———–
EB3: “my beef with socialism? My Beef With Socialism? MY BEEF WITH SOCIALISM? (4.50 / 2)I’ll tell you my beef with socialism.It encourages lay bouts and discourages creativity, ingenuity, opportunity, self-improvement, self enlightenment, hard work, family, and a host of other things that make us the best country in the world. ”
———–
MannyGoldstein: “So when Ike and both Republican-controlled houses of Congress (6.00 / 1)
set the top tax rate at 91%, civilization ended?
We’re All Socialists – Even You. (6.00 / 2)
We only disagree on where to draw that line.”
———–
Ryepower: “As for the government take-over, of course it’s socialist policy… one of the most socialistic things I’ve probably ever seen the US gov do in my lifetime. That said, I’m not opposed to a larger mix of socialism in our capitalism/socialism government scale.”
———–
Laurel: “I have no problem whatsoever with certain industries being nationalized. ”
———–
Mr. Lynne: “That must be why… (6.00 / 1)
… all the socialist countries are all bankrupt.
Oh wait.
”
“Problem is, ‘the left’ isn’t against a free market economy. Not to mention, socialism itself isn’t anti-‘free market’. The desire to frame socialism as a black or white issue is to misunderstand all kinds of things…”
“or my part most arguments… (6.00 / 2)
… that use the term socialist as a sufficient criteria for rejection fail on their face. Just saying they are socialist is insufficient. You’d have to prove that socialist policies are never good or never constitutional, neither of which is true and therefore a socialist label is insufficient for rejection – unless you choose not to think about it too much.
”
The relative economic strength… (6.00 / 1)
…, standards of living, social mobility, and general population satisfaction in several western democracies with much more socialist policies at their civic core leads me to think that we could use some creeping socialism in this country. They certainly disprove the notion that socialism is some kind of social and economic ‘rot’ that should be avoided at all costs.
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.” – Seneca (5 BC – 65 AD)
by: Mr Lynne @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 22:35:52 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply | ]
I agree with you of course (0.00 / 0)
And I don’t wish to play the part of substitute conservative, but a debate involving an actual conservative might be interesting.
by: KBusch @ Sun Apr 04, 2010 at 23:43:20 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply | ]
KBusch ^^^
———–
and slightly more from KBusch: “”Don’t tell me what to do!” (6.00 / 4)
I would guess that your typical 3rd grader might regard freedom as relief from parental restriction. By contrast, we might imagine an adult notion of freedom consists in being free to sail the Pacific, tour Mongolia, start a business, criticize the government, or write a novel.
The latter are all enhanced by having one’s security taken care of.”
———–
MedfieldBlueBob: “Keep your hands off my socialist entitlement (6.00 / 1)
It’s all in the eye of the teabagger.
It’s only socialism if somebody ELSE gets the check, it’s only tyranny if somebody ELSE gets the entitlement, and it’s only hate if somebody doesn’t like them.”
———–
TedF: “Why shouldn’t the taxpayers, who are bailing these firms out, have a say in how they are managed in the future? I suspect this provision is the product of a supposed fear of “socialism,” but as I’ve said before, if you’re willing to socialize the debt, you’ve got to be willing to socialize the profit, otherwise you’re just doing the bidding of the owners of capital.”
———–
massmarrier: “However, while it may be a long, long while before our economy can thrive again, this period should stop for all time the fantasy that we are averse to socialism. For decades, we have paid billions, now a trillion to the failed capitalists, both as executives and as employees and as corporations.
When it comes time to re-examine providing basic health care for all, what pretenses will there be left to shield the lawmakers?”
———–
LightIris: “The feelings of words. (6.00 / 5)
Can there be a more molested and abused word in American politics right now than “socialism”? Gaaah. “
former occupant of research postition in a globalist oriented company and former supporter of Soviet boss who in 1984 said he has now lived in two socialist countries wants to point out the futile efforts in resisting the western capitalist model of supporting billionarie Davos jet setting eugenics advocates while carbon exempt Chinese workers make Calvin Klien shirts for 86 cents per hour.
The only BMG’er brave enough to reply is from K-Pax
But most if us don’t.
<
p>Sincerely,
<
p>Comrade Manny
(Disciple of Comrade Ike)
Too bad you are scared to give an intellectually honest answer, huh?
<
p>Implying that police and for that matter roads equals socialism completely undercuts any argument that you may be too timid to make directly.
I don’t think I’ve seen any, but learn me.
but then again, you could always just come out and say what you really believe. Your philosophy seems pretty clear to me from your writing.
