What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

22% of America is now Socialist (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
It Appears That Bill Maher Doesn't Understand What Socialism Actually Is


Bill Maher tells us all that a large number of young Americans like socialism. In doing so Bill Maher makes plain that he doesn’t actually know what socialism is. He conflates capitalism with free markets and socialism as being against both, and that’s simply not what the word means at all. Effectively, Maher is making the same mistake Bernie Sanders is: confusing socialism with social democracy.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders has referred to himself as a democratic socialist (social democrat) from the jump. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth said:
When has capitalism not failed?  Every system fails eventually.  
Click to expand...
Thing is capitalism seems to be the natural order, when capitalism fails.... it either returns or is replaced by socialism.... which then fails and is replaced by capitalism Nowhere has socialism been the permanent order of things such that it has survived more than one failure.

 
Chaka said:
I know, your article apparently didn't know that about him.  I'm going to go with social democracy being whatever Bernie says it is.  If he agrees with Bill Maher then that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...
I don't think Sanders agreed with Maher about anything, Maher was merely pointing to Sanders as an explanation for the poll. But again Sanders's platform is not socialism.

 
The Third Way


In the age of late and reflexive modernity and post scarcity economy, the political science is being transformed. Giddens notes that there is a possibility that "life politics" (the politics of self-actualisation) may become more visible than "emancipatory politics" (the politics of inequality); that new social movements may lead to more social change than political parties; and that the reflexive project of the self and changes in gender and sexual relations may lead the way, via the "democratisation of democracy", to a new era of Habermasian "dialogic democracy" in which differences are settled, and practices ordered, through discourse rather than violence or the commands of authority.[12]

Giddens, relying on his past familiar themes of reflexivity and system integration, which places people into new relations of trust and dependency with each other and their governments, argues that the political concepts of 'left' and 'right' are now breaking down, as a result of many factors, most centrally the absence of a clear alternative to capitalism and the eclipse of political opportunities based on the social class in favour of those based on lifestyle choices.

In his most recent works, Giddens moves away from explaining how things are to the more demanding attempt of advocacy about how they ought to be. In "Beyond Left and Right" (1994) Giddens criticises market socialism and constructs a six-point framework for a reconstituted radical politics:[12]

  1. repair damaged solidarities
  2. recognise the centrality of life politics
  3. accept that active trust implies generative politics
  4. embrace dialogic democracy
  5. rethink the welfare state
  6. confront violence
The Third Way (1998) provides the framework within which the 'third way' - which Giddens also terms the 'radical centre'[18] - is justified. In addition, The Third Way supplies a broad range of policy proposals aimed at what Giddens calls the 'progressive centre-left' in British politics. According to Giddens:


“


"the overall aim of third way politics should be to help citizens pilot their way through the major revolutions of our time: globalisation, transformations in personal life and our relationship to nature".[12]

”

Giddens remains fairly optimistic about the future of humanity:


“


"There is no single agent, group or movement that, as Marx's proletariat was supposed to do, can carry the hopes of humanity, but there are many points of political engagement which offer good cause for optimism".[12] (Beyond Left and Right)


”

Giddens discards the possibility of a single, comprehensive, all-connecting ideology or political programme. Instead he advocates going after the 'small pictures', ones people can directly affect at their home, workplace or local community. This, to Giddens, is a difference between pointless utopianism and useful utopian realism,[3] which he defines as envisaging "alternative futures whose very propagation might help them be realised".[12] (The Consequences of Modernity). By 'utopian' he means that this is something new and extraordinary, and by 'realistic' he stresses that this idea is rooted in the existing social processes and can be viewed as their simple extrapolation. Such a future has at its centre a more socialised, demilitarised and planetary-caring global world order variously articulated within green, women's and peace movements, and within the wider democratic movement.[12]
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thing is capitalism seems to be the natural order, when capitalism fails.... it either returns or is replaced by socialism.... which then fails and is replaced by capitalism Nowhere has socialism been the permanent order of things such that it has survived more than one failure.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is powerful because it relies on the creativity and risk-taking of a huge number of people, that's something a state economy cannot match.  There's no alternative to capitalism, all we can do it try to use it to benefit everyone.

