• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huge political error by Mamdani and now Omar Fateh in Minneapolis

aociswundumho

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
21,740
Reaction score
9,518
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Not one, but two socialists are out preaching "affordability" and how they are going to lower the cost of living. That's like an arsonist putting on a fire chief's hat and lecturing you about fire safety. Affordability only comes from abundance. And what's the defining feature of socialist countries? Shortages. The exact opposite of abundance.

Everything these guys believe in runs contrary to abundance, which is why the odds of them ever creating it are virtually zero. They don't understand markets - nor do they care to. In their worldview, government isn't some neutral referee, it's some kind of magical wealth creator. But government doesn't create wealth - it can only transfer it. And when you build a system based on confiscation instead of creation, you don't get prosperity, you get empty shelves.

Mamdani will hopefully win, but after that, he can only lose. If he can't get his dumb policies enacted he will look ineffective and incompetent. If he does get them enacted, they will fail miserably.
 
aociswundumho said:
And what's the defining feature of socialist countries? Shortages. The exact opposite of abundance.
Click to expand...

Every time you repeat your mantra, I think of this image:



G01519.webp
 
This is why I'm starting to like Mamdani. He is excelling at owning the cons by simply speaking truth to power.
 
aociswundumho said:
It doesn't have to be perfect it only has to be better than the alternative, and it is, by a long shot.
Click to expand...

A system that intentionally starves children is better? Cuba has shortages because of the US blockade. The USSR and China had shortages because they were industrialising economies. Capitalist Ireland had food shortages because it wasn't profitable to give the Irish the food they grew, capitalist South Sudan, Haiti and Mali have shortages because it's not profitable to send food there. The choice to starve people isn't better than the alternative.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
You are a fraud.

You do not care about "shortages." You know they occur in capitalist countries. You just believe people should starve.
Click to expand...

They do, but it's almost always because of some idiotic law or regulation passed by the state. The entire housing shortage we are living in is caused entirely by government intervention into the market.
 
I've never noticed but a few shortages in consumer goods that can be attributed to a failure in the marketplace.
 
aociswundumho said:
Not one, but two socialists are out preaching "affordability" and how they are going to lower the cost of living. That's like an arsonist putting on a fire chief's hat and lecturing you about fire safety. Affordability only comes from abundance. And what's the defining feature of socialist countries? Shortages. The exact opposite of abundance.

Everything these guys believe in runs contrary to abundance, which is why the odds of them ever creating it are virtually zero. They don't understand markets - nor do they care to. In their worldview, government isn't some neutral referee, it's some kind of magical wealth creator. But government doesn't create wealth - it can only transfer it. And when you build a system based on confiscation instead of creation, you don't get prosperity, you get empty shelves.

Mamdani will hopefully win, but after that, he can only lose. If he can't get his dumb policies enacted he will look ineffective and incompetent. If he does get them enacted, they will fail miserably.
Click to expand...
Show us again an example of a completely stateless utopian society. I’ve asked you this numerous times but you seem unable to show us where your ideology has ever, at any time in human history, has existed. Why is that?
 
spud_meister said:
A system that intentionally starves children is better? Cuba has shortages because of the US blockade. The USSR and China had shortages because they were industrialising economies. Capitalist Ireland had food shortages because it wasn't profitable to give the Irish the food they grew, capitalist South Sudan, Haiti and Mali have shortages because it's not profitable to send food there. The choice to starve people isn't better than the alternative.
Click to expand...
Seems to me you've lumped so many disparate examples and time periods into that comment that your maybe indictment against capitalist profit as an intentional choice to starve people becomes rather murky.

For instance, for the USSR what effect did resistance to collectivization and dekulakization have on its ability to adequately supply its people with food?
 
Along Came Jones said:
Seems to me you've lumped so many disparate examples and time periods into that comment that your maybe indictment against capitalist profit as an intentional choice to starve people becomes rather murky.
Click to expand...

I chose clear historic examples as well as contemporary ones.
Along Came Jones said:
For instance, for the USSR what effect did resistance to collectivization and dekulakization have on its ability to adequately supply its people with food?
Click to expand...

