View Full Version : foreign opinion - US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932
Hopper
08-11-2010, 12:56 AM
I have a whole series of posts on US presidents and new directions they have taken the country in. Corporations are briefly discussed there. There are advantages to corporations for the country's economic system, but they do need to be heavily regulated. And you want to eliminate corporations. What a reactionary thought. Do you also want religions to dictate laws of a country also, as in the past?
The founders of the U.S. grudgingly allowed for the creation of corporations, but only for public projects, under heavy restrictions and for only the time it needed for them to fulfill their specific purpose.
I don't see what this has to do with theocracy or anything else from the past. The founders of the U.S. established it upon a brilliant, new, radical, and advanced system, based on enlightened, modern principles of liberty and prosperity. You can't call it obsolete or reactionary.
It is corporations which are a reactionary idea. It was corporations which provoked the American Revolution. King George was taxing the colonists to protect corporate monopolies in America.
Most of this is repeated from the post you responded to but it doesn't seem like you read it first.
Hopper
08-11-2010, 01:01 AM
That's just Hollywood; no relation to reality. Just a coincidence that that quote fits your purpose this time.
Fiction does bear a relation to reality, or it would not be convincing or meaningful fiction. It's not a coincidence if intelligent dialogue from a movie scene fits some other purpose. It fits because it is meaningful.
Melonie
08-11-2010, 03:37 AM
^^^ my point in choosing to post that clip from the 1991 film 'Other People's Money', besides the relevance of the quote itself re "an increasing share of a shrinking market" was to illustrate that the phenomenon of insufficient 'wealth' creation by certain US industries in the face of competition that has a 'structural advantage' is NOT all that new. The only real differences today are the much wider scope of US industries affected and the magnitude of the 'structural advantage' for competitors i.e. much lower costs of doing business in China.
There is of course a fundamental difference but it doesn't directly involve US businesses. That fundamental difference is that in the 1990's through the mid 2000's the US gov't and consumers were in a position to substitute growth of debt to replace lack of 'wealth' creation. Like all pyramid schemes, this allowed both the US gov't and US consumers to spend more money than they were earning and thus enjoy the illusion of economic well-being in much the same way as a credit card financed spending spree. However, for US consumers at least, their credit limit has been reached, further credit has been cut off, and the illusion of (growing debt fueled) economic well-being is over. Note that this is not a temporary change but a permanent one ... it was the growing debt fueled illusion that was temporary !
For better or worse, the US gov't has a printing press ... and as such is not constrained to balance spending versus 'income' when international lenders cut off further credit. They are perfectly capable of printing up brand new US dollars out of nowhere, and using those freshly printed dollars to purchase their own newly issued Treasury bonds ( via wall st proxy of course !). However, incessant money printing is not without its own negative economic effects ... with these effects now beginning to rear their ugly head.
~
Hopper
08-11-2010, 06:00 AM
^The government can print all of the money it likes, but not without consequences at some point. The government cannot stop the inflation this causes. It can slow it down, but that only delays the inevitable collapse. The government slows down inflation using the income tax. This is the real, primary purpose of the income tax, although it serves other important purposes also. The income tax checks the inflationary effect of credit and money created from nothing by mopping up purchasing power. What credit gives, tax takes back. (The banks still make their profit in the process and the government still gets it's spending money.) Here it is straight from the horses mouth:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html
But since it only slows, not stops, inflation, the economy will hit a wall if the system created by the Federal Reserve Act continues long enough. The solution is to abolish the system which causes the inflation, but with the alcoholics in charge of the bar (and the people clueless) that is not likely to happen. Another solution would be for the government to assume increasingly stricter and wider controls over society to control it's effects and impose an austere standard of living on society appropriate to the impoverished economy.
threlayer
08-11-2010, 09:01 AM
Fiction does bear a relation to reality, or it would not be convincing or meaningful fiction. It's not a coincidence if intelligent dialogue from a movie scene fits some other purpose. It fits because it is meaningful.
How do you resolve that idea with "Lord of the Rings", vampires, Frankenstein, the undead rising, etc? I think you're manipulating ideas to your purposes.
Melonie
08-11-2010, 09:12 AM
How do you resolve that idea with "Lord of the Rings", vampires, Frankenstein, the undead rising, etc?