 
cstu said:
Capitalism is powerful because it relies on the creativity and risk-taking of a huge number of people, that's something a state economy cannot match.  There's no alternative to capitalism, all we can do it try to use it to benefit everyone.
Click to expand...
 Not to mention it encourages people to get off their ### and work...a decent portion of the population is inherently lazy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
Capitalism is powerful because it relies on the creativity and risk-taking of a huge number of people, that's something a state economy cannot match.  There's no alternative to capitalism, all we can do it try to use it to benefit everyone.
Click to expand...
There are lots of benefits from capitalism. Problem is, it's not perfect. I wouldn't replace capitalism with anything else, but the flaws need to be addressed, or else they grow to a point where society grows so frustrated they reject capitalism. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thing is capitalism seems to be the natural order, when capitalism fails.... it either returns or is replaced by socialism.... which then fails and is replaced by capitalism Nowhere has socialism been the permanent order of things such that it has survived more than one failure.
Click to expand...
Capitalism is an idea.  In theory, basically every man for himself.  So I guess it's the basest of systems.  I mean, the slave trade was capitalist.  Meth trade is capitalist.  It is never as pure as the black market.  

 
Politician Spock said:
There are lots of benefits from capitalism. Problem is, it's not perfect. I wouldn't replace capitalism with anything else, but the flaws need to be addressed, or else they grow to a point where society grows so frustrated they reject capitalism. 
Click to expand...
Exactly and I think that's why Bernie gained so much steam.  Capitalism is great until the elite get all the cash (which they eventually always do), and then it's pitchfork time. 

 
Sabertooth said:
Capitalism is an idea.  In theory, basically every man for himself.  So I guess it's the basest of systems.  I mean, the slave trade was capitalist.  Meth trade is capitalist.  It is never as pure as the black market.  
Click to expand...
See cstu's comment above, I think he put it quite aptly.

I will add that yes the man who invents a vaccine gets rewarded quite handsomely but then he also has helped many people.  There are other examples.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
See cstu's comment above, I think he put it quite aptly.

I will add that yes the man who invents a vaccine gets rewarded quite handsomely but then he also has helped many people.  There are other examples.
Click to expand...
At which point a jack### like Martin Shkreli buys the pharmaceutical company and jacks up the price of the life saving vaccine by 1000% effectively sentencing people to die.

 
Chaka said:
At which point a jack### like Martin Shkreli buys the pharmaceutical company and jacks up the price of the life saving vaccine by 1000% effectively sentencing people to die.
Click to expand...
However you don't sound like a socialist to me either. You don't propose the government seize the pharmaceutical industry, do you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp said:
Sabertooth said:
Exactly and I think that's why Bernie gained so much steam.  Capitalism is great until the elite get all the cash (which they eventually always do), and then it's pitchfork time. 
Click to expand...
This is a fallacy created and perpetuated by the lazy.  Most millionaires in this country are self made. 

When I say most, I mean it's not even close.

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html
Click to expand...
I think Sabertooth is talking about the elite...not millionaires.  He's talking about the billionaires many times over.

 
Chaka said:
At which point a jack### like Martin Shkreli buys the pharmaceutical company and jacks up the price of the life saving vaccine by 1000% effectively sentencing people to die.
Click to expand...
- eta - As I understand it Shkrell sounds like he is going to prison? We can throw in companies like Enron, Thanos... we see companies be basically shells for the ownership. But the owners do own them. I think we are nearly all social democrats these days.... but not socialists. The closest thing I have heard to socialism has been .... Donald Trump. Yes, he's not a socialist but he is a nationalist and he has explicitly stated he will not permit US companies to leave. The only way I can imagine him doing this is if he seized them or detained them under government control.