Dekulakisation was a policy of changing land use and ownership. As a policy, it's broadly analogous, though in reverse, to the Highland Clearances of late-18th, mid-19th century Scotland. The point was to change land use. Compare it to the Irish Potato famine of 1850, where the policy was specifically one of Malthusianism, and the deaths from continued export of food to England were seen as a benefit.
 
aociswundumho said:
Not one, but two socialists are out preaching "affordability" and how they are going to lower the cost of living. That's like an arsonist putting on a fire chief's hat and lecturing you about fire safety. Affordability only comes from abundance. And what's the defining feature of socialist countries? Shortages. The exact opposite of abundance.

Everything these guys believe in runs contrary to abundance, which is why the odds of them ever creating it are virtually zero. They don't understand markets - nor do they care to. In their worldview, government isn't some neutral referee, it's some kind of magical wealth creator. But government doesn't create wealth - it can only transfer it. And when you build a system based on confiscation instead of creation, you don't get prosperity, you get empty shelves.

Mamdani will hopefully win, but after that, he can only lose. If he can't get his dumb policies enacted he will look ineffective and incompetent. If he does get them enacted, they will fail miserably.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the marketplace doesn't work like a capitalist simulation where free people competing in a free market are incentivized to put out more product. It doesn't work like that at all.

First and foremost, capital cannot abide a free market. Literally, the profit is supposed to be the same as the interest rate. You see any stock investors who want to make the interest rate? To get investment, a company has to have a monopoly. It gets a monopoly from some court process - one judge holding out a patent or copyright or authorization like a prize to whoever has the better lawyers, so that they get the right to enslave the rest of the world whenever they need that product. If it's not that, then market manipulation comes up with a way to do something similar. In Communese, this is called "moribund capitalism", and it's our economic system.

I mean, consider a student trying to buy a textbook. ISBNs don't work. I mean, for every company selling, for every combination of licenses and add-ons, there's a different ISBN in one of three formats. All so that it is really, really hard for students to shop around for a textbook because when they buy it, it's probably not what they think. And all that trickery is downstream of a single copyright holder's monopoly to begin with - that's just how they monopolize a monopoly!

Now textbooks are a great, orderly, free and fair market by comparison to health care, which people need.
 
aociswundumho said:
Yeah, that's been done, many times. And the result is always the same, and that result is not widespread prosperity.
Click to expand...

Laissez-faire capitalism has also been tried and it was a disaster.
Companies are not the pinnacle of virtue you seem to think they are.
 
bythoughts said:
The problem is, the marketplace doesn't work like a capitalist simulation where free people competing in a free market are incentivized to put out more product. It doesn't work like that at all.

First and foremost, capital cannot abide a free market. Literally, the profit is supposed to be the same as the interest rate. You see any stock investors who want to make the interest rate? To get investment, a company has to have a monopoly. It gets a monopoly from some court process - one judge holding out a patent or copyright or authorization like a prize to whoever has the better lawyers, so that they get the right to enslave the rest of the world whenever they need that product. If it's not that, then market manipulation comes up with a way to do something similar. In Communese, this is called "moribund capitalism", and it's our economic system.

I mean, consider a student trying to buy a textbook. ISBNs don't work. I mean, for every company selling, for every combination of licenses and add-ons, there's a different ISBN in one of three formats. All so that it is really, really hard for students to shop around for a textbook because when they buy it, it's probably not what they think. And all that trickery is downstream of a single copyright holder's monopoly to begin with - that's just how they monopolize a monopoly!

Now textbooks are a great, orderly, free and fair market by comparison to health care, which people need.
Click to expand...

I've been arguing against patents and copyright for as long as I can remember. You are correct that they are nothing but state-granted monopolies.
 
aociswundumho said:
Not one, but two socialists are out preaching "affordability" and how they are going to lower the cost of living. That's like an arsonist putting on a fire chief's hat and lecturing you about fire safety. Affordability only comes from abundance. And what's the defining feature of socialist countries? Shortages. The exact opposite of abundance.

Everything these guys believe in runs contrary to abundance, which is why the odds of them ever creating it are virtually zero. They don't understand markets - nor do they care to. In their worldview, government isn't some neutral referee, it's some kind of magical wealth creator. But government doesn't create wealth - it can only transfer it. And when you build a system based on confiscation instead of creation, you don't get prosperity, you get empty shelves.

Mamdani will hopefully win, but after that, he can only lose. If he can't get his dumb policies enacted he will look ineffective and incompetent. If he does get them enacted, they will fail miserably.
Click to expand...
Just one party practicing actual economic state capitalism and ZERO THREADS. Seems Mamdani’s problem is his skin color and religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom