Socialism is winning!

Everyone who thinks like you believes in the "Star Trek" utopia. It is absurd. Star Wars is a better example of humanity as far as politics and economy is concerned. It would be nice for the world to be one and move on. This is not what those behind "globalism" have in store. It is nothing more than a modern tower of Babel. A consolidation of all power on earth, to forever be in control of earth. Omnipotence. Pharaohs and serfs. Never to change places. If you are not in the top brackets, you are advocating the slavery of future generations, yours and mine.

And if you think one can grow without pain, you may have all the intelligence one could summon, but not a drop of wisdom.

 

We'll never know how things would have been. According to everyone who supported stimulus it could have always been a lot worse. But now we know what will happen from now on. If a large institutions are in trouble, just bail them out. Forget market forces.

Circuit city and Best Buy were two big Electronic Suppliers who have been competing against each other for a long time. Almost 50 years. Financial collapse happened and the only store left standing was Best Buy. Circuit City sold all the goods they could at 50% off market price and everything they couldn't sell was reallocated to other Electronic suppliers, namely Best Buy and Radio Shack. With the competition gone former Circuit City employees could work at other expanding companies like Best Buy and Radio Shack.

That's just one example of what could have happened if certain companies were just allowed to fail. When bankruptcy happens, it's not a failure of market. It's the market working. Just like when a politician is voted out of office. It's not a failure of the electoral process. It's the electoral process at work. If Bad politicians who don't do their job aren't voted out, you encourage the incentive of that politician being a terrible representative and ignoring constituents. Just like companies when you bail them out.

 

I don't believe Star Trek utopia will happen, or at least not in this millennium anyway, hence the word utopia.

And even in the Star Trek utopia there are pharaohs and serfs, it's just the way things are. The elite will always have precedence over the non elite, the only question is who gets to be "the elite".. in democracy it is the elected, in capitalism it is the CEOs, in Star Trek it is the leadership of starfleet. Just the way humans operate.

 

It's interesting to speculate, but I think your analogy is a little off, GM and Chrysler, and the bulk of the western worlds banking system a TINY bit larger sectors than Circuit City (which went back like 100+ years, it was the last holding of the Montgomery Wards company).

I think it would be mad max times today if banks and to a lesser extent auto were left alone. I do like to hope there would be progress toward making the large companies less like to either rely upon or get government help... these days I doubt they would, so at least theres that?

 

We have democracy. Officials are elected. They serve those who pay their bills. CEOs and the commanders of "starfleet", amongst many others, bankers, etc. Democracy doesn't work when those who are chosen to run are those who can be bought. Democracy, world wide, has failed. It is time for something new. You advocate keeping the elite the elite. You must think more. Find some consistency. Only true capitalism, with a state that can't be bought, allows for elite to wither away and die, and for new elite to be born.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."--Yoda

 

But those with the most money would be elite in "true capitalism".

 

Until their business fails. It is the only way for the "elite" to not be a set in stone position. This requires the government to not be for sale. This is where the problem lies. When our forefathers created the American system, it was the church who was the major contributor to corruption. Kings are ordained by God. Money wasn't as relative to power as title, the crown, or a pulpit. They exhausted themselves to make money king, as in those times money, from capitalism, was end all proof to someones efforts and worth. Now is the time to create a document, that while protecting an individuals right to make money, like the old still protected the right to believe in a higher power, money, like someone's belief, can have no say in politics whatsoever. The new stressed protection must be separation of money and state, like at one time was church and state.

 

GM and Chrysler are American-based automakers. Best Buy and Circuit City are American-based Electronic Retailers. Best Buy, GM and Chrysler make a revenue of over 40 Billion Dollars a year. I think that's a pretty fair comparison. If GM or Chrysler went under that's not to day that Ford couldn't have picked up the slack.

If you're going to create a moral hazard of build up and bailouts you can't really fault CEOs for doing risky things and acting like they don't care about the little guy. That's just disingenuous. Something has to give sometime.

 

I have no doubt this would have been the end result of a 2nd great depression. Those in control would have fought it with all their might, revolution, a new constitution. Wealth, Church and the State must all be separate entities for a nation to function with all represented. A bought state has lead to EVERY problem, that combined, has gotten us where we are at. People should forever be able to make as much money as they possibly can while not threatening the rule of competition. However, even the suggestion of money involved in someone's politics should leave their candidacy forever moot. Like if someone suggests people's religious beliefs will play a part in their politics.

