News America's aversion to socialism ?

[MarcoD]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep.

Well, I agree too. We ended here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_Elenchi" reason.)

 

[russ_watters]

I see Norway has hate speech (Article 135) and blasphemy laws (Article 142) on the books, of all things. More democratic? Give me a break.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitorin.../national_legal_measures/norway/Norway_SR.pdf

Meh - the "democracy index" is so subjective it isn't worth getting upset about. For example, it downgraded France and a couple of others due in part to dissent. But free exercise of dissent is, to Americans, one of the highest/most sacred manifestations of Democracy!

They also put some weight into voter turnout. Voter turnout can be low for several reasons, not all of them bad. But regardless of the reason, choosing not to vote could still be seen as exercising a freedom (see: dictatorships with 100% voter turnout). I see nothing inherently undemocratic about it.

What tickles me is to see the socialists/communists all in a twitter about "The Democracy Index" while simultaneously saying government ownership/control is such a positive thing. By scoring in such a way as the acknowledged most socialist countries are most "free" it almost seems designed to prove that in practice socialism = freedom. I suppose perhaps it's a matter of connotation: "freedom" has a very positive connotation, so it must be made to apply to one's favored political/economic system.

 

[russ_watters]

Jefferson used the term in the Declaration. I've seen subtantial discussion about the meaning of inalienability in the philosophy journals about just the conflict you describe, but it seems clear to me: Certain rights are granted to each "by their creator", or if you like they are yours by virtue of being human. The fact that someone might deprive you of their agency by force does not make them any less inalienable. Later Jefferson goes on to add the practicality: "to secure these rights, government are instituted among men." - some government, not necessarily the federal government.

It appears to me that the idea was important enough to put in a Bill of Rights to secure those rights.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, too, Oltz and mheslep. Our government was never meant to be more than a cooperative collective between the states for very limited purpose.

I might say "originally", but I wouldn't say "never". Originally, we had the Articles of Confederation, which failed and were replaced.

 

[Naty1]

Why aversion to socialism:

(a) look at the history of socialism, hardly encouraging,
(b) Obummer,
(c) profit motive produces better results,
(d) American is a republican form of government,
(e) Americans favor liberty over all,
(f) Socialism saps individual inititive (but stimulates sale of Vodka),
(g) Americans are winners (well, we will be again after November 2012)

 

[WhoWee]

Why aversion to socialism:

(a) look at the history of socialism, hardly encouraging,
(b) Obummer,
(c) profit motive produces better results,
(d) American is a republican form of government,
(e) Americans favor liberty over all,
(f) Socialism saps individual inititive (but stimulates sale of Vodka),
(g) Americans are winners (well, we will be again after November 2012)

Here's some background music for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuPJzzcV6jA

 

[ginru]

I like what someone mentioned on here a while back, essentially saying that socialism works best under a family model, in which there's the highest degree of trust and cooperation amongst people for sharing resources. I don't think we're very good at things related to family trust and cooperation as for many Americans, individualism outweighs group conformity.

Also, it seems many socialist movements make the mistake of trying to take over a national government to force the system on a large number of people that don't share the trust necessary to support it. Perhaps the system is best suited to working within a smaller group of devoted members (religious order, fraternity, cult, village, etc.) and should only start as grassroots movements that focus mostly on incentive-based methods.

Of course the overall struggle is in finding the ideal balance between cooperation and competition, but our culture is much more geared for competition. I think it would take a serious cultural shift for socialism to be embraced on a large scale here.

 

[mheslep]

I like what someone mentioned on here a while back, essentially saying that socialism works best under a family model, in which there's the highest degree of trust and cooperation amongst people for sharing resources. ...

One of the first things observed about a family is small size; a family must necessarily be so. It seems to me that one of the first things necessary then for redistribution of, well, anything is a small government. Socialists ought to be looking to abolish the federal government and falling back to state and local governments with a loose association as in Europe. Perhaps that is why the welfare state has not been always disastrous in Europe (Greece aside) and where particularly mistaken parts of the welfare state have been rolled back. When mandated by the US federal government (Medicare, Medicaid, Aid to Families, etc) across 300 million socialism does have an egregious record - poor service, or dependency, or cost explosion, or all three.

We don't see socialists looking to reduce government though, which is why I believe socialism is really about power and control, the age old two step.

 

[dacruick]

We don't see socialists looking to reduce government though, which is why I believe socialism is really about power and control, the age old two step.

socialism imlpies a larger and more involved government. It implies higher taxes, and therefore a more complex governmental infrastructure to properly distribute those funds.

I don't have too great a grasp on US politics (I'm Canadian), but I don't think socialism fits the culture. However I do believe that the US government is too right wing, mostly in terms of the banking system, or lack thereof. You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

 

[Naty1]

Whowee: and some for you here, from England:
game,set,match!




World power swings back to America

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...44646/World-power-swings-back-to-America.html

The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus... ...The "shale gas revolution" that has turned America into the world’s number one producer of natural gas, ahead of Russia...