Bernie Sanders did used to call himself a 'socialist.' The Liberty Union Party was and is just that, actually socialist. But my sense is that by the time he was mayor of Burlington he was in practice and belief (his adoration of Debs aside) a social democrat, that is we see using our democracy as a means to assign socially beneficial acquired rights or just benefits as a means of ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare. That's a concept from 1789 at least and to me it is not at all at odds with capitalism and in fact the 'democracy' is built in and remains the most important element. I do think that socialism and democracy are incompatible though, while they can possibly be allowed to exist side by side it is completely unworkable..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
However you don't sound like a socialist to me either. You don't propose the government seize the pharmaceutical industry, do you?
Click to expand...
Not a socialist at all, not even a social democrat. I'm a small business owner in California getting screwed with taxes but I would be all for a single payer health system where a patient could not be denied life saving drugs.

 
msommer said:
I found this article interesting
Click to expand...
This is one of the primary reasons I scoff at the "economy is doing better than ever" shtick throw out there along side the "the stock market is skyrocketing" as if the former is true because of the latter.  The former is a platitude at best and the latter really has no bearing on day to day living of most people in this country.  Their pay, it's stagnation, and their view of day to day cash flow is what should be important when we talk about the economy in the terms of deteriorating/improving/booming etc

 
Chaka said:
At which point a jack### like Martin Shkreli buys the pharmaceutical company and jacks up the price of the life saving vaccine by 1000% effectively sentencing people to die.
Click to expand...
Yeah captilism!

The other downside of capitalism is goods are made as cheaply as possible.  #### just breaks left and right.  Cheaper materials get used in construction, and suddenly you have washing machines that last 18 months instead of 18 years.  I just want to buy something that works once in a while

 
I'm interested in hearing some folks' theories about why the wealthiest business owners, entrepreneurs, etc., are, in recent years, 'holding' their capital/profits, instead of reinvesting it in the U.S./U.S. economy. Not that they have to/are required to do this, but...historically and in theory, that's one of the 'backbeats' of a capitalist-based economy paired with our Republic - is it not generally considered a 'system' by which the economy continues to feed itself, and perpetuate itself as folks cycle up through the layers? As in: as folks work their way up to the top eventually get there, some continue to grow their own businesses, they all save and invest in themselves of course, but additionally, some branch out into new and different things, some invest in cottage industries, others provide capital for up and coming entrepreneurs/businesses?

What, in your opinion, is causing those at the top to 'hold' or hoard their wealth rather than disperse/reinvest it, as, in theory, they are supposed to, and have in the past?

Where did the incentive/drive/ambition go to follow that path? What could be causing it? Why do people some people seem to think primarily that they should be forced to do so if they're not, rather than investigating the 'why' behind the behavior?

My own family is wealthy and successful in a variety of areas, and all by their own means and hard work. My personal opinion on this, based on what my family members and those similar associates of theirs in the same boat is that they are nervous about various things; they profess a 'lack of confidence' with legislators, both in their competence and experience in the private sector...personally I think this is a huge problem - as government beaurocracy expands in size as well as reach, more and more we have people with no 'real world' experience making impactful decisions about a variety of things, including markets and the economy, making decisions with little knowledge and less insight about ong and short term effects, and potential future consequences...

President Obama has many a blemish, IMO, as does Hilary, as does Trump. We're truly at an all-time low when it comes to government and politics, IMO, and the previous administration wasn't much better, but how can anyone defend President Obama/Hilary in regards to the following statement:

If President Obama and Donald Trump engaged in a debate strictly about business and the economy...if Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump were to engage in a debate strictly about business and the economy, how would either the President or Hilary even be able to have a reasonably informed discussion, much less a credible debate? Again, strictly about business and the economy...I have reasonable doubt they'd even be able to have a reasonable conversation with me, much less some of the Members here who have much more knowledge than I do about the subject.

I'm all ears...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One factor is that they can borrow money at effectively zero percent interest. Corporations sitting on Billions in cash are borrowing to do stock buybacks that drive up shareholder value. Corporate executives are largely compensated in stock so this is extremely profitable for them. This is a fairly unusual environment for interest rates though even in higher interest rate periods you saw some of the same strategies. 