All of these are arguable allegories for 'real world' conditions.
threlayer
08-11-2010, 09:15 AM
In fact I DO realize very well how important electricity is to manufacturing processes, as well as to raw materials processing. And indeed anything that transforms our production, distribution, and costing of electricity will be transformative to US society. Arguably this transformation is already occurring due to the effects of wind and solar - but not in the way most people imagine.
Case in point is of course the fact that China is bringing on line two new un-scrubbed coal fired power plants every single week to provide rock bottom priced electricity to an increasing customer base of manufacturers and raw materials processors, whereas US electricity continues to become more expensive due in part to the rising embedded costs of solar and wind power subsidies charged to all US electricity consumers in the form of unnecessarily high electric rates. And with every additional solar or wind installation, the net need for subsidies to cover the newly generated 'capacity' costs, newly generated capital equipment costs for interconnection, the cost premium for purchasing 'feed in' solar and wind power at 'above market' prices ( compared to coal, oil or even gas fired electric generation) etc. needs to be shifted onto a declining base of regular electricity customers.
China is the largest manufacturer of wind power machines, having 40% of the world market; and they install in China 40% of what they manufacture. Windpower is unevenly and sparsely dispersed so even the largest windpower 'farms' take up huge amounts of land and produce only moderate amounts of power. Base load generation, on the contrary (except for some large run-of-the-river hydro installations, requires much less real estate, but it requires access to large bodies of water or huge cooling towers. There are other limitations than just siting, such as pollution concentrations, existing land use for transmissions lines R-O-W's etc. Nuclear has its own opponents, even though it is the cleanest of the base-load technologies, even considering the mining operations. As a result of our public acceptance limitations, very little base load generation can now be built in the US at reasonable cost. But there is a large potential for windpower, along with energy storage, technologies. And eventually the cost will become reasonable. The real limitation on that is the same as for any other electric power technology and that is availability of transmission rights-of-way, though that is mostly a matter of esthetics.
Melonie
08-11-2010, 09:42 AM
The real limitatoiun on that is the same as for any otrher electric power technology and that is availability of transmission rigits-of-way, though that is mostly a matter of esthetics.
umm ... no it's not the same. Almost without exception, wind power must be sited on the tops of mountains and in rural areas. And also almost without exception, electricity usage is concentrated in cities. Thus making actual use of windpower requires the 'absorption' of huge amounts of line losses in addition to huge amounts of capital investment for transmission lines to connect the mountaintops with the cities. If those costs were assessed to the wind farm operators, there is NO WAY they could operate profitably ... even at a higher than market priced 'feed in' electricity price.
Additionally, wind power is only as reliable as the wind. Thus to avoid grid collapse, for every megawatt of wind generators another megawatt worth of spinning but unloaded conventional generation is required to 'pick up the load' within milliseconds of the wind velocity dying down. If the costs of operating this 'standby' generation was assessed to the wind farm operators there is also no way they could operate profitably even at a premium 'feed in' price.
No the unfortunate fact is that where wind power ( and solar power ) is concerned, there is a huge amount of 'stealth' cost shifting taking place. Every electricity customer in a particular region is forced to pay higher line loss charges to absorb line loss costs which are directly and only attributable to wind generators. Every electricity customer is forced to pay higher 'ancillary' charges to the power grid operator so that the grid operator can in turn pay the 'spinning reserve' unloaded generator operator to 'pick up the load' when wind velocity drops - a cost which is also directly attributable to wind generators. And every electricity customer is forced to pay higher 'capital cost' charges to their local electricity delivery utility to cover the cost of constructing / upgrading power lines to the tops of mountains - a cost which is also directly attributable to wind generators.
There is only one reason that the wind ( and solar ) industries are able to get away with these 'stealth' subsidies ... because the percent of wind ( and solar ) generated power compared to the total amount of generated power is still very small. As the proportion increases, so will the cost of these 'stealth' subsidies ... to the point where they result in dramatic across the board electric rate increases. At that point, questions will start to be asked.
Hopper
08-12-2010, 12:18 AM
How do you resolve that idea with "Lord of the Rings", vampires, Frankenstein, the undead rising, etc? I think you're manipulating ideas to your purposes.