US will also be connected via a major new pipeline to Canada, also an energy exporter! Things are about to change! Together with North Slope Alaska oil, we'll be good for another 200 years. Time for economical energy alternatives to be developed.

 

[Naty1]

I don't have too great a grasp on US politics (I'm Canadian)... You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example...up to 7,000 pages and still being expanded I think.

What your post misses is that the US subprime mess was a result of intentional legislatition by Chris Dodd (CT),Barney Frank (Mass) (two of the most liberal kooks in the US Senate) Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to FORCE banks to lend to those who could not afford them...those loans were transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government sponsored entities now in government receivorship) where US taxpayers now foot the bill and all this was enforced by the FHA and lawyers who sued banks that did not make sufficient such loans...like Barak Hussein Obama when he workd for the now defunct ACORN!

True, several big financial instutions piled on and issued complex packages of these loans commonly referred to a derivatives...Ratings agencies also capitulated and did not do their jobs.

From what I have heard Canada has made better progress so far in backing away from the Nannie state that has the US...so you are doing better...we'll catch up next administration!

"It implies higher taxes, and therefore a more complex governmental infrastructure to properly distribute those funds."

The term you seek is "freeloaders" like Castro's friends, Ghadaffi's friends and tribe, Chavez's friends, Putin's friends,etc,etc,etc

 

[mheslep]

You don't need to be a genius to figure out that unregulated banking is a terrible idea.

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example.

dacruick - Yes US banks are heavily regulated, and were before the financial crisis. I'm curious, could you identify any particular source for that view, or is just a general take from the general media?

 

[mheslep]

US will also be connected via a major new pipeline to Canada, also an energy exporter! .

The http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/188893-overnight-energy" has not yet been approved though I expect it will be. However, if Obama is reelected I think it will later be killed or slow walked to death.

 

[Naty1]

Perhaps that is why the welfare state has not been always disastrous in Europe (Greece aside) and where particularly mistaken parts of the welfare state have been rolled back.

You are aware that southern tier European Union countries are going under, right?..
Portugal, Italy, Spain besides Greece...Canada has supposedly rolled back such stuff and seems to be recovering. Without Germany, of all countries, the EU would be no more.

 

[WhoWee]

dacruick - Yes US banks are heavily regulated, and were before the financial crisis.

A brief historical perspective:
http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf

 

[dacruick]

US banks are massively regulated...via Dodd Frank financial regulation, for example.

What your post misses is that the US subprime mess was a result of earlier efforts of Chris Dodd (CT)and Barney Frank (Mass) (two of the most liberal kooks in the US Senate) to FORCE banks to lend to those who could not afford them...those loans were transferred to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government sponsored entities now in government receivorship) where US taxpayers now foot the bill and all this was enforced by the FHA and lawyers who sued banks that did not make sufficient such loans...like Barak Hussein Obama when he workd for the now defunct ACORN!
From what I have heard Canada has made better progress so far in backing away from the Nannie state that has the US...so you are doing better...we'll catch up next administration!

Hmm thanks . I definitely know that I have a lot of misconceptions and maybe when I used the word regulated it didn't embody what I meant to say. Canada has 7 or 8 banks countrywide and it seems to be a more organized and more easily managed banking system when compared to the US. I do understand that the US has 10 times the population of Canada, but with this market volatility and globalized economies I don't understand how private banking is a solid infrastructure for the future. The truth is that our right wing government in Canada is pretty far left of the Obama administration and I don't see why our cultures have such distinct differences. Americans have what I would call a vivid understand of freedom, and with this comes a certain amount of entitlement (Which is ironically where I think this occupy wallstreet thing comes from). I watched some clips from the republican debate and some of the main focuses were to get government out of the lives of its people. I find this concept weird on a macro scale. With the increasing complexity of markets and social systems how can this be a good plan? And I know that I'm missing something because 50 million Americans vote republican, but what is it? Is it that the state has power over that type of thing so the federal government leaves it up to them?

I am also very sorry to anyone if my generalizations were offensive. I don't mean to be that way, I just can't tippy toe around all of my words and still get my point across effectively.

 

[mheslep]

You are aware that southern tier European Union countries are going under, right?..
Portugal, Italy, Spain besides Greece...

I'm aware the PIGS are in trouble, but I don't know that they "are going under." I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[mheslep]

A brief historical perspective:
http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf

Why not give the link some introduction? That 1998 article from Tabarrok focuses only on commercial versus investment banking and Glass-Steagall.

 

[WhoWee]

Why not give the link some introduction? That 1998 article from Tabarrok focuses only on commercial versus investment banking and Glass-Steagall.

At the top of page 2 in my link it states "At the most basic level, it is clear that many securities (stocks and bonds) are less risky than are loans. Security investments are also liquid and publicly observable. Liquidity let's banks quickly rebalance their portfolios to avoid runs, and public observability improves the efficiency of bank monitoring by depositors and bond holders. Even if all securities were riskier than all loans, forbidding banks to invest in securities could increase bank risk because of the benefits of diversification".