 

Yeah, do you know with whom I was thinking? Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta. They were revolutionaries, that went to the front. They lived half of their lifes in prison, sacrified many of their goods for the cause. So yes, I consider them coherent.

In Russia, in the XiX century many sons and daughters of rich families renounced to their inheritances because they considered that injust. And they went to fight for the anarchism, and many died.

The education, has a great point on it. Observe that most people educated in social sciences are leftist. Because you become more human, and you go further in the analysis, and you don't do only a superficial analysis. The right, many times I've observed that they don't do any social analysis of a situation, only limitate them to make economic calculations, but any social analysis and this lead to them to wrong analysis and wrong conclusions.

 

Why do you keep equating anarchism with socialism? And each nation has its own definitions, which are basically the people who push the said system. No American "socialist" believes in elite free socialism. And since the world is being taken over economically by European/American ideals, it would be wise for you to conduct political debate in the context of what they perceive the definitions to be. The socialism that is coming to your doorstep is not the socialism that anyone who wants to reap the gains of their own labor, or be respected for their own merits, would ever pursue. It is a nasty form of financial totalitarianism, covered in a mask of fake compassion, that devours nations whole and leaves nothing but a pile of refuse where any once great people lived.

 

No, it isn't. I am keeping calling the things for their name.

And world now for disgrace has been taken over economically by American ideals. And this ideals aren't good. I see a lot of authoritarism, today. And socialism is not totalitarian. Socialism to work needs to be more democratic than any form of capitalism. If not, it becomes a system of state capitalism, that is what you're fearing.

 

MissJ. It's basic maths, if the top 5% increase their share of the cake, the other 95% get a smaller share of the cake.

You mean, how come so many top economists agree with me? Because I'm right.

Barely. And inequality has been increasing. And this means that relative to the size of the economy, the masses have less to spend, so the bosses find it harder to sell stuff.

The increase for the bottom 20% was $1,927 over 15 years, ie $128 per year or $2.48 a week. How much does $2.47 buy you? It's not a lot. Anyway, I dont know how the graph was arrived at, it's not from a primary source. I have the Federal Reserve chartbook in front of me and they post a graph that look remarkably similar if not identical to the one I posted from the Census Bureau.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2007/2007 SCF Chartbook.pdf


see also this

 

State capitalism, market socialism, call it what you want. This current nightmare couldn't have happened without democracy. And be prepared, bailouts are coming to Europe. When that happens, with your central bank that is as privatized as ours, you can reconsider all I have said in this thread. People who claim to be "socialists" while supporting privatized central banks. My god. This beast the world faces has suckled from your breasts as much as anyone's.

 

That people aren't socialists. Are traitors to the people, and worse than the capitalists.

Don't worry. I know very well to distinguish between socialists and self-called socialists. For example in Spain we have the PSOE(Workers Socialist Party of Spain), that is the today governing party. It has of socialist the same that me of Priest, nothing. And the same goes to the rest of parties like the German, Labour Party of England... all them as much are socio liberals.

 

And let me guess, they are the majority? When "social policies" get put in place, it is theirs? All you are doing is proving me right on every post. Wake up, I am a capitalist, and I am your friend.

 

Well, America is rich for a number of historical reasons. It was the only country that came out better off after WW2. It was where all the German and Jewish scientists fled to. And it had huge immigration. America is a very big country, and relatively uniform. It has Common Law. Europe is older, with smaller countries, different languages, it had the remnants of feudalism in places for a long time. America managed to develop centres like New York and Silicon Valley where people with talent would migrate to. America had the investment capital to develop industry.

However America has huge debts and it crashed the world economy in 2008 and looks set to go into recession again in 2012.

100% retarded post spotted.

 

100% retarded post spotted.

 

I don't understand your last point. I don't have any problem with you.

My enemies, if that exist, are the ones that rule now.

But, what do you mean with that I am proving you right on every post. I understand many positions, and probably we could go together in many things, we would fight the same things. Corruption, bail outs to corporations,... In some points I am closer to a free market defender that to this "false" socialists or traitors

 

All it does is compare people who were at the bottom quintle at that point in time. It doesn't account for the people who were in the bottom but have increased in the second 20 percent.

