companies would be smaller? If there were no government regulations, these companies would be larger but their failure would have less impact?<br /><br />I'm genuinely curious, how would your argument work?Clayton Littlejohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596200828134402805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33482137718490997822010-11-06T15:31:00.591-07:002010-11-06T15:31:00.591-07:00Victor said:
---
Neither party advocates laissez-f...Victor said:<br />---<br />Neither party advocates laissez-faire capitalism or anything even close to it.<br />---<br /><br />Yes, but I wasn't talking about the parties.<br /><br />You said:<br />---<br />No one who really believes in laissez-faire capitalism would bail anyone out because they were too big to fail. <br />---<br /><br />I agree. And I opposed Bush when he started TARP and all that nonsense too.<br /><br />Again, I haven't argued anywhere here *FOR* the Republican party. I'm not a Republican.<br /><br />You said:<br />---<br />But, if you have a situation where you can get so big that the government will keep you from failing no matter how badly you screw up, then the capitalist system has broken down in a big way. <br />---<br /><br />That implies that it was the Capitalistic system that let the company get too big to fail in the first place. It wasn't. We haven't been in a Capitalistic society in America ever. We've been in a system that is *MORE* Capitalistic before; and we're heading toward *MORE* Socialism now; but we've never been either one.<br /><br />I would argue that if we did go laissez-faire then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Companies never would have gotten too big to fail, and there wouldn't be any monopolies in control over giant sectors of America.<br /><br />But since that didn't happen...<br /><br />In any case, I maintain that we are better off the less government there is, at least up to the threshold of anarchy. If there were no evil people in the world, anarchy would be just fine too; but since there are evil people, there will always be a need for government.<br /><br />Nevertheless, our societies now are structured in such a way now that more government is ALWAYS a bad thing. We are not in danger of anarchy anywhere; we are constantly in danger of oppressive regimes. <br /><br />So I say, err on the side of too little government, since the worst case scenario (anarchy) must remain a temporary thing by virtue of its own nature. Oppressive regimes, on the other hand, can last several generations.<br /><br />Put it this way: far more people have actually been killed by organized governments than were ever dreamed of being killed by anarchists. So which one is more dangerous? :-)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48306806627863184742010-11-06T09:25:08.443-07:002010-11-06T09:25:08.443-07:00Hey Vic,
I suppose that if the left margin is Mil...Hey Vic,<br /><br />I suppose that if the left margin is Milton Friedman... [insert winky emoticon]Clayton Littlejohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596200828134402805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11783706806542474862010-11-05T23:07:24.164-07:002010-11-05T23:07:24.164-07:00Isn't classical liberalism the dominant ideolo...Isn't classical liberalism the dominant ideology in both the major parties of America?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60126924422656256692010-11-05T18:56:25.852-07:002010-11-05T18:56:25.852-07:00What is, or is not, off the charts depends in larg...What is, or is not, off the charts depends in large part of the size of your chart.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82631275594574568052010-11-05T18:54:22.642-07:002010-11-05T18:54:22.642-07:00"I realize you grant this. But you have to ad..."I realize you grant this. But you have to admit that on the scale between Milton Freedman and John Maynard Keynes, Obama is off the charts to the Left."<br /><br />My initial reaction is that this is pure bull cuss. Milton Friedman is in favor of a tax hike and Obama continued a bailout plan that was Bush's creation. If we're talking economics, how is Obama off the charts to the Left?Clayton Littlejohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05596200828134402805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80790463955969679732010-11-05T17:46:59.063-07:002010-11-05T17:46:59.063-07:00Steve: Politicians give "breaks" to corp...Steve: Politicians give "breaks" to corporations like Wal-Mart because it's good for the local economy. Wal-Mart employs local citizens. Plus support service industries. Wal-Mart pays corporate taxes, and its employees pay income tax. <br /><br />VR: Which is fine, unless you are claiming to believe in laissez-faire capitalism. And similar remarks could be made on behalf of government largesse directed toward individuals.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2287992636209007212010-11-05T17:30:20.801-07:002010-11-05T17:30:20.801-07:00I'll put my cards on the table, if anyone care...I'll put my cards on the table, if anyone cares. <br />Instinctively, I'm left of centre on issues like taxation. I'm also pro-life and very conservative on sexual morality and freedom of expression. <br /><br />I *think* I'm what Americans would call a "Blue Dog"Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74851481747364943902010-11-05T17:24:09.666-07:002010-11-05T17:24:09.666-07:00Again - given that I live in a province that has h...Again - given that I live in a province that has had a Social Democratic, and then Socialist, Deputy First Minister, and in a country that has had Socialist Prime Ministers....<br /><br />say (against the evidence) Obama is a Socialist. What, of moral significance, follows? I'm lost...what's the worry?Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20263108160216045912010-11-05T17:24:04.150-07:002010-11-05T17:24:04.150-07:00Victor Reppert said...