<
p>Here on BMG I don’t think there is a lot of risk of consequences if you articulate some kind of affirmative philosophy beyond “tax cuts and Reagan are bad”. If you love 90+% income taxes on people that make more than you, then what does that mean, really?
<
p>Some might call it envy but I think it is evidence of a particular philosophy.
Enlighten us.
In nations with elected, non-communist government systems, the rich interests make a great hue and cry about “BIG BAD RED SOCIALISM, OH NO!!!!” to oppose economic policies that would help the non-rich majority.
<
p>That’s how it works.
<
p>You can have a police state or civil liberties under a variety of economic systems.
<
p>Sweden is a free nation and not a police state. It is also a socialist nation that takes care of its people.
<
p>I am a democratic socialist and a social libertarian.
<
p>This nation needs what the British would call a “Socialist Programme” to get out of this Depression as never before.
is that someone who is free to say or do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t create any value or make any money?
<
p>Nice liberty.
<
p>And btw can you define democratic socialist?
There have been those of various political types that want to tell people what to do in their private life.
<
p>Such as “You can’t use cocaine or marijuana”.
<
p>Such as “You can’t have an abortion”.
<
p>Such as “You can’t have sex with another consenting adult for cash.”
<
p>I am against all of those prohibitions in personal life and more.
<
p>True freedom is, for the most part, about personal life, and is exclusively for the individual.
<
p>As for democratic socialism, what I am talking about is an elected government that provides free medical care, free education up to a PhD or M.D., free child care for parents who are working, a government-owned bank for loans, tariffs that make it cheaper for companies to hire American to make products for the market here, and more. It also means powerful labor unions that can get the workers higher pay.
<
p>
It generally can mean two things: a socialist who thinks the path to socialism should be reform (think Sweden or Bernie Sanders) rather than revolution (think Lenin, the Spartacist League or the Shining Path).
<
p>It can also mean the distinction between how a socialist government should be run, democratically (once again, Sweden) or authoritarian (the USSR). Where it gets tricky, obviously, is places like Latin America and Africa where democratically elected socialists in an attempt to not be overthrown by the US or its allies resort to authoritarian measures – (Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, or Angola).
You quoted me as follows:
<
p>
<
p>The point of this comment was not that we should socialize American firms (I don’t recall whether the thread you’re quoting from was about financial firms or auto manufacturers), but rather, that having already socialized the firms’ debts and obligations by infusing public money into the firms in return for stock, the public, just like any other owner, is entitled to have a say in management.
<
p>Now, maybe you opposed the government’s bailouts of a couple of years ago because you are ideologically pure and would rather suffer the consequences than bend your libertarian principles. Bully for you, and I can’t accuse you of hypocricy. What I was attacking was what I took to be the establishment Republican view at the time, namely, yes to bailouts, but no to a public say in what happens to the bailed-out firms. That’s base, craven, greedy, and dishonest. It’s similar in my view to today’s Republicans who insist on deficit reduction and fiscal soundness when it comes to truly stimulative measures like extending unemployment insurance benefits but believe that it is necessary to enact massive new tax cuts (i.e., to extend the Bush tax cuts, which had a sunset provision in order to disguise their true cost from the most gullible) whatever the effect on the deficit. Or Republicans (and maybe some Democrats) who are lambasting Secretary Gates today for proposing the closure of a military command in Virginia but who don’t seem to want to pay for the military they say they want.
<
p>TedF
but not the auto bailouts or the “stimulus” such as it was.
<
p>We had to bail out the banks because otherwise the whole financial world falls apart – and then – well – really really bad stuff happens for everyone.
<
p>Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to, because you just have to.
<
p>The idea of eliminating too big to fail is a good idea, but unfortunately the disastrous Dodd Frank law does nothing of the sort.
<
p>And for the record I was not accusing you of being a socialist, just trying to get some material up to form the basis of a discussion. Some people are perfectly happy to admit their socialist beliefs, others are really reluctant, and others just don’t have em.
Well, that’s a fair answer. I supported the bank bailouts, too, for the same reasons you did. So let me ask you, Demolisher. With regardt to the financial firm bailouts, are you a TedF-style socialist? Let’s take Citibank, for instance. Do you think that the government, having first put billions into the firm in exchange for preferred stock and then converting its stake to riskier common stock, should have been entitled to vote its shares and exert control over Citibank management as it deemed to be in the best interests of the American taxpayer? Or was the government right to take the position that it took, namely, that it had no desire to manage Citibank’s business?
<
p>TedF
For a several reasons:
<
p>1. It is far too powerful already, and already controls companies to an extent through regulation
2. It is prone to special interest corruption, or for that matter, short sighted mob action
3. It is remarkably bad at making smart decisions
<
p>Here’s one that will get people riled up: I think the government should never, ever have any say in matters of compensation, EVEN if the company in question is currently “bailed out”. Ooh, thats gonna be unpopular.