Arguments aren't settled by the numbers of consensus. It's settled by the evidence. Your premises that you're right because an economist agree with you is laughable and very small minded, as there are plenty of economist with opposing views. Have I looked up articles from Thomas Sowell or Milton Freidmen? No, because that would be too easy as they are Noble Laureates The difference between you and me is that I like come up with the conclusions myself. If I wanted to debate Nouriel Roubini, I'd contact him directly.

That does not tell you about the absolute conditions of the poor. It doesn't tell you if the poor is

You just proved my argument for me without even realizing it.

Weekly salaries have fixed wages. No one earns an extra $2.48. The chart is not showing someone getting a wage increase of $2.48. It simply shows that someone who is entering the the work force. Someone entering the work force with a good paying job increases the bracket.

​

You see whatever you want to see. What you don't see is what is really happening. People are moving in and out of brackets everyday. The bottom income earners aren't getting a higher percentage of income because frequently people are moving higher and higher in the income brackets. People don't stay in the same brackets overtime.

Your logic fail because people are moving in and out of brackets EVERYDAY. Your theory doesn't hold up to real world implications because statistics proves otherwise. Every day, every week, every month the average wages are going up and income is going up.

Now it's apparent that you seem to have an preference for drawings and lines because every time I post numbers you seem to lose interest so I'm going to post a graph.

You can't lump in part-time statistics with full-time because they don't work as many hours as the full-time workers. It screws up the monthly and annual numbers.

All occupations are factored in. It's not suppose to factor in the unemployed. It's only suppose to factor in people who gather weekly paychecks.

It's a big PDF, I should have took a screen shot. Fine. I'll just have to use these Bureau of Labor Statistics. Don't worry, I'll post a graph for you.

It's the lowest 20% quintiles. And it's before taxes because the most people in their income bracket don't pay any income taxes. It's seasonally adjusted which means that it is adjusted for inflation so don't try to play that card with me.

Their spending as increased. They had money to buy "stuff."

 

This is, of course, a lie based on a false presumption and not based on any credible facts.

It was Government socialism that led to the financial meltdown in the first place by legislating feel good policies that loosened credit requirements for buying homes and then ignoring the crises within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the issues became intolerable.

How are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doing today? The media won’t tell you about it until it reaches crises proportions:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are selling hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of foreclosed properties in metro Detroit for far less than they appear to be worth, a practice that local leaders say is driving down property values and weakening neighborhoods.

In some instances, homes listed by the government-financed mortgage giants are being snapped up by private investors, then re-sold within days or weeks for far more money.

Local officials blame the federal government -- which took control of Fannie and Freddie in 2008 at a cost to taxpayers of $141 billion and climbing -- for doing little to stop the fire sales.

http://www.freep.com/article/201108...ippling-metro-Detroit-communities-leaders-say

Fannie and Freddie in 'critical' condition
Regulator says companies still suffer from severe operational and financial weaknesses. Recruiting executives also tough.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/18/news/economy/fannie_freddie_critical/index.htm

Standard & Poor's today downgraded the debt of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and 10 of 12 Federal Home Loan Banks that were propped up by the federal government after the financial crisis of 2008.

S&P reduced their ratings one notch, to AA+ from AAA, its very highest rating. The agencies guarantee or own more than half of the $5 trillion in U.S. mortgage debt.

President Obama, who had been silent since S&P announced Friday evening it was downgrading the U.S. government's debt, belittled the downgrade in a statement this afternoon.

Here's Mr. Morons response; of course it is the evil Republicans fault for stopping his reckless incredibly stupid spending spree:

"We didn't need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in Washington over the last several months has not been constructive, to say the least," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fann...graded-standard-poors-stock/story?id=14253014


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

 

Umm the auto and bank bail outs are facts? That was socialism through a government infusion of money saving capitalism.

You can argue all you want about what caused the financial and then by extension the automotive crisis, but the FACT remains when the crisis happened it was the government that saved those industries or at least smoothed out a very very troubled time.

 

Repost. Graphs all disappeared. Respond to this one.

All it does is compare people who were at the bottom quintle at that point in time. It doesn't account for the people who were in the bottom but have increased in the second 20 percent.

Arguments aren't settled by the numbers of consensus. It's settled by the evidence. Your premises that you're right because an economist agree with you is laughable and very small minded, as there are plenty of economist with opposing views. Have I looked up articles from Thomas Sowell or Milton Freidmen? No, because that would be too easy as they are Noble Laureates The difference between you and me is that I like come up with the conclusions myself. If I wanted to debate Nouriel Roubini, I'd contact him directly.

