A Challenge to Those on the Left

[tlmorg02]

I've proven the point already. I'll leave you to dance around pretending Obama's policies are not socialist.

The problem is that you haven't proven anything. You made a false statement and I called you on it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

When he siezes the energy companies

Oil leasing system? That is the government maintaining ownership of the land and mineral rights that the companies need to extract, while it is not a program created under this administration, they are making oil leasing more difficult at a time when oil is in high demand, this is a centralized planning method, a key tenet of socialism.

and begins to call for an end to term limits, then I will agree with you.

There are already rumors of a movement to repeal the term limit amendment for this presidents tenure, they are still rumors right now, but the fact that they exist leads me to believe there is some truth to it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

What if it works and yet again the USA is the industrial might, economic engine, and innovator that leads the world in prosperity?

It hasn't worked in less dynamic economies than ours and the more dynamic the economy, the worse the effects of centralized planning, in short, it's not going to work.

 

[Agnapostate]

It hasn't worked in less dynamic economies than ours and the more dynamic the economy, the worse the effects of centralized planning, in short, it's not going to work.

Capitalism requires it. The markets that exist in the capitalist economy did not spring up in a laissez-faire manner, but were the spawn of central planning.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Quite simple to prove. The government does not control the means of production and distribution of those products.

Majority share ownership is defacto ownership, 60% of GM > 40%.

The government did prop-up a company to prevent a massive increase in unemployment,

A) at the expense of aquisition of a majority of the companies shares and B) the expense of some of those companies product lines, which means plant closures, whic h leads to loss of production jobs, the Monroe Louisiana GM plant is looking at 100% closure now.

but as soon as the company is on it's feet, the money will be returned to the government and back to business as usual.

But will the majority shares be returned to the public?

That is called the government acting as a loan officer, not a socialist regime.

I've never heard of a loan officer holding shares as collateral for an indeterminate amount of time, sounds like loan sharking to me.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Capitalism requires it. The markets that exist in the capitalist economy did not spring up in a laissez-faire manner, but were the spawn of central planning.

U.S. economic data completely disagrees with you in the historical sense.

 

[Agnapostate]

U.S. economic data completely disagrees with you in the historical sense.

No, it doesn't. Trade policy, for example, was formed around interventionist standards that incorporated a variety of protectionist criteria. Consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, for instance.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the historical fact is that the rich countries did not develop on the basis of the policies and the institutions that they now recommend to, and often force upon, the developing countries. Unfortunately, this fact is little known these days because the “official historians” of capitalism have been very successful in re-writing its history.

Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies.

Just another element of the perpetual nonexistence of laissez-faire free markets...

 

[LaMidRighter]

No, it doesn't. Trade policy, for example, was formed around interventionist standards that incorporated a variety of protectionist criteria. Consider Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, for instance.

So then, how do you counter that the most innovative time in United States history came from the time of the most minimal regulation and government interference? The late 1800's brought us: Mass Production, National Market sourcing, a tremendous Technological boom, Industrialization, an increasing unskilled labor demand(allowing otherwise unqualified workers an increased standard of living), and population growth. All of these things came from the less regulated private sector. Let's also not forget that these things led to a rapid expansion of the countries overall production tables, and likewise, the model you are arguing for is practiced by socialist countries, not capitalist ones.

Just another element of the perpetual nonexistence of laissez-faire free markets...

For a "libertarian" you shure advocate heavily for government run economies.

 

[ARealConservative]

For a "libertarian" you shure advocate heavily for government run economies.

even worse, he thinks we will voluntarily march in unison....probably sitting atop the unicorn we will all have parked in our garage.

 

[Agnapostate]

So then, how do you counter that the most innovative time in United States history came from the time of the most minimal regulation and government interference?