To be entertaining, fiction has to be convincing to the reader - he has to feel it is actually happenning. Therefore it has to be tied to reality, even if it contains obviously fictional subjects such as vampires and wizards. Also, some fiction - all good fiction - is a vehicle for conveying ideas about the real world, using fictional settings and characters. Frankenstein and Romero's undead films are said to have been an allegorical social commentary.
Hopper
08-12-2010, 12:34 AM
China is the largest manufacturer of wind power machines, having 40% of the world market; and they install in China 40% of what they manufacture. Windpower is unevenly and sparsely dispersed so even the largest windpower 'farms' take up huge amounts of land and produce only moderate amounts of power. Base load generation, on the contrary (except for some large run-of-the-river hydro installations, requires much less real estate, but it requires access to large bodies of water or huge cooling towers. There are other limitations than just siting, such as pollution concentrations, existing land use for transmissions lines R-O-Ws etc. Nuclear has its own opponents, even though it is the cleanest lof the base-load technologies, even considering the mining operations. As a result of our public acceptance limitations, very little base load generation can now be built in the US at reasonable cost. But there is a large potential for windpower, along with energy storage, technologies. And eventually the cost will become reasonable. The real limitatoiun on that is the same as for any otrher electric power technology and that is availability of transmission rigits-of-way, though that is mostly a matter of esthetics.
You dismiss nuclear based on public acceptance, even though that is affected by misinformation? How about informing them correctly?
A room full of batteries in every household, and a whole warehouse full of them in every factory, is never going to be cheaper than a single large generator powering a whole town.
flickad
08-12-2010, 11:17 PM
I'm too tired to deal with the entire post you wrote in response to mine, Hopper, but the main thing I have a quibble with is the ownership question. In general, yes, ownership is absolute, most notably with respect to chattels. However, with respect to certain things, it is not. These things include real property, business, animals and certain kinds of intellectual property (and a business essentially is intellectual property as it does not exist in corporeal form). To some degree, these types of property are subject to regulation. However, most of the bundle of rights that in law mean ownership are still there. These include the right to deal with and alienate the property - rights not available to third parties.
flickad
08-12-2010, 11:18 PM
I thought so. Yet government health care is available to them regardless of income. And they are not billion-dollar corporations whose profits require redistribution, yet they are being scrupulously taxed.
Everyone earning over a certain threshold gets taxed. Why should strippers get special treatment?
Melonie
08-13-2010, 03:32 AM
^^^ As you are not from America, you're probably unaware that up until a very few years ago the American IRS could only officially track the 'income' side of the equation. This meant that people who received an employee paycheck had their incomes fully and automatically reported to the IRS and had little choice but to pay all taxes due. But this also meant that people who earned some or all of their incomes via cash transactions ... such as landscapers, cabdrivers, waitstaff, commercial fishermen, 'strippers' and a whole host of others ... had the opportunity to officially under-report their incomes thus paying far fewer taxes than were actually due. This situation existed for decades and provided the 'moral hazard' situation that people involved in cash businesses could afford to support gov't spending programs knowing that there would be no direct tax consequences on themselves.
However, over the course of the last few years and particularly within the last 2 years, the American IRS has begun requiring automatic reporting of spending as well as income. Thus if a person pays college tuition, registers a car or a boat or a home, has a bank or investment or retirement account balance over $3,000 ( varies by different states), or purchases anything costing more than US$3,000 ( varies by different states ), the tax dep't computers are going to be automatically informed. This in turn now sets off a cross-check by those computers as to whether the total amount of spending reports received for a particular person compares realistically to the total amount of income reported by that same person less local costs of living ( a statistic that is also calculated by those same computers for every US postal zip code area). If those computers turn up a seemingly unexplainable 'gap', i.e. if a 'stripper' reported say $30k in income but lives in an area with a $10k annual cost of living plus paid $10k in college tuition plus registered a new car costing $20k+, an IRS auditor is now extremely likely to be knocking on that 'stripper's door very soon !
Thus it is now increasingly probable that US 'strippers' who have chosen to under-report their cash incomes will now be discovered and billed for back taxes plus penalties and interest unless they stuff cash bills in their mattress and never buy anything that costs more than $3,000. But this recent development hasn't fully 'sunk in' in regard to the thinking process of many cash business workers including 'strippers'. In other words, it hasn't fully 'sunk in' yet that higher income / business / health care and other taxes are actually going to take a big 'bite' out of 2011 'stripper' earnings, as well as taking a big 'bite' out of 2011 strip club customer earnings thus leaving them with less money to spend on 'strippers'.
Arguably, the increased tax collection from cash businesses, combined with the 'narrowing' of other tax avoidance loopholes ( i.e. the IRS trolling secret Swiss bank accounts held by American citizens etc. ), is already resulting in a 'permanent' reduction in the de-facto 'disposable incomes' of American cash business operators due to increased income tax collection. This will absolutely result in a 'permanent' reduction in their discretionary spending, thus a 'permanent' reduction in activity level of the US economy, as these newly 'enforced' tax collection dollars now get channeled into gov't coffers instead of spent into the private sector economy as they had been in previous years / decades.
I'll cite a sideways example. One of the 'sob stories' coming out of the BP Gulf oil spill was that BP was supposed to make up lost income for affected local businesses. Louisiana commercial fishermen filed for BP compensation checks, but BP responded by requiring these commercial fishermen to prove their incomes via showing previous year tax returns. Many were unable to do this since they would simply sell their daily catch at the docks in exchange for cash payment ... that was not reported and therefore not taxed. Similarly the fish market operator who paid cash to the fishermen was reselling the fish to restaurants etc. via unreported cash transactions. All in all, the BP compensation claimants have triggered an IRS investigation of unprecedented size ... which may result in a 10-15-20% reduction in the total amount of dollars circulating in the Louisiana economy as those dollars will now be 'siphoned off' to gov't coffers as the law had always required but in the real world simply didn't occur.
And that brings us back on topic !!!
~
Hopper
08-13-2010, 05:43 AM
^Change you can believe in!
threlayer
08-15-2010, 08:25 PM
You dismiss nuclear based on public acceptance, even though that is affected by misinformation? How about informing them correctly?
A room full of batteries in every household, and a whole warehouse full of them in every factory, is never going to be cheaper than a single large generator powering a whole town.
Misinformation is on both sides, but France has safely dealt with it for decades.
Energy storage cannot be done economically dispersed at the end use point. Storage must be concentrated, and it will not be batteries alone, if at all.
threlayer
08-15-2010, 08:52 PM
umm ... no it's not the same. Almost without exception, wind power must be sited on the tops of mountains and in rural areas. And also almost without exception, electricity usage is concentrated in cities. Thus making actual use of windpower requires the 'absorption' of huge amounts of line losses in addition to huge amounts of capital investment for transmission lines to connect the mountaintops with the cities. If those costs were assessed to the wind farm operators, there is NO WAY they could operate profitably ... even at a higher than market priced 'feed in' electricity price.
Rural areas certainly, but not limited to mountaintops by any means. Example is the Great Plains area, rural to be sure but not mountainous. But you are greatly misinformed about "huge amounts of line losses"; actually it is quite small considering both line series I^2R and transformer core and coil losses; I doubt if it averages over 1-2% of the average power transmitted. And that considers the long lines required. The cost of transmission and required R-O-W (plus administrative costs such as envorimnmental impact studies and public hearings) is much more the issue. This is why the electric utilities should be heavily involved in any decision regarding siting. After all, they are the experts in adding transmission and generation in a cost-effective and reliable way. No NGO, NUG, or government committee can do that at all.
Additionally, wind power is only as reliable as the wind. Thus to avoid grid collapse, for every megawatt of wind generators another megawatt worth of spinning but unloaded conventional generation is required to 'pick up the load' within milliseconds of the wind velocity dying down. If the costs of operating this 'standby' generation was assessed to the wind farm operators there is also no way they could operate profitably even at a premium 'feed in' price.
Spinning reserve (and standby reserve) is required for all types of generation. As more experience is gained with wind/solar, predictive means will be developed and the confidence gained will reduce the amount of reserve needed for reliability. This was the case for the first gas turbine generators.
