Socialism good or bad?

[Weather Man]

Sponsored

 

[Weather Man]

 

[Weather Man]

https://americanlookout.com/cnbc-hos...r-lives-video/


CNBC host Jim Cramer lauded the recent November jobs report showing the United States could walk away with any trade talks with China because of how well the U.S. economy is doing.
“People don’t want to say good things, and this is the best number I’ve ever seen in my life,” Cramer said on Friday about the report. Federal data showed the U.S. economy added 266,000 jobs and that unemployment dropped to 3.5%.

It isn't news to us, but the fact that a CNBC host is the one saying it makes it noteworthy to me. Are some of these liberal news outlet employees going to start getting backlash from their masters for reporting the truth? And then he goes on...


Cramer claimed the jobs numbers would have to get even better because the U.S. would win the trade war with China. “When we win the trade war, which you know that we’re going to win, now, because we have the better numbers, then they’re gonna have to put jobs here,” he said. “That’s what they’re going to have to do. We aren’t even talking about that yet. In the end, the Chinese are going to have to put jobs here.”
The host said the future of the U.S. economy looks bright no matter what happens with China trade talks. “I don’t see inflation. I don’t see recession,” Cramer said. “It doesn’t matter whether you hate him or like him, these are real numbers.”

 

[Timeless]

Typical distribute the wealth stuff....

Basically it comes down to who you feel is better at fueling the economy...people that rose to the top or government.

History has proven over the years government is terrible at everything. As a short term employee for state government I can assure you that if 50% of government workers were let go (excluding military) people would hardly notice. So much waste of labor and so many benefits it is ridiculous.

I have always felt more comfortable with giving the rich incentives to continue to invest in the economy. I feel it has proven to work better than giving the money to bureaucrats that have no clue and don't really care.

Let's face it, typically the wealthy are far more intelligent than your average bureaucrat and should be making the decisions.

If competition is removed due to this that is why we have government to break up monopolies.

 

[Weather Man]

 

[watisthis]

Basically it comes down to who you feel is better at fueling the economy...people that rose to the top or government.

History has proven over the years government is terrible at everything. As a short term employee for state government I can assure you that if 50% of government workers were let go (excluding military) people would hardly notice. So much waste of labor and so many benefits it is ridiculous.

I have always felt more comfortable with giving the rich incentives to continue to invest in the economy. I feel it has proven to work better than giving the money to bureaucrats that have no clue and don't really care.

Let's face it, typically the wealthy are far more intelligent than your average bureaucrat and should be making the decisions.

If competition is removed due to this that is why we have government to break up monopolies.

Republicans are servants to their ultra-rich masters. It has been this way for quite some time, a pattern that repeats itself - boom and bust cycles the ultra-rich are largely insulated from.

Major crashes tend to happen four generations apart. One thing that tends to get overlooked, preceding the declaration of independence in 1776 was the credit crisis of 1772. British looking to increase revenue implemented the Stamp Act, Townshend Act, and the Tea Act, the latter of which lead to the Boston Tea Party. The purpose of the Tea Act was to give the East India Co. full and unlimited access to the American Tea Trade and to exempt them from taxes on tea exported to the American colonies. It was the largest tax break in history and at the time most of the British government were shareholders.

1857 there was another major crash, banks across the country were failing and it was written that it was the worst financial condition the country had seen in its history. The civil war started just four years later.

In 1920 Warren Harding won in a landslide on the platform of "more business in government, less government in business", largely ignoring toothless laws like the Tillman Act of 1907 and Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910. With wealthy industrialists like Andrew Mellon serving as treasury secretary, they slashed taxes for the super-wealthy in America from 77% down to 24% with the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. Labor protection was rolled back, unions were busted, regulations were stripped. All that excess cash lead to a bubble in the stock market, which burst in 1929. The average worker's wages did not keep pace with productivity gains of the 1920s, and by 1929 production was outstripping demand. Hoover increased federal spending on infrastructure, but relied on private industry to provide relief and worried against creating a welfare state avoided providing direct relief to those hardest hit (unemployed and farmers).

FDR set us on a different course. It almost didn't happen, in 1933 the ultra-rich tried to set up a fascist government in the US by having two time Medal of Honor USMC General Smedley Butler lead a coup against him. Instead, Butler testified to the Committee on Un-American Activities. And thanks to FDR Social security was started in 1935. Labor gained more power. This paved the way for a strong and growing middle class in the '50s through the '70s.

While the ultra-rich agenda domestically had been temporarily defeated, internationally they were just getting started. With a growing concern of the spread of communism (and the nationalization of their business interests along with it), many US companies supported Nazi Germany in their fight against the Soviets (and some for ideological reasons): IBM, GE, Ford, GM, DuPont, Kodak, Standard Oil, Chase, JP Morgan and many others. Postwar, Eisenhower perhaps feeling guilty of the path he set us on warned of the military industrial complex. A path leading to the overthrow of sometimes democratically elected governments often in favor of fascists that were favorable to US business interests.

Domestically, we saw much social change in this time - the civil rights movement, anti-war protesters, etc. We also saw the creation of Medicare. 68% of Americans were working union jobs. The response to all of this was a corporate call to arms, which came in 1971. Just before Lewis Powell was confirmed to the Supreme Court by Nixon, he wrote a secret memo that outlined their strategy, which called on corporate leaders to launch an economic and ideological assault on high school & college campuses, the media, the courts, and Capitol hill. Over the past 48 years, we have been witnessing this plan in action.

1973 we started to see think tanks like Charles Koch Foundation (later changed to CATO institute), Heritage Foundation and others start to emerge. They recognized that the judiciary was the most important area to infiltrate, which they were pretty successful at. 1976 in Buckley vs. Valeo ruled that political money is speech. 1977 Supreme court overturned state restrictions on corporate political spending. 1982 the Federalist Society was founded to give a new generation an indoctrination to these types of legal interpretations that favor corporate interest. By 1987 the Fairness doctrine was abolished and paved the way for Rush Limbaugh. By 1996 Roger Ailes dream of GOP TV became a reality when Fox News came on the air.

So fast forward to today - taxes on the wealthy and corporations have never been lower. The military-industrial complex is roaring. Union participation in the private sector is down to about 6%. Wealth inequality is at 1929 levels (but this time around Americans are more highly leveraged with debt).

If you want to know which way the wind is blowing, look at the billionaire class. A study done in 2012 by the Tax Justice Center estimates they have $32 trillion stashed away, mostly in offshore tax shelters (hint hint Panama papers). They are hoarding cash so when things eventually break they will be able to buy up assets for pennies on the dollar. We didn't learn much from 2008, in fact, the derivatives market has ballooned to $1.2 quadrillion dollars ($1,200 trillion). When that blows up there is literally not enough money in the world to fix it, as it's about 21-22 times the world's money supply.

Change is possible, but with a completely complicit GOP (and many complicit Democrats), a 24hr propaganda news network, generations of people indoctrinated to corporate interests, stacked courts, and current Trump administration there is a very small chance real change will happen before the next crash comes.

We need to vote. We need to vote for people that are committed to overturning Citizens United and getting money out of politics (even if it means passing a bill like the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937). Getting the Fairness doctrine back in place. Willing to slash the defense budget. Increase taxes on the wealthy, expand Medicare to cover everyone, increase the minimum wage, rebuild infrastructure, don't deny science, and will pursue accountability for those that have sold this country out to make a buck. Anything less is a band-aid.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

The only way you can fix what you perceive to be wrong in America, is to teach Americans to be fiscally responsible at home.

Let's take your 32 trillion and 'redistribute' it. That's about 100k per man, woman, and child in the US. How long do you think that money will help them? Not long. The majority of them will run out and squander it on cars and crap not made in America doing little for our domestic economy. Then they'll still have no assets, and be broke again. We don't have a money problem in the US, we have a spending problem. How many broke millennials have the newest $1,200 iCrap everytime one drops? How many are driving new $50k dollar cars and haven't even bought a house yet? How many go on extravagant vacations every year and don't have $400 for an emergency?

