• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Do you believe that an economic collapse will bring about socialist reforms?

Vic

Vic

Elite Member
This seems to be a prevailing but unspoken opinion here, that an economic collapse will lead to an end to corporatism and bring about socialist reforms. Generally, this opinion is backed up with a divisive attitude of pessimism and a claim that the Great Depression and the FDR administration did exactly that (when in fact that time brought about -- other than the small bone of Social Security thrown to the general public -- a huge surge in corporatism, followed by WWII, the military-industrial complex, a seemingly never-ending state of war and fear, the Red Scare/Cold War, etc., your typical corporo-fascist state).

So in light of all that, and the current global banking crisis (mistakenly thought of here as just being an American housing bubble, despite the banks collapsing in Europe), I'd like to see where people stand on this issue, and to have them back up their claims with genuine facts and intelligent opinion (read: take your trolling and/or your vacuous pompous rhetoric elsewhere).

My opinion BTW is that economics is more social science than mathematics, and that the intangible of confidence determines economic swings more than any other physical factor (despite perhaps geography, as Jared Diamond so eloquently reasoned in Guns, Germs, and Steel). As such, those with power and money are able to manipulate public confidence in such a way that a lack of confidence, and the corresponding economic downturn, can cause the public to run to them as a means of finding safety in uncertain times. For example, why did humanity subject itself to tyrant kings for thousands of years? Answer: because the kings made them feel safe. The old myth that we were subject to the kings because they already had the power was disproven by liberalism, which demonstrated that the power had been in the people all the time, and subsequently led to today's modern democracies.
In such fashion, and because the basic premise of liberalism is an optimistic view of humanity, it seems to me that this driving pessimism has its basis in forces seeking to reinstitute authoritarian control, particularly with the unknowingly help of those youthful idiots deluded enough to believe that it will bring about pro-common people socialist reforms, despite all the teachings of history proving otherwise.

Anyway, discuss.
 
You forgot the poll 🙂

I don't think we will have an economic collapse...

Go to amazon.com and look at all the 'how to profit from the next recession' type of books.
There is big money in economic collapse.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You forgot the poll 🙂

I don't think we will have an economic collapse...

Go to amazon.com and look at all the 'how to profit from the next recession' type of books.
There is big money in economic collapse.
Click to expand...

Well, the purpose of this thread is to discuss a hypothetical situation. A "what if?"
So, IF there were an economic collapse, do you believe this would foster populist-socialist reforms? Or not? And then I would like people to explain the basis for their reasoning either way, as I did in my OP.
 
If there is a economic collapse it will probably be used as an excuse to introduce the Amero and the North American Union
 
For any meaningful discussion, you need to define your terms. Do you mean another Great Depression?

What about "socialist" reforms? One can argue that anti-monopoly laws are "socialist" since they restrain laissez-faire capitalism. I say that unrestrained Capitalism is as bad as any unchecked policy. All one needs to do is look at railroad monopolies as an example. Over time power becomes consolidated into the hands of a few. The Golden Rule would apply. He who has the gold makes the rules. Hardly a good situation.

Semantics mean something here.
 
The global economy has changed so much since the 1930's that I don't believe a comparison to the great depression is apt at all here.

Investing is so much more accessible to the lower end of the wealth spectrum today than it was even 30 years ago, that a whole new set of dynamics would apply to anything that happens. We already have systems in place to help prevent economic collapse, which makes such an event all the more unlikely, and less devastating should it occur.

That and you need to keep in mind how every economy on Earth is interdependent on one another. The US economy could not collapse without taking down just about every market on Earth, and that would be quite a feat.
 
I think we will see war, on our soil, before we see an economic collapse. The effects of that war, or wars, bring too many variables to the equation.

I also think that too many powerful groups/governments see liberalism as a failure.

Technology, the constant state of war, and economic problems are bringing us closer to a foolish acceptance of a global 1984ish society.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
For any meaningful discussion, you need to define your terms. Do you mean another Great Depression?

What about "socialist" reforms? One can argue that anti-monopoly laws are "socialist" since they restrain laissez-faire capitalism. I say that unrestrained Capitalism is as bad as any unchecked policy. All one needs to do is look at railroad monopolies as an example. Over time power becomes consolidated into the hands of a few. The Golden Rule would apply. He who has the gold makes the rules. Hardly a good situation.

Semantics mean something here.
Click to expand...

I feel that the context used in the OP defined the semantics quite well.

And while I've never advocating for completely unrestrained capitalism (we have laws against murder, robbery, rape, fraud, and other forms of harm, do we not? so I don't see why business should ever be exempt from doing harm, nor have I ever argued such), I think it should be pointed out that those railroad companies you refer to were government created monopolies, and not ones that arose out of any unchecked policy. Sorry, but I see that bit as a straw man, as these are the historical facts. The Golden Rule did apply in the creation of the railroad monopolies in the post-Civil War era, and the government had all the gold (which it divvied up to various cronies). Credit Mobilier ring a bell?
 
Originally posted by: bbdub333
We already have systems in place to help prevent economic collapse, which makes such an event all the more unlikely, and less devastating should it occur.
Click to expand...