That was then - this is now:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45015743?__source=google|editorspicks|&par=google

"Why Don't We Know More About Bank of America's Derivatives?"

"Last week we learned from Bloomberg News that the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) had been fighting over whether or not Bank of America should be permitted to move a big book of derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to a commercial banking subsidiary backed by the government.

What derivatives? What are they worth? Why is the FDIC so adverse to this transfer? Why is the Fed pleased with it?

We have no clue. No one is saying a word. Bank of America won't discuss it. The regulators are keeping officially mum."

***********also this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

"Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval"

"Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.

Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them. If they are triggered, of course, the obligations fall upon the corporate entity, not the executives involved. Ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured retail banks, and endorsing the shift of additional bets into the insured retail division, the obligation falls upon the U.S. taxpayers and dollar-denominated savers."

 

[WhoWee]

Btw - this is the latest news - ironic?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/10/merrill-lynch-warns-of-another-u-s-debt-downgrade/

"The United States is in for another credit downgrade by year’s end if Congress fails to agree on a long-term plan to tame the nation’s $14.8 trillion debt, Merrill Lynch warned.
In a research note, the Bank of America unit predicts that either Moody’s or Fitch will move to downgrade the U.S. AAA rating. Standard & Poor’s cut the nation’s bond rating in August, causing the stock and bond markets to swoon, after months of bickering by Congress on how to best reduce spending and cut the deficit. The United States spends about 40 percent more annually than it collects in taxes.

“The credit rating agencies have strongly suggested that further rating cuts are likely if Congress does not come up with a credible long-run plan” to cut the deficit, Merrill’s North American economist, Ethan Harris, wrote in the Friday report. ”Hence, we expect at least one credit downgrade in late November or early December when the super committee crashes.”"

 

[NRGisMATTER]

When rich and powerful people control the economy, they swing it into their favor to make more miney and become more powerful which always ends up screwing the middle and poor classes. Happened since civilizations began and problems still continue.

 

[mege]

When rich and powerful people control the economy, they swing it into their favor to make more miney and become more powerful which always ends up screwing the middle and poor classes. Happened since civilizations began and problems still continue.

So, Bill Gates is rich at your expense? Or did you have zero benefit from his company's inventions?

 

[ThomasT]

So, Bill Gates is rich at your expense?

Sure. Who do you think is paying for Microsoft's software?

Or did you have zero benefit from his company's inventions?

I like most of Microsoft's software. That is, I think it's good stuff. It works.

What's not to like is maybe some of Gates'/Microsoft's business practices.

So, I gravitated toward the open-source Unix based stuff. It actually works just as well, even better in some respects.

 

[Oltz]

Sure. Who do you think is paying for Microsoft's software?

I like most of Microsoft's software. That is, I think it's good stuff. It works.

What's not to like is maybe some of Gates'/Microsoft's business practices.

So, I gravitated toward the open-source Unix based stuff. It actually works just as well, even better in some respects.

Then you Must think Steve jobs was pure evil (I am anti Apple because of the controlling nature of the products they provide)

 

[ThomasT]

Then you Must think Steve jobs was pure evil ...

Why would what I wrote make you say that?

 

[dacruick]

Then you Must think Steve jobs was pure evil (I am anti Apple because of the controlling nature of the products they provide)

Haha why do you need to be "anti" Apple? It's not like they are affecting you negatively. They make the most user accessible devices in the world. Give a Windows 7 OS to my mother and watch her slowly destroy the computer over the next 2 years all the while calling me to help her. Can't you just be happy for me and my mom? :)

 

[Oltz]

What's not to like is maybe some of Gates'/Microsoft's business practices.

That statement is what made me mention apple as they are well the extreme of anything microsoft has/can do.

Apple is the equivilent of socialism in the business world.

Proprietary software/hardware requirments

They tell you what you can use what has to be installed who needs to have written the code where it needs to be manufactured. iTunes is the biggest piece of spyware you will ever find.

I like the freedom to do what I want when I want with things I purchase. With apple you essentially Lease it from them.

 

[MarcoD]

Apple is the equivilent of socialism in the business world.

A leader, tight reined control from the top, a lot of secrecy, and a globalist business model?

There are sociological equivalences to that, which I won't post, but socialism isn't the first equivalent which comes to mind.

 

[mheslep]

It appears to me that the idea was important enough to put in a Bill of Rights to secure those rights.

Yes. But to recall our original issue: who or what are those rights to be secured against? You asserted, I think, that the rules are there in part to protect individuals from each other (especially discrimination, etc). I think history clearly shows that in the case of forming the federal government the concern was in controlling the power of that government; my reading of history is that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution satisfy those concerns.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure. Who do you think is paying for Microsoft's software?

If making money in a mutually beneficial business transaction is "at your expense," then the kid who bags my groceries is also making his money at my expense...how dare he!