Um...the fact that wasn't actually the case, as noted by Chang and easily observable by you had you chosen to read the entire article cited or even browsed Kicking Away The Ladder further. As noted by the excerpt:

Between the Civil War and the Second World War, the USA was literally the most heavily protected economy in the world. In this context, it is important to note that the American Civil War was fought on the issue of tariff as much as, if not more, on the issue of slavery. Of the two major issues that divided the North and the South, the South had actually more to fear on the tariff front than on the slavery front. Abraham Lincoln was a well-known protectionist who cut his political teeth under the charismatic politician Henry Clay in the Whig Party, which advocated the “American System” based on infrastructural development and protectionism (thus named on recognition that free trade is for the British interest)...In protecting their industries, the Americans were going against the advice of such prominent economists as Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, who saw the country’s future in agriculture. However, the Americans knew exactly what the game was. They knew that Britain reached the top through protection and subsidies and therefore that they needed to do the same if they were going to get anywhere. Criticising the British preaching of free trade to his country, Ulysses Grant, the Civil War hero and the US President between 1868-1876, retorted that “within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade”. When his country later reached the top after the Second World War, it too started “kicking away the ladder” by preaching and forcing free trade to the less developed countries.

The infant industries argument is actually a perfect example of how state protectionism ultimately plays a role in maximizing long-run healthy market competition. Utilization of state protection facilitates the appropriate development of infant industries, thus ensuring that a nation's underdeveloped resources are not rendered permanently underdeveloped and subject to grossly unequal competition from foreign competitors. Through long-term protection and development of infant industries, state protectionism thus plays a role in the maximization of dynamic comparative advantage.

and likewise, the model you are arguing for is practiced by socialist countries, not capitalist ones.

No, it isn't. There are no presently existing socialist countries (you likely incorrectly have social democracies in mind), with the possible exception of Venezuela. That said, capitalism is and always has been reliant on a degree of state intervention that I regard as intolerable, which is why anarchists are anti-capitalists.

For a "libertarian" you shure advocate heavily for government run economies.

No, I don't. I don't support the existence of capitalism, and oppose the existence of the expansive state structure necessary to stabilize and maintain it. I personally advocate anarchist communism, but anarchism permits for various forms of socialism to be implemented.

even worse, he thinks we will voluntarily march in unison....probably sitting atop the unicorn we will all have parked in our garage.

A "laissez-faire capitalist" implying that my preferred economic conditions are utopian? Sweet irony...When you consider the fact that my preferred social anarchism has been implemented while laissez-faire free markets have not, it simply lends credence to Murray Bookchin's observation that "in Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivized them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian 'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in nationalized or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." :shrug:

 

[ARealConservative]

A "laissez-faire capitalist" implying that my preferred economic conditions are utopian? Sweet irony...When you consider the fact that my preferred social anarchism has been implemented while laissez-faire free markets have not, it simply lends credence to Murray Bookchin's observation that "in Spain, millions of people took large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivized them, administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a terrible civil war

implemented is a funny term, and dishonest to boot. They didn't implement anarchy, they were thrown into temporarily until factions stopped fighting.

That is the only way anarchy exists.

Your stable view of anarchy is total utopia (and sophomoric)

 

[Agnapostate]

implemented is a funny term, and dishonest to boot. They didn't implement anarchy, they were thrown into temporarily until factions stopped fighting.

That is the only way anarchy exists.

Your stable view of anarchy is total utopia (and sophomoric)

No, your own view is sophomoric and naive to boot, and draws on no actual understanding of anarchist political theory or economy. That said, this is already drawing another thread off-topic, and we don't really need more of them, so simply consult the explanation of the implementation of anarchism and libertarian socialism posted here if you want to make these claims.

 

[ARealConservative]

No, your own view is sophomoric and naive to boot, and draws on no actual understanding of anarchist political theory or economy. That said, this is already drawing another thread off-topic, and we don't really need more of them, so simply consult the explanation of the implementation of anarchism and libertarian socialism posted here if you want to make these claims.

right....

in retrospect, your scucca light and my original instinct to ignore the unicorns you plant at my feet was the proper course of action.

I don't think I'll respond to you again. :2wave:

 

[Agnapostate]

right....

in retrospect, your scucca light (sic) and my original instinct to ignore the unicorns you plant at my feet was the proper course of action.