That does not tell you about the absolute conditions of the poor. It doesn't tell you if the poor is.

You just proved my argument for me without even realizing it.

Weekly salaries have fixed wages. No one earns an extra $2.48. The chart is not showing someone getting a wage increase of $2.48. It simply shows that someone who is entering the the work force. Someone entering the work force with a good paying job increases the bracket.

​

You see whatever you want to see. What you don't see is what is really happening. People are moving in and out of brackets everyday. The bottom income earners aren't getting a higher percentage of income because frequently people are moving higher and higher in the income brackets. People don't stay in the same brackets overtime.

Your logic fail because people are moving in and out of brackets EVERYDAY. Your theory doesn't hold up to real world implications because statistics proves otherwise. Every day, every week, every month the average wages are going up and income is going up.

Now it's apparent that you seem to have an preference for drawings and lines because every time I post numbers you seem to lose interest so I'm going to post a graph.

You can't lump in part-time statistics with full-time because they don't work as many hours as the full-time workers. It screws up the monthly and annual numbers.

All occupations are factored in. It's not suppose to factor in the unemployed. It's only suppose to factor in people who gather weekly paychecks.

It's the lowest 20% quintiles. And it's before taxes because the most people in their income bracket don't pay any income taxes. It's seasonally adjusted which means that it is adjusted for inflation so don't try to play that card with me.

Their spending as increased. They had money to buy "stuff."

 

Fact is you were wrong.

Unfortunately they are wrong.

I's simple maths. If the bottom half of the population have a smaller share of the national income, the relatively the capitalists have a smaller market among that half of the population.

Yes, and I would like links to the primary sources not everything from imageshack, I dunno the background.

Yes I have seen these figure for full time paid workers, as I say they dont include the self employed or the unemployed.

Anyway, the way it is presented is a nice steep line going up. But this graph gives a better impression

Is this graph expenditure? It is labelled Income. Anyway, there is no doubt people were spending, but a lot of the money was borrowed.



note the capacity utilisation /unemployment divergence

 

You say, MissJ, that nobody predicted the crash.

Socialist World quotes:



23/08/2007
"However, at a certain point there will be a crisis that they can’t avert and, like a hangover after a party that went on too long, the accumulated problems of the last period will come home to roost.

What is more, there are factors that make this crisis likely to be more serious than those of the 1990s.

The ‘slow motion car crash’ in the US housing market seems to have reached the point of collision. One fifth of US mortgages are in the sub-prime sector mortgages given to those who have great difficulty paying back the debt. More than 20% have already defaulted and one million Americans have lost their homes.

Even if the central banks avert a credit crunch now, this will not alter the underlying processes being played out in the US, which is what, at base, the markets are reacting to. Most capitalist commentators keep insisting that the fundamentals are sound, but this is not true. "

"There are many possible scenarios, as there are many fault lines in the world economy, not least the inability of US consumers to keep on buying. "

"However the onset of world recession, when it comes, will profoundly alter that situation, as billions of working-class people will be expected to pay for the crisis."

18/05/2007

"The world capitalist economy has been buoyed up by a tide of liquidity, a flood of cheap credit. This has fuelled the frenzied financial speculation of the last few years, a profits bonanza for the super-rich. Underlying this, however, are unsustainable imbalances and deepening contradictions in world economic relations."

"Behind the liquidity tide there is a deeper source, the over-accumulation of capital. Capitalists only invest their money if they can find profitable fields of investment. Since the last phase of the post-war upswing (1945-73), capitalists have found it increasingly difficult to find profitable fields of investment in production."

"The surge in profits at the expense of wages is very clear in the US."

"Despite rising profitability and the prevalence of business-friendly neo-liberal policies, however, the rate of capital accumulation in the advanced capitalist countries (including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc) has continuously declined since the late 1960s. The annual growth of fixed capital stock (which takes account of the depreciation or obsolescence of worn out capital) in the United States fell from 4% in the 1960s to 3% in the 1990s and only 2% between 2000-04."

"There has been a decline in capital investment (‘capex’ - short for capital expenditure - in financial jargon) despite the fact that (1) the global labour force has been approximately doubled in the last decade with the accelerated development of China and India, etc, which has significantly lowered the capital-labour ratio (the amount of capital employed per worker); and (2) the accelerated depreciation of capital stock because high-tech equipment becomes obsolescent faster than previous equipment, thus requiring a higher level of capital investment even to maintain the net capital stock. "