"Do you think there i...Victor Reppert said...<br /><br />"Do you think there is no corporate welfare, and that all corporations get is tax breaks?"<br /><br />Politicians give "breaks" to corporations like Wal-Mart because it's good for the local economy. Wal-Mart employs local citizens. Plus support service industries. Wal-Mart pays corporate taxes, and its employees pay income tax. <br /><br />For more on Wal-Mart:<br /><br />http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1303587stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42899524634147274982010-11-05T17:20:25.398-07:002010-11-05T17:20:25.398-07:00OK, first of all - Obama isn't a socialist, or...OK, first of all - Obama isn't a socialist, or anything like a socialist. We've had socialist political parties in Britain, and in Ulster. Obama's Democratic Party would be too right wing for them all.<br /><br />Second - if you want to understand who destroyed conservative Politics in Britain, start with Thatcher. Then Blair, then Cameron. <br /><br />Thatcher had some incoherent ideas about Victorian Britain. She then systematically destroyed the civil society needed to support that sort of moral culture. (Look at what happened to public libraries, leisure centres, school playing fields and universities under Thatcher.)<br /><br />When I use conservative, I mean in the sense described by Roger Scruton, or something approximating to paleo-conservatism. And Scruton argues that market driven politics destroys this kind of conservatism.Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7202362279024416122010-11-05T17:00:04.185-07:002010-11-05T17:00:04.185-07:00Do you think there is no corporate welfare, and th...Do you think there is no corporate welfare, and that all corporations get is tax breaks? <br /><br />This site suggests otherwise. <br /><br />http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html<br /><br />See especially the welfare given to Wal-Mart.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22950550383993897132010-11-05T16:30:24.486-07:002010-11-05T16:30:24.486-07:00Victor Reppert said...
"Obama is in some way...Victor Reppert said...<br /><br />"Obama is in some ways further to the left than what we are accustomed to, but if he is closer to socialism in some ways, I think Republicans practice a form of socialism on behalf of big companies."<br /><br />That's a standard liberal trope. But cutting the corporate tax rate isn't corporate welfare. That isn't taking money from wage-earners and giving it to corporations. Rather, that's letting corporations keep more of their profits. <br /><br />And, frankly, I don't see the point of corporate/business taxes anyway: that's a disguised sales tax, since the company simply passes the cost along to the consumer.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76221782299685870722010-11-05T16:25:16.326-07:002010-11-05T16:25:16.326-07:00And because of the influence of corporate money an...And because of the influence of corporate money and lobbying in the political process, the Republican will never find the political will to disassociate themselves from corporate socialism. So if I ever left the Democratic party, I would skip right over the Republicans and join the Libertarians.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83708907827949753702010-11-05T16:21:28.682-07:002010-11-05T16:21:28.682-07:00Neither party advocates laissez-faire capitalism o...Neither party advocates laissez-faire capitalism or anything even close to it. Republicans pretend to, but actually, due to the influence of corporate money in the political system, they are actually corporatists, not conservatives. In other words, I don't think the right-left division of American politics is accurate. No one who really believes in laissez-faire capitalism would bail anyone out because they were too big to fail. That was done for the banks at the behest of a "conservative" Republican president, and it is the most socialistic thing anyone has ever done, Obama included. <br /><br />The potential for business failure is the heart of capitalism. That's the ostensible reason for holding back from regulating businesses. It's not as if conservatives think that business people aren't greedy bastards. It's because even greedy bastards will do some things right if they realize they can't compete and may fail if they do things wrong. But, if you have a situation where you can get so big that the government will keep you from failing no matter how badly you screw up, then the capitalist system has broken down in a big way. <br /><br />I don't actually think capitalist theory can be implemented any more than communist theory can be, which means that we are left with a bunch of retail decisions about which parts of our economic life should be in the hands of government, and which should