I don't think I'll respond to you again. :2wave:

"scucca lite"? Scucca is a republican and a market socialist; I'm an anarchist and a communist. Only one with very limited knowledge of socialist political economy could see anything more than a familial resemblance there. That said, I'm not surprised to see you avoiding that thread like it's a hooker with swine flu; sound empirical research does tend to upset some anti-socialists. :shrug:

 

[Baralis]

For all those wanting the government health care system I suggest you go to one of the state or federally funded "free clinics" found around the country.
What you find there may change your mind.

When I still lived in Memphis TN a friend of mine broke her hand. Being uninsured she went to the "free" clinic to have it looked at. We spent about 1.5 hours in line, the place was packed and always is by people that are

1. Addicts looking for pain medicaion.
2. People that are not "really" sick. They may have a cold or a back ache, that sorta thing. But hey if its free why not!

Once you reduce the cost to next to nothing or even make it free people will abuse the system leaving those that really need help waiting and waiting.

I can see how a government health care system can appeal to many in theory but you need to take a look at how it ends up in the real world.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Um...the fact that wasn't actually the case, as noted by Chang and easily observable by you had you chosen to read the entire article cited or even browsed Kicking Away The Ladder further. As noted by the excerpt:

Again, incorrect, Chang is asserting that the protections drove the market, which is not the case, markets are always driven by supply and demand, there can be no other factors, except to slow down an economy. This is a main failure of socialism and centralized planning fans.

The infant industries argument is actually a perfect example of how state protectionism ultimately plays a role in maximizing long-run healthy market competition. Utilization of state protection facilitates the appropriate development of infant industries, thus ensuring that a nation's underdeveloped resources are not rendered permanently underdeveloped and subject to grossly unequal competition from foreign competitors.

So you are asserting that time had more regulations than today? That won't hold up, this is the MOST regulated time in U.S. history and the economy is suffering for it. Contraction anyone? Again, bring something not completely based in theory and speculation and bring something that ties the facts in with the data, Chang does neither.

Through long-term protection and development of infant industries, state protectionism thus plays a role in the maximization of dynamic comparative advantage.

Horse ****, the best business model wins, the only difference is how the business model plays upon the current situation, anyone who has ever run a business knows that, protectionism didn't facilitate anything, and centralized planning never does, it's how a business adapts to this situation that determines output, this is why socialist economies fail, it's the perfect storm of incompetent beaurocrats with no lattitude to make the quick decisions needed to adjust to economic change, nor the intitiative to do so because they are employed whether they succeed or not.

No, it isn't. There are no presently existing socialist countries (you likely incorrectly have social democracies in mind), with the possible exception of Venezuela.

Sweden, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, the U.K., Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Venezuela, Brazil, Canada, etc.

That said, capitalism is and always has been reliant on a degree of state intervention that I regard as intolerable, which is why anarchists are anti-capitalists.

Capitalism recognizes the need to protect immediate public safety and to enforce minimal ethics standards, there is nothing wrong with that, the free hand would demand ethics anyway but it wouldn't help those in the path of the behaviors, so we tolerate minimal intervention, anarchy is ridiculous, it is dog-eat-dog and is the VERY definition of Laissez-Faire economics as anything goes, it is the ultimate capitalist model, how do you not get that.

I personally advocate anarchist communism, but anarchism permits for various forms of socialism to be implemented.

Communism is the last stage of socialism, that has been stated by communists themselves and no version of that philosophy is sustainable. Communism ignores all of the little market factors that make good economic models viable.

 

[sam_w]

Wasn't it strange that Uber-Socialist Warren Buffet endorsed the President...

Socialist Warren Buffet....world's richest man.

 

[G.I. Joe]

Wasn't it strange that Uber-Socialist Warren Buffet endorsed the President...

Socialist Warren Buffet....world's richest man.

You might want to listen to what Buffet has been saying lately, especially about cap and trade.

 

[ARealConservative]

"scucca lite"? Scucca is a republican and a market socialist;

no one likes to listen to him but him :mrgreen:

 

[Bootsavich]

I haven't heard anything about President Obama suggesting that the government needs to own the means of production.

Until he makes such a claim, he is not a Socialist.

He didn't suggest it. He just did it. Government Motors, anyone?