The problem with Americans is, they need to tighten their fucking belts, stop buying shit they can't afford, and stop going into debt they'll never be able to pay off. It nice to have new stuff, but at what cost?https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/39450207

Oh, you say that 32 trillion is collected by the government to be doled out through social programs? Doesn't work long term. Social Security was a fucking awesome idea, except, oh, wait, within a generation it'll be insolvent. Fundamentally flawed. All those 'boomers' that are going to start sucking it dry all paid into it. What happened? Oh, higher taxes will fix it you say. You keep chipping away at the payers until nobody has anything, because the 'beneficiaries' spent it all buying Chinese crap, then where are we. Oh yeah, another one of those failed socialist/communist countries. No thanks.

Save your pennies, stop buying shit you can't afford, and don't use someone else's money unless it's cheaper than yours. Learn something from the rich, instead of just trying to steal what they have.

You have to fix the spending problem before you can fix the money problem.

 

[watisthis]

The only way you can fix what you perceive to be wrong in America, is to teach Americans to be fiscally responsible at home.

Let's take your 32 trillion and 'redistribute' it. That's about 100k per man, woman, and child in the US. How long do you think that money will help them? Not long. The majority of them will run out and squander it on cars and crap not made in America doing little for our domestic economy. Then they'll still have no assets, and be broke again. We don't have a money problem in the US, we have a spending problem. How many broke millennials have the newest $1,200 iCrap everytime one drops? How many are driving new $50k dollar cars and haven't even bought a house yet? How many go on extravagant vacations every year and don't have $400 for an emergency?

The problem with Americans is, they need to tighten their fucking belts, stop buying shit they can't afford, and stop going into debt they'll never be able to pay off. It nice to have new stuff, but at what cost?https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/39450207

Oh, you say that 32 trillion is collected by the government to be doled out through social programs? Doesn't work long term. Social Security was a fucking awesome idea, except, oh, wait, within a generation it'll be insolvent. Fundamentally flawed. All those 'boomers' that are going to start sucking it dry all paid into it. What happened? Oh, higher taxes will fix it you say. You keep chipping away at the payers until nobody has anything, because the 'beneficiaries' spent it all buying Chinese crap, then where are we. Oh yeah, another one of those failed socialist/communist countries. No thanks.

Save your pennies, stop buying shit you can't afford, and don't use someone else's money unless it's cheaper than yours. Learn something from the rich, instead of just trying to steal what they have.

You have to fix the spending problem before you can fix the money problem.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Imagine trying to justify what I just said by saying "Nah its the middle class and low incomes fault for spending more than they can afford."

The level of lack of comprehension and nativity hasn't been seen since the civil rights.

You don't know the first thing about Social Security either, lmao.



You're basically Paul Ryan, a man who thinks he knows what he's talking about but has ZERO first-hand knowledge or experience with what he is speaking on. Also, check that video description for facts.

Edit: SS is not insolvent. It's a great myth. Just ask economist Warren Mosler.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Imagine trying to justify what I just said by saying "Nah its the middle class and low incomes fault for spending more than they can afford."

The level of lack of comprehension and nativity hasn't been seen since the civil rights.

You don't know the first thing about Social Security either, lmao.



You're basically Paul Ryan, a man who thinks he knows what he's talking about but has ZERO first-hand knowledge or experience with what he is speaking on. Also, check that video description for facts.

Edit: SS is not insolvent. It's a great myth. Just ask economist Warren Mosler.

Yup, zero first hand knowledge. Generations of Americans who scrimped, saved, worked hard, and lived within their means to get ahead know nothing. Doesn't work, never happened.

You're so typical of what's wrong with the country today. Nothing is your fault. No personal responsibility. Always looking to blame someone, or something, else for your troubles. Pathetic.

 

[watisthis]

Dodging the problem of corruption and income equality by blaming the middle class and poor, this is pathetic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...t-for-us-individuals-families-and-households/

Your opinions are not facts, hell you don't even try to provide facts (any source of data) supporting your opinions.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

Dodging the problem of corruption and income equality by blaming the middle class and poor, this is pathetic.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...t-for-us-individuals-families-and-households/

Your opinions are not facts, hell you don't even try to provide facts (any source of data) supporting your opinions.

Your 'facts' are a joke, just like you. All leftist propaganda from leftist sources.