No the unfortunate fact is that where wind power ( and solar power ) is concerned, there is a huge amount of 'stealth' cost shifting taking place. Every electricity customer in a particular region is forced to pay higher line loss charges to absorb line loss costs which are directly and only attributable to wind generators. Every electricity customer is forced to pay higher 'ancillary' charges to the power grid operator so that the grid operator can in turn pay the 'spinning reserve' unloaded generator operator to 'pick up the load' when wind velocity drops - a cost which is also directly attributable to wind generators. And every electricity customer is forced to pay higher 'capital cost' charges to their local electricity delivery utility to cover the cost of constructing / upgrading power lines to the tops of mountains - a cost which is also directly attributable to wind generators.
See my comments above. BTW there are no ongoing fuel costs with solar or wind power a very significant cost factor. Costs are limited to capital amortization and maintenance costs for the generation and transmission
There is only one reason that the wind ( and solar ) industries are able to get away with these 'stealth' subsidies ... because the percent of wind ( and solar ) generated power compared to the total amount of generated power is still very small. As the proportion increases, so will the cost of these 'stealth' subsidies ... to the point where they result in dramatic across the board electric rate increases. At that point, questions will start to be asked.
You just do not understand the technology development process. All large-scale technologies go thru prototype, pilot, and initial acceptance stages. As there is risk involved, it is normal for new techynologies to cost more at first and often to require government subsidies. I could cite a dozen examples of this. Wind/solar is no different; nuclear certainly enjoyed this support; who do you think supported the Chicago Fermi plant in the 50s? Without government support, the US would be vastly behind in many technologies.
This is the problem with uninformed opinions in technical development areas.
threlayer
08-16-2010, 10:26 PM
... This meant that people who received an employee paycheck had their incomes fully and automatically reported to the IRS and had little choice but to pay all taxes due. But this also meant that people who earned some or all of their incomes via cash transactions ... such as landscapers, cabdrivers, waitstaff, commercial fishermen, 'strippers' and a whole host of others ... had the opportunity to officially under-report their incomes thus paying far fewer taxes than were actually due. This situation existed for decades and provided the 'moral hazard' Hazard to say the least. Tax evasion is a serious CRIME.
... Arguably, the increased tax collection from cash businesses, combined with the 'narrowing' of other tax avoidance loopholes ..., is already resulting in a 'permanent' reduction in the de-facto 'disposable incomes' of American cash business operators due to increased income tax collection....It has already reduced my disposable income, since I've been paying the taxes these tax evaders. Too bad for them. {sob}
... Louisiana commercial fishermen filed for BP compensation checks, but BP responded by requiring these commercial fishermen to prove their incomes via showing previous year tax returns. Many were unable to do this since they would simply sell their daily catch at the docks in exchange for cash payment ... that was not reported and therefore not taxed ... triggered an IRS investigation of unprecedented size ... which may result in a 10-15-20% reduction in the total amount of dollars circulating in the Louisiana economy as those dollars will now be 'siphoned off' to gov't coffers as the law had always required but in the real world simply didn't occur.Getting caught for tax evasion is a bitch. They knew better and took the risk. {sob again}
Melonie
08-17-2010, 02:09 AM
^^^ please understand that you and I are on the same page in regard to the under-reporting of cash incomes and the under-payment of taxes due on those cash incomes. However, the issue I have tried to point out is no less valid. It's very easy to vote for politicians that promise to enact programs which will require the spending of huge amounts of tax money if you're in a cash income situation and thus have the option of not being forced to contribute your OWN tax money to fund such programs. This is the 'moral hazard' of which I speak. And while the tax enforcement picture is now changing, whether it's gulf coast fishermen or west coast landscapers or east coast exotic dancers the established 'thinking pattern' has been the same ... that they won't see much of any personal economic consequences from expensive new gov't programs or the higher tax rates they will require for funding.
However, the real irony is that the tax avoidance these 'middle class' cash business people have been able to achieve illegally can be LEGALLY achieved by the rich and uber-rich. This is more true today than at virtually any time in history thanks to parabolic price gains in tax free muni bonds, thanks to production tax credits extended to green energy partnerships etc.
threlayer
08-17-2010, 07:25 AM
^^^ please understand that you and I are on the same page in regard to the under-reporting of cash incomes and the under-payment of taxes due on those cash incomes....