be controlled by markets. <br /><br />Even if you think the bank bailouts were just necessary, you have to admit that under Republican leadership, we don't have laissez-faire capitalism, we have government at the beck and call of big business and their lobbyists. <br /><br />Obama is in some ways further to the left than what we are accustomed to, but if he is closer to socialism in some ways, I think Republicans practice a form of socialism on behalf of big companies. I think they exploit genuinely conservative viewpoints just as they exploit the moral concerns of conservatives over things like abortion, but they will go any direction that supports the corporate bottom line, and will sacrifice conservative principles as quickly as liberal principles to reach that end. <br /><br />Even the Tea Party movement started out with an anti-corporatist flavor to it, but then the corporations pumped a bunch of cash into it, and now its anti-corporatist roots are now largely forgotten. <br /><br />With the exception of people like Ron Paul, Republicans don't believe in laissez-faire capitalism, and should stop pretending to.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14413631505770398542010-11-05T15:55:57.872-07:002010-11-05T15:55:57.872-07:00Victor Reppert said:
---
I would just argue that i...Victor Reppert said:<br />---<br />I would just argue that if public education, Social Security and Medicare didn't make us socialist, then the health bill won't make us socialist either.<br />---<br /><br />Just because Obama isn't 100% socialist doesn't make his views any more palatable toward those who support something much closer to laissez faire capitalism.<br /><br />I realize you grant this. But you have to admit that on the scale between Milton Freedman and John Maynard Keynes, Obama is off the charts to the Left.<br /><br />That doesn't make him a Stalin. But how much of that is simply because he didn't get his own Politburo?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77328684241877918432010-11-05T14:59:14.907-07:002010-11-05T14:59:14.907-07:00Tongue in cheek? Could be in your case. But there ...Tongue in cheek? Could be in your case. But there are people (and that Commie Blaster website looked serious to me), who called Obama a Muslim and a communist. People do call Obama a communist or a socialist who have their tongues out of their cheeks. This reminds me a little of people in philosophy and theology who call everyone a "fundamentalist" who is at all to the right of them ideologically. <br /><br />It doesn't help political discourse. My point was to show, as best I could, how from the standpoint of a real self-described socialist, how un-socialist Obama really is. Now, does he support government intrusions into our economic life that conservatives think ill-advised, and will do more harm than good in the long run, surely. <br /><br />I would just argue that if public education, Social Security and Medicare didn't make us socialist, then the health bill won't make us socialist either.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1824476430262332302010-11-05T14:24:59.294-07:002010-11-05T14:24:59.294-07:00Bob Prokop writing:
"To Mr. Veale, You have ...Bob Prokop writing:<br /><br />"To Mr. Veale, You have no idea how ignorant (heck, STUPID) the vast majority of American political discourse is. People casually toss around terms like Nazi, Socialist, Bolshevist, Fascist, etc. without the slightest idea of what these words actually MEAN. The thoughtless (and I do mean THOUGHTLESS) equating of various politicians with Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini simply highlights the sorry state of historical education in this country."<br /><br />Not to mention the heckish stupidity of commenters who are too thick to detect the tongue-in-cheek intent of satirical remarks about Obama and Reppert. I guess we should chalk that up to the sorry state of Bob's education, as well as his knee-jerk stereotyping of conservatives.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18303371466673263542010-11-05T14:01:57.918-07:002010-11-05T14:01:57.918-07:00Bob Prokop writing:
To Mr. Veale, You have no ide...Bob Prokop writing:<br /><br />To Mr. Veale, You have no idea how ignorant (heck, STUPID) the vast majority of American political discourse is. People casually toss around terms like Nazi, Socialist, Bolshevist, Fascist, etc. without the slightest idea of what these words actually MEAN. The thoughtless (and I do mean THOUGHTLESS) equating of various politicians with Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini simply highlights the sorry state of historical education in this country.<br /><br />Even if one disagreed with Obama, comparing him to Stalin is like equating my bathtub to the Pacific Ocean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com