Two posts up I posted a link from the USA Today about how the average American spends $18k a year on crap they don't need. To make it simple for you, Mr. Economist, $18k a year, invested every year for let's say 40 years to represent the average person's working life, even at a paltry 4.00% return, will net you about $1.8 million dollars.

If the average American had $1.8M in savings when they retired, you wouldn't need Social Security, welfare, etc. The government can't save the average 'us' from ourselves. I think it's funny how you keep going on about corruption also. And the solution is more legislation, even though the volumes of laws we have already are basically worthless. Right.

Your are the product of a propaganda machine, and I find it sad that you don't think the average American is capable of being, or deserves to be, successful on their own.

 

[Rover]

Your 'facts' are a joke, just like you. All leftist propaganda from leftist sources.

Two posts up I posted a link from the USA Today about how the average American spends $18k a year on crap they don't need. To make it simple for you, Mr. Economist, $18k a year, invested every year for let's say 40 years to represent the average person's working life, even at a paltry 4.00% return, will net you about $1.8 million dollars.

If the average American had $1.8M in savings when they retired, you wouldn't need Social Security, welfare, etc. The government can't save the average 'us' from ourselves. I think it's funny how you keep going on about corruption also. And the solution is more legislation, even though the volumes of laws we have already are basically worthless. Right.

Your are the product of a propaganda machine, and I find it sad that you don't think the average American is capable of, or deserves to be, successful on their own.

I am successful on my own. I owe my well being, my home, my cars, my health insurance, my job, my financial security all to myself and the great country of the USA which gave me the opportunity to bust my ass earning it for the last 50 years. FU socialistic Democratic bastards and God Bless the USA.

 

[watisthis]

Your 'facts' are a joke, just like you. All leftist propaganda from leftist sources.

Two posts up I posted a link from the USA Today about how the average American spends $18k a year on crap they don't need. To make it simple for you, Mr. Economist, $18k a year, invested every year for let's say 40 years to represent the average person's working life, even at a paltry 4.00% return, will net you about $1.8 million dollars.

If the average American had $1.8M in savings when they retired, you wouldn't need Social Security, welfare, etc. The government can't save the average 'us' from ourselves. I think it's funny how you keep going on about corruption also. And the solution is more legislation, even though the volumes of laws we have already are basically worthless. Right.

Your are the product of a propaganda machine, and I find it sad that you don't think the average American is capable of, or deserves to be, successful on their own.

I agree people do spend too much on dumb shit, I already stated that.

I will quote myself from a previous post "In capitalism, companies compete with each other to get the highest profit margin possible. In order to get the highest profit margin possible, they must keep their costs as low as possible. Labor is a cost. Ergo, the goal is to pay as low as possible for employees. There is essentially a race for the bottom for who can pay their employees the least while still being productive.

This race for lowest production costs possible means things like automation, changing full-time employees to contract/temp work, outsourcing, nixing things like retirement pensions, fighting against minimum wage increases, anything to drive down this cost.

So if you consider the above then think about this: Capitalism depends on consumption, i.e. people buying things. People need to buy the basics, stuff like food and shelter. But capitalism also needs them to buy things like iPads, purses, skateboards, etc. Basically, people need disposable income.

So it looks to me like there is a conflict between the need for lowest labor costs possible and the need for consumers to spend their income. But wait it gets better! They found the solution. Debt. Rich people loan poor people money with interest to buy all that stuff. Medical debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, car loan debt, credit card debt, etc.

As a result of this race to the lowest production cost possible, wages aren't going up despite very low unemployment. It also why you hear about how Americans don't have enough saved to cover a $400 emergency. It's not that wages aren't going up because capitalism is failing, on the contrary, wages aren't going up because capitalism is achieving its goal of streamlined low-cost production extremely well. Wages are essentially becoming as optimized as they can get. It's also why there are so many "Millenials kill x industry" stories, categories of products and services are being "killed off" because they depend on a level of disposable income that the newest generations just simply do not have.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ism-s-income-inequality-is-national-emergency Ray fucking Dalio is even like whoa now maybe shit is out of hand here. Imagine a billionaire telling us plebians that we, in fact, are getting shit on.