This forum has warned dancers about that 'underreporting' problem for years, especially lately. There are so many cash businesses, even the little diner down the road and the Ma and Pa (Hindu) motel around the corner, that I'd not be surprised that, if the last 10 years taxes were properly reported and paid, it would add up to last year's deficit spending. And that affects all of us in product price increases and in taxes.
Deogol
08-17-2010, 11:22 AM
How do you resolve that idea with "Lord of the Rings", vampires, Frankenstein, the undead rising, etc? I think you're manipulating ideas to your purposes.
It involves the ability for abstract thinking.
Frankenstein is about science in unwise and egotistical hands. The ultimate god complex and the effect of it on those around them. Frankenstein (actually named Adam in the book) was a piece-wise combination of many things alone that would not matter to anyone or anything except the bugs. But the doctor combined them and created a monster that even he couldn't control. Sound familiar? Computers - Quants - creation of things no one understands?
The undead rising? Continuously putting down a danger and no matter what it keeps fucking coming back. It sneaks around in the dark cunning and waiting to catch you with your pants down (why you never poop in a stall in Zombieland.) I can look around me and see mindless zombies bent on destruction. Can you?
Vampires? Fucking aristocracy/upper class draining the living essence from the peasants. Need I say more? Is it not obvious why vampires are the thing right now?
Lord of the Rings - there are whole friggin books analyzing that story.
threlayer
08-17-2010, 01:46 PM
^^ Somehow those interpretations have a validity in the present day.
Deogol
08-17-2010, 08:15 PM
^^ Somehow those interpretations have a validity in the present day.
I still haven't figured out twilight. I have some theories but I ain't putting them out on a female dominated board!
Hopper
08-18-2010, 01:49 AM
^The message from Twilight is that a large section of the population will buy any book you put on the shelves if you market it right.
threlayer
08-20-2010, 02:17 PM
^^ They bought Bush twice. And don't let me get started on Palin.....
Deogol
08-21-2010, 09:00 AM
^^ They bought Bush twice. And don't let me get started on Palin.....
At least the next president will be a hottie!
Melonie
08-21-2010, 07:05 PM
^^^ and she's also extremely good with weapons LOL !!!
... which may come in handy for whoever 'inherits' the probable US mess upon taking office in 2013 !
Hopper
08-22-2010, 03:33 AM
I think you're actually the one who's a little mixed up here (understandably as I have veered off topic considerably). Hopper and I have been discussing a system which is utterly deregulated, not capitalism per se. I'm quite aware of the strength of a contractual right and the even greater strength of a property one in the common law world. Hopper and I went off track in terms of the topic with respect to the discussion as to whether China and India are evil and are now discussing the end results of far-end libertarianism. I'm very doubtful that anyone here has the desire to toss out capitalism, myself included (and am even more doubtful that the end of capitalism is nigh). In fact, I plan to pursue commercial litigation (including contractual, corporations law and IP claims) on my admission later this year, which is about as capitalist as you can get in my field. There's a difference between supporting a social safety net and wanting, Arts student style, to 'smash capitalism' in favour of an entirely socialist or communist system. The former is called social democracy and exists quite successfully in most of the developed world, while the latter is pretty loony if you know anything at all about history.
Total deregulation means no more civil law. Contract law forms part of civil law. Hopper has stated elsewhere that in his view the government should be involved in criminal law only, which presumably means that the only remaining fields of law, besides criminal, would be its adjuncts of criminal evidence and procedure, as well as some sort of enforcement legislation. Now you see why I said that contracts would lose the force of law.
Forgot to mention - Lenin's party was called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. And Lenin wanted to smash capitalism in favor of an entirely socialist or communist system.
And the Russian Federation is a social democracy.
threlayer
08-22-2010, 08:38 AM
Forgot to mention - Lenin's party was called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. And Lenin wanted to smash capitalism in favor of an entirely socialist or communist system.
BTW - The Russian Federation is a social democracy.
And after all that bloodshed in 1917 all they got was a corrupt totalitarian and authoritarian system, probably not any better than the one they replaced. also one that spend very little capital on the Russian people's welfare themselves. If that is a social democracy, I'll eat my cat!
threlayer
08-22-2010, 08:42 AM
At least the next president will be a hottie!
That's what the girls thought about Bush. Oh, you mean Hillary? If she can do the Mid-East peace thing she deserves it.
threlayer
08-22-2010, 08:45 AM
^^^ and she's also extremely good with weapons LOL !!!