Like your "systems in place" has prevented 50 and counting Mortgage companies to go bankrupt since April? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: bbdub333
The global economy has changed so much since the 1930's that I don't believe a comparison to the great depression is apt at all here.

Investing is so much more accessible to the lower end of the wealth spectrum today than it was even 30 years ago, that a whole new set of dynamics would apply to anything that happens. We already have systems in place to help prevent economic collapse, which makes such an event all the more unlikely, and less devastating should it occur.

That and you need to keep in mind how every economy on Earth is interdependent on one another. The US economy could not collapse without taking down just about every market on Earth, and that would be quite a feat.
Click to expand...

There are many who would argue that investing access to the lower end of the wealth spectrum is what fed the market bust of '29. There's an old adage about Henry Ford that he pulled his money out of the market when shoeshine boys starting giving him stock tips.
Plus, the Great Depression was a global economic collapse, not one just limited to the US.

I'm glad that so many of you continue to have confidence in our economy. As I said in the OP, confidence is probably more important than any physical factor. However, this thread is discusing a hypothetical situation, and really not addressed to you, but to those posters here who have repeatedly advocated a belief that an economic collapse ala the Great Depression would bring about FDR-like populist-socialist reforms and that the ends justify the means in order to bring such a thing about.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bbdub333
We already have systems in place to help prevent economic collapse, which makes such an event all the more unlikely, and less devastating should it occur.
Click to expand...

Like your "systems in place" has prevented 50 and counting Mortgage companies to go bankrupt since April? :laugh:
Click to expand...

Speak of the devil :roll:
 
one can only hope 😉

but really... if America made it through the 1930's without converting to socialism, I doubt it will ever happen.
 
I voted No because the OP still doesn't get it.

I have nothing against Corporations.

I do have issue with bogus Corporations which is what a good majority in the U.S. have become thanks to taking over the Republican party and thereby the U.S. Government.

I'm not saying the same thing couldn't happen with the Democrats but it is under the Republicans the last seven years that the majority of this shift has occured.

A skeleton of a company in the U.S. only with office staff and a peice of paper saying it is a U.S. Corporation while the product is made with child labor and dangerous materials in China does not a U.S. Company make.

Bring back manufacturing to the U.S. under non-biased supervision with a Government not controlled by Corporate Lobbyists.

That is what will occur after an "economic collapse".

Basically the OP and his buds will have to look for another country to pilfer.
 
I suspect the way, or cause, of such an economic collapse would affect the type of reforms that result.

For example, a collapse triggered by widespread banking failure is not likely to be readily understood by your average person. Sure, they will feel & understand the negative consequences, but understand exactly how banks, which purportedly have all the money can fail?

OTOH, if things go to hell in the Middle East oil producing region we will likely have an economic collapse - energy drives economy, but I believe people will find that readily understandable.

I have not formed any opinion on what differences specifically such an understanding or lack thereof will generate, other than to speculate if it's an event not readily understood people will defer as to the solution. Who will they defer to and will those persons or institutions use that to their advantage? Possibly. Will it be socialist or capitalist? IDK, I suppose it would depend of the type of the collapse and the perceived *savior*.

If it's an understandable event people will far more easily form their own opinions as to the solution and be more involved in determing & implementing the solution, instead of *punting* or relying on others. Again, who will be the perceived savior?

Can we have a collapse so profound & devastating that socialist reforms are not even possible? Sort of like the third option (somethig like anarchy results) in the conclusion of Deus Ex? 🙂

Fern.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
one can only hope 😉

but really... if America made it through the 1930's without converting to socialism, I doubt it will ever happen.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, it was quite the opposite. Communism was all but destroyed in America after the '30s (hardly anyone was afraid to call it communism then, but notice the stigma that word carries today). IIRC, the only surviving communist movements of the '30s that survived and made it into the American mainstream were the ACLU and the Consumers Union (and neither of those remained socialist).

That's the funny thing. That's my argument here. Following some kind of quasi-Marxist philosophy, these ultra-leftist movements always seem to follow the idea that they can take control through some kind of downturn that will send the people running to them for safety and solace. EXCEPT that history has demonstrated several times over that exactly the opposite takes place. Not just the 30s, but look what happened to the hippie movement of the 60s/70s! Reagan!
 
Originally posted by: Fern
I suspect the way, or cause, of such an economic collapse would affect the type of reforms that result.

For example, a collapse triggered by widespread banking failure is not likely to be readily understood by your average person. Sure, they will feel & understand the negative consequences, but understand exactly how banks, which purportedly have all the money can fail?

OTOH, if things go to hell in the Middle East oil producing region we will likely have an economic collapse - energy drives economy, but I believe people will find that readily understandable.

I have not formed any opinion on what differences specifically such an understanding or lack thereof will generate, other than to speculate if it's an event not readily understood people will defer as to the solution. Who will they defer to and will those persons or institutions use that to their advantage? Possibly. Will it be socialist or capitalist? IDK, I suppose it would depend of the type of the collapse and the perceived *savior*.

If it's an understandable event people will far more easily form their own opinions as to the solution and be