Welcome to Corporatism"


Did you bother to learn what the Gini-coefficient is?


The problem with income inequality is that it leads to wealth inequality.

That's bad news because it means the end of capitalism!

Capitalism works because it's a democratic meritocracy. Your dollar and my dollar are the same, so if we buy the same pair of pants it spends the same. If we buy from different stores due to our individual preferences the market diversifies, if a new store opens up and we both start going there for pants then the previous stores must change or be outcompeted and lose.

But what happens when I have ten times the money you do? Worse still, what if you have no money at all? Your preferences cease to be represented in the market! What happens as wealth and income concentrate is that the preferences of the poor cease to be considered in the marketplace. That's OK if it's only a small segment of society dropping out of a very large market like pants.

But what about having it applied to other areas? Housing, for example, is a common issue. Property Developers love to build expensive luxury apartments and condos. Why? Because that reflects the preferences of people who can afford to buy the property. But when you look at the end consumer, they are usually renters and prefer cheaper dwellings that match their wages. The renter's preferences are ignored by the market, resulting in an oversupply of expensive apartments, and an undersupply of cheaper dwellings. So the market is damaged by inequality. It ceases to be democratic, and so it can often start to become prone to instability and error as 'producers' (e.g. property purchasers) mistakenly favor the variables that don't matter as much to 'consumers' (e.g. renters).

The other angle of attack I'll use is the idea that it's justified.

In order to do this, I'm going to point to the difference between income variance and income inequality. If the market were a true meritocracy we would expect that it would follow a roughly normal distribution. Intelligence, personality traits, etc. are roughly normal in the population, so things like 'hard work' and 'smarts' should be too. If the market is giving out pay in accord with merit, then it should fit roughly with other estimates of merit right?

And that gives us income variance.

I'll use the example of a bank.

The janitor is most likely below average on a variety of traits, education, drive or whatever. They earn a wage that is rough as many standard deviations from the mean wage as an imaginary summary of their earning potential relevant traits is from the population mean. The teller is probably about average. Average smarts, average drive, average wage.The branch manager probably worked a little harder, is probably a bit smarter and/or better educated and earns an equally above average wage. The issue comes in when we try to take a major shareholder in that bank and compare them on the same scale. Their income is potentially dozens of standard deviations above the mean!

Now logically this could mean that their meritorious traits are superhuman! If we use an analogy, Usain Bolt is probably around two standard deviations above average for running. To be ten standard deviations above the mean for running they'd have to be The Flash. Not even on the same scale.

What we see with income inequality is that there is this ridiculously wide gulf between the mean earner and the top earners. This means one of three things: Either these individuals have superhuman merit. Seriously, we should just literally be bowing before these deity-class comic book-level earners. Or they're cheating the system somehow, and not actually earning that much but finding ways to defraud the system and steal their money. Or, as is much more likely, it's just a colossal market error, and just kinda fuckin' stupid.

In two out of those three cases, income inequality is not justified. Meaning that it's an issue, and we have no moral obligation to let these people hold onto their money.

 

[watisthis]

I am successful on my own. I owe my well being, my home, my cars, my health insurance, my job, my financial security all to myself and the great country of the USA which gave me the opportunity to bust my ass earning it for the last 50 years. FU socialistic Democratic bastards and God Bless the USA.

Yeah, me too and I fought for this country 6 times overseas over the course of 12 years. Yet, here I am still fighting for the less fortunate. I'm glad things worked out for you as well as they have and I hope you continue to prosper.

However, the data shows a growing disparity in income equality. Will this affect everyone? Of course not, but it is my duty as an American to help the less fortunate, the ones who do not have the means or the voice to help themselves.

I've done the best I can to relay unbiased facts and sometimes biased opinions through my posts here and in the other thread about the wealth tax.

Bless you and yours; enjoy your holidays.

 

[2018OFPP1?2]

I am successful on my own. I owe my well being, my home, my cars, my health insurance, my job, my financial security all to myself and the great country of the USA which gave me the opportunity to bust my ass earning it for the last 50 years. FU socialistic Democratic bastards and God Bless the USA.

Exactly my point. But we must be a fluke, cause it shouldn't be possible acording to our socialist friend.

Sponsored