Yeah, that mouth of hers has quite a wide spread (as in shotgun).
Melonie
08-22-2010, 08:57 AM
^^^ spread indeed ...
Hey at least Larry Flynt has figured out how to make money in a 'depression' LOL !!!
Come to think of it, this is also how an increasing number of 'strippers' are now having to make money in a 'depression' ... which is NOT a laughing matter.
~
Deogol
08-22-2010, 09:13 PM
That's what the girls thought about Bush. Oh, you mean Hillary? If she can do the Mid-East peace thing she deserves it.
The middle east thing will never happen. Especially for a woman! Feminism ends at US/Canada and Western European borders.
Deogol
08-22-2010, 09:15 PM
^^^ spread indeed ...
Hey at least Larry Flynt has figured out how to make money in a 'depression' LOL !!!
Come to think of it, this is also how an increasing number of 'strippers' are now having to make money in a 'depression' ... which is NOT a laughing matter.
~
Outside the business women are far more open minded these days too.
Hopper
08-23-2010, 01:23 AM
And after all that bloodshed in 1917 all they got was a corrupt totalitarian and authoritarian system, probably not any better than the one they replaced. also one that spend very little capital on the Russian people's welfare themselves. If that is a social democracy, I'll eat my cat!
Not better at all, much worse. The Czars killed only a handful of revolutionaries and exiled or jailed the rest. Millions were killed and tortured during Lenin's Red Terror for less reason. Remember also that Lenin did not depose the Czar. Czar Nicholas II abdicated to a liberal government (led by Kerensky) in February of 1917 while Lenin was still out of Russia. Lenin's revolution occurred in October of 1917, eight months later.
Social democracy originally was the extreme wing of socialism, e.g. Marxism. Though modern social democracy is claimed to be different from what the term originally referred to, historically and ideologically they are closely connected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#Original_social_democracy
However different proponents of social democracy try to make it seem to full authoritarianism, they lead to the same thing in practice. Lenin supposedly never intended it to lead to brutal dictatorship either - his attempts to impose benevolent socialism just naturally led to brutal authoritarianism. Whatever the intentions, all attempts lead to the same thing, simply because the ideology is inconsistent with reality. You simply have to force people to conform to the idea.
The distinction between socialism and social democracy is supposed to be that socialism is a complete revolution while social democracy is just capitalism with reforms. But social democrats never rejected socialism (or Marx), they just disagreed that socialism would be achieved through class conflict. Also, revolutionary socialists (including Marxists) believed the revolution would not merely be one sudden event, but a slow transformation of capitalism via gradual socialist "reforms".
In reality there was no genuine, basic disagreement or difference between the two. They were just different slightly different theoretical approaches to the same thing. Contemporary social democracy didn't come about by changing the original meaning of the term; it came about when the revolutionary faction completely split with the reformist faction (during WW1) and called themselves something else ("communists") instead, to distinguish themselves from the other faction. Since communism is just a theoretical, unattainable idea, and all communists are really working toward socialism (although they believe it to be a temporary measure), their new name did not really have a different meaning to social democracy. It was just a distinguishing label.
Social democracy has always meant socialism. Any claim that it means a mixture of capitalism and socialism is either a pretense to placate the masses or a misconception. Marxists themselves intended to overthrow capitalism through gradual socialist reforms which would undermine it and eventually result in full socialism (they call this "ongoing revolution"). Those who advocate such reforms are themselves socialists, though they market their reforms under such concepts as "welfare", "human rights", "social justice" and "necessary regulation" etc. Marxists themselves strongly advocate and agitate for these reforms.
People think of social democracy as capitalism with a "safety net" talk as if a particular, static "balance" of socialist "reforms" is achieved and the socialism stops their and doesn't increase any further. In practice it never reaches an end; more socialism just keeps being added. The socialist "safety nets" have a detrimental affect on the capitalist system - they are not neutral, like a real safety net is. But these ill effects are not blamed on the real cause, they are blamed on the capitalist system itself and therefore people reason that more socialism (more government regulation) is needed to fix it. More continues to go wrong and more socialism continues to be installed. If you keep on adding more socialism, eventually you must end up with an entirely socialist system.
threlayer
08-23-2010, 10:19 AM
The social democracies of the Skandinavian countries are far different than 'socialism' of the old USSR. Most people seem to actually be happy there.
threlayer
08-28-2010, 08:44 PM
Seems to be no argument about that statement.