You also have the rise of the MNCs. It's getting harder to classify companies by their country of origin and the modern Plutocracy is largely following suit. I highly recommend the book Plutocracts by Chrystia Freeland for an up close look at how the modern ultra-wealthy view themselves as global citizens. 

 
The national economy and the global economy are soft, borrowing is weak, and we are due a recession in the next few years.

Everything is just too uncertain to be investing in a business unless you are sure to get a quick return.

i don't think it has much to do with politics.

 
nittanylion said:
I'm interested in hearing some folks' theories about why the wealthiest business owners, entrepreneurs, etc., are, in recent years, 'holding' their capital/profits, instead of reinvesting it in the U.S./U.S. economy. Not that they have to/are required to do this, but...historically and in theory, that's one of the 'backbeats' of a capitalist-based economy paired with our Republic - is it not generally considered a 'system' by which the economy continues to feed itself, and perpetuate itself as folks cycle up through the layers? As in: as folks work their way up to the top eventually get there, some continue to grow their own businesses, they all save and invest in themselves of course, but additionally, some branch out into new and different things, some invest in cottage industries, others provide capital for up and coming entrepreneurs/businesses?

What, in your opinion, is causing those at the top to 'hold' or hoard their wealth rather than disperse/reinvest it, as, in theory, they are supposed to, and have in the past?

Where did the incentive/drive/ambition go to follow that path? What could be causing it? Why do people some people seem to think primarily that they should be forced to do so if they're not, rather than investigating the 'why' behind the behavior?

My own family is wealthy and successful in a variety of areas, and all by their own means and hard work. My personal opinion on this, based on what my family members and those similar associates of theirs in the same boat is that they are nervous about various things; they profess a 'lack of confidence' with legislators, both in their competence and experience in the private sector...personally I think this is a huge problem - as government beaurocracy expands in size as well as reach, more and more we have people with no 'real world' experience making impactful decisions about a variety of things, including markets and the economy, making decisions with little knowledge and less insight about ong and short term effects, and potential future consequences...

President Obama has many a blemish, IMO, as does Hilary, as does Trump. We're truly at an all-time low when it comes to government and politics, IMO, and the previous administration wasn't much better, but how can anyone defend President Obama/Hilary in regards to the following statement:

If President Obama and Donald Trump engaged in a debate strictly about business and the economy...if Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump were to engage in a debate strictly about business and the economy, how would either the President or Hilary even be able to have a reasonably informed discussion, much less a credible debate? Again, strictly about business and the economy...I have reasonable doubt they'd even be able to have a reasonable conversation with me, much less some of the Members here who have much more knowledge than I do about the subject.

I'm all ears...
Click to expand...
What your family is telling you is what I am hearing/experiencing. There was and still is a lack of confidence in government - mainly federal (read Obama) but at all levels. A lot of mom & pop accounts got wiped out in the downturn at the end of the Bush Presidency and they aren't coming back. This may be a bigger concern than the wealthiest business owners sitting on the sidelines.

Until recently certain sectors of the stock market were under-performing and people like myself who invest mainly in resource stocks were on the sidelines because we were in the down part of the cycle.

Another reason is China. I haven't seen a significant Chinese presence at an investor show in eight years.

Another reason is regulation - it sucks. (I deal with higher-risk penny stocks.) If I am in the U.S. and I want to buy a penny stock (and that is where the biggest percentage gains can be made IMO), I have to sign a hold harmless agreement with the clearing house - every time I buy! And restricted shares? I have to send them to Royal Bank of Canada to get restrictions lifted. The U.S. clearing houses won't touch them at all! Too many regulations, too much risk for them.

I lost a bunch of money, but after the crash eight years ago. I saw the crash coming, got out, but then got back in too soon and because of a bunch of deaths in the family and some health issues I wasn't paying attention and got hammered. I've made a little over half of what I lost back, but there are way too many roadblocks for the average investor in the U.S.