<
p>By the way, I personally believe that the warrants that the government got (and the largely auctioned off) were and continue to be a great investment, with a pretty unprecedented structure. The govt made profit on banks which exited TARP, you know, but even now the warrants are trading on the open market at really attractive prices. If I had to choose, I would buy a few warrants instead of a share of bank stock.
…in the sense that you believe in socializing the risk, but you don’t believe in socializing the rights of ownership that go with the risk. In other words, you fall into the category of people I called bad names in my initial comment. Too bad! I had real hopes for you!
<
p>On the specifics of your three points about the government, I would argue that private corporations have proven that they are just as bad as the government at points (2) and (3).
<
p>TedF
What I supported was temporary assistance to banks to avoid a national catastrophe. The risk of this was (obviously) not foreseen by policy makers, with the possible exception of Fannie/Freddie as shown in this remarkable hearing.
<
p>In any case, I certainly do not support the idea of accepting the risk – as I mentioned above I agree with the idea of ending “Too Big to Fail”, even if it means breaking up the bigger companies. Unfortunately, FinReg seems to have gone in the opposite direction while adding things like government oversight minority hiring at the banks. Nice one, Barney.
<
p>All companies should be allowed to fail.
<
p>Which, of course, solves (2) and (3) above. Thats why competition is so great – it automatically takes care of stupidity by eliminating it.
You don’t support the public “accepting the risk.” You do support “temporary assistance to banks to avoid a national catastrophe.” I think you are just playing semantics here. If Citibank had failed after the bailout (and after the government converted its shares to common stock) where would the public have ranked in the order of priority of creditors seeking repayment? Last.
<
p>TedF
I do not accept the risk. I demand that we eliminate the risk. I don’t accept it.
<
p>If we are doing something stupid or socialist, and I object to that thing, and then that thing ends up causing a crisis that we have to fix, supporting the fix does not mean supporting the original thing.
<
p>It would be like saying that your support for our troops in Iraq means that you supported the invasion. Nonsense.
I am not trying to give you a hard time here. But I don’t understand what you’re saying. I take it you agree with me that in fact the public did assume the risk of not being repaid when it bailed these companies out? I don’t see that that can really be disputed. So when you write: “I don’t accept the risk”, it sounds to me like someone not in touch with the reality of what happened. I “don’t accept the risk” either in the sense that I wish we hadn’t had to bail out the financial firms, but that’s not what we’re talking about, right?
<
p>TedF
I thought my explanation was pretty straightforward.
<
p>I think taking the risk is bad, we should not do that.
<
p>But, if we do take the risk despite me not wanting us to, then we have to deal with the consequences by either bailing out or not bailing out. What to do about the consequences is different than whether or not to take the risk.
<
p>Its nearly the same as my Iraq analogy. Lets say that you support not only the troops, but also support finishing the job we started there. But you also vehemently opposed the invasion in the first place. Is that possible? I think it is.
<
p>So what you’d want to do is try and get us to adopt a policy to stop invading countries, without necessarily running out of the one that we did invade.
<
p>Maybe the problem is you don’t understand how it is that we could stop taking the risk: by eliminating the too big fail problem.
<
p>My desire to eliminate too big to fail is the same as your desire to stop invading countries.
<
p>My desire to deal with the consequences of too big to fail responsibly is the same as your desire not to leave Iraq on a dime, and create an even worse mess.
<
p>Anyway calling a bank bailout socialism is a hell of a stretch in the first place. Nowhere in socialist doctrine does it discuss anything like bailouts or even corporate welfare (to my knowledge) but rather the opposite: taking control of companies. This is what you advocate.
I object to the term being thrown around only to the extent that I realize a lot of people have misconceptions about what it means. If we could have an adult conversation about which things might benefit from being socialized and which might better not be then we could talk about it. I just don’t like that for some they just label something socialist and expect that to stop the discussion dead in its tracks and suggest that it is somehow unAmerican. There are plenty of social democracy models in the world that allow for some socialism without sacrificing freedom.
You set a good example for all of us Christopher: we can disagree without being disagreeable. I have been guilty at times for using the word “socialism” as a weapon. Of course there are societal needs which any compassionate people will want to fulfill.
I see–I think we are just talking past each other. When I say “take the risk”, I mean the risk we assume after we bail out these companies, i.e., the risk that they will fail and we will never be paid back. You write:
<
p>
<
p>I think you mean the risk that these companies take, pre-bailout, by crafty business moves like lending to people with no income, no assets, and no credit.
<
p>TedF
Sorry!