Hopper
08-28-2010, 10:24 PM
Sorry to keep you waiting. Yes, socialists say socialism in the Scandinavian countries works. Really they just use them as examples of successful socialist societies because they are not brutally oppressive socialist countries like the USSR and China (and most of the others). That is not the same thing as actually working. There is a lot of middle between brutally oppressive and comfortable. The absence of reports of routine human rights abuses from those Scandinavian countries allows socialists to sneakily equate this with efficiency and contentment. An argument from silence, you might say - no complaints, must be okay.
Socialism in these countries is as inefficient and restrictive as socialism anywhere else. In Sweden the government discourages private housing construction, making people dependent on government housing.
http://www.archive.org/stream/clichsofsocial00vari#page/266/mode/2up
I like the comment at the end about roads in Sweden and their auto industry. I recommend you read that whole book.
In Sweden taxes (visible and hidden) total 60% of the incomes of average workers. Here's how it works:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00814-swedens-taxes-the-hidden-costs-the-welfare-state
Socialism in Sweden has also led to increasing dominance of corporations in most or all industries.
Roland Huntford wrote a whole book (The New Totalitarians, 1971) describing the problems in Sweden.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_New_Totalitarians
Swedes are generally happy there - but only because they have never known anything else and their government controls the media. Bit like Americans today really.
hockeybobby
08-29-2010, 12:02 AM
Hopper: I would be interested to know what you think are the top 5 countries to live in, in the world today? The Scandinavian countries are routinely near or at the top of such lists I've seen for years.
eagle2
08-29-2010, 12:37 AM
Swedes are generally happy there - but only because they have never known anything else and their government controls the media. Bit like Americans today really.
That's nonsense. Any Swede with internet access can look at any media they want.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 01:39 AM
Hopper: I would be interested to know what you think are the top 5 countries to live in, in the world today? The Scandinavian countries are routinely near or at the top of such lists I've seen for years.
I've only ever lived in one. I guess if I haven't left it yet it must be up there. The "free" countries are becoming more and more socialised, and running down further with time because of the socialism which has already been added. Eventually I might have to escape to Communist Vietnam.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 01:40 AM
That's nonsense. Any Swede with internet access can look at any media they want.
So can Americans.
People of any country generally have their perceptions formed by the mass media. This means they aren't likely to go looking for alternate perspectives and that any conflicting information will be interpreted to fit with what they "know".
Climate change is an example. Most people, though they have internet, don't even know there is dissent on climate change - they think there is a consensus. They wouldn't look for it because they don't know it exists. When and if they are told about it, they laugh it off as propaganda or fringe science. "Surely the media would have told me..." When the media do mention it, they "debunk" it and so discourage any further consideration or inquiry by the general population.
The Swedish government does have a lot of power over the country's media. And since socialism is so well accepted in all nominally non-socialist countries, there is relatively little strong criticism of socialism on the internet from people of those countries - at least not on the popular, mainstream websites. The net has a "mainstream" and a "fringe" also, just like other media.
threlayer
08-31-2010, 11:32 AM
...Yes, socialists say socialism in the Scandinavian countries works. Really they just use them as examples of successful socialist societies because they are not brutally oppressive socialist countries like the USSR and China (and most of the others). That is not the same thing as actually working. There is a lot of middle between brutally oppressive and comfortable. The absence of reports of routine human rights abuses from those Scandinavian countries allows socialists to sneakily equate this with efficiency and contentment. An argument from silence, you might say - no complaints, must be okay.
I think your opinion flies in the face of all evidence and reporting. But I will peruse your article links, to make sure I'm considering other viewpoints.
In Sweden taxes (visible and hidden) total 60% of the incomes of average workers.
how much of that 60 % is for items and services they need anyway? For that matter how much of your income goes for items and services you need anyway? Isn't just a matter of where your money goes, so that if you don't like government proxy spending as opposed to individual spending, it is merely a matter of your personal preference and 60% money doesn't just go down an unending rathole but goes for something.