 
From what I SEE & not what I hear from the current administration, the economy is weak.   The unemployment number is a complete fabrication & jobs are hard to come by. 

Walmart just layed off 15,000 or so & so have a lot of companies.  You won't get the state of the union in the state of the union address.  The ACA has also forced companies to put a lot of people on part time.

Sorry this is a socialist thread, sooooooooooooo,  it doesn't work & never has although truly lazy people seem to revel in it.

 
nittanylion said:
I'm interested in hearing some folks' theories about why the wealthiest business owners, entrepreneurs, etc., are, in recent years, 'holding' their capital/profits, instead of reinvesting it in the U.S./U.S. economy. Not that they have to/are required to do this, but...historically and in theory, that's one of the 'backbeats' of a capitalist-based economy paired with our Republic - is it not generally considered a 'system' by which the economy continues to feed itself, and perpetuate itself as folks cycle up through the layers? As in: as folks work their way up to the top eventually get there, some continue to grow their own businesses, they all save and invest in themselves of course, but additionally, some branch out into new and different things, some invest in cottage industries, others provide capital for up and coming entrepreneurs/businesses?

What, in your opinion, is causing those at the top to 'hold' or hoard their wealth rather than disperse/reinvest it, as, in theory, they are supposed to, and have in the past?

Where did the incentive/drive/ambition go to follow that path? What could be causing it? Why do people some people seem to think primarily that they should be forced to do so if they're not, rather than investigating the 'why' behind the behavior?

My own family is wealthy and successful in a variety of areas, and all by their own means and hard work. My personal opinion on this, based on what my family members and those similar associates of theirs in the same boat is that they are nervous about various things; they profess a 'lack of confidence' with legislators, both in their competence and experience in the private sector...personally I think this is a huge problem - as government beaurocracy expands in size as well as reach, more and more we have people with no 'real world' experience making impactful decisions about a variety of things, including markets and the economy, making decisions with little knowledge and less insight about ong and short term effects, and potential future consequences...

President Obama has many a blemish, IMO, as does Hilary, as does Trump. We're truly at an all-time low when it comes to government and politics, IMO, and the previous administration wasn't much better, but how can anyone defend President Obama/Hilary in regards to the following statement:

If President Obama and Donald Trump engaged in a debate strictly about business and the economy...if Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump were to engage in a debate strictly about business and the economy, how would either the President or Hilary even be able to have a reasonably informed discussion, much less a credible debate? Again, strictly about business and the economy...I have reasonable doubt they'd even be able to have a reasonable conversation with me, much less some of the Members here who have much more knowledge than I do about the subject.

I'm all ears...
Click to expand...
Human nature for the most part.  Though, I'm not sure they are holding it as much as putting it overseas.  They'll make more over there and quite frankly, our economy is a clown show.  We use antiquated means to evaluate our economy.  We have not evolved in our evaluations.  We don't live by the gold standard anymore, yet we continue to to use economic principles based on the gold standard.

 
The Commish said:
Human nature for the most part.  Though, I'm not sure they are holding it as much as putting it overseas.  They'll make more over there and quite frankly, our economy is a clown show.  We use antiquated means to evaluate our economy.  We have not evolved in our evaluations.  We don't live by the gold standard anymore, yet we continue to to use economic principles based on the gold standard.
Click to expand...
I doubt the super rich are putting much money overseas.

 
Most of these people are not really socialists. They are populist. If you explain socialism to them without labels then most would reject it. Populism has fueled both the Trump and Sanders campaigns. Backing of which largely depends on your pre disposition of political leanings. Actual well thought out ideas of governance are increasingly becoming rare among the general public. It is a scary thing.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Should The "Passport Bros" Phenomenon Be Seen As Toxic Or Merely The Exercise Of Free Will? (13/30)
Replies
8
Views
2K
El Floppo
El Floppo
Joe Bryant
  • Locked
Why I believe in America
Replies
37
Views
2K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Ministry of Pain
America 2.0 Reopening the Country
2
Replies
78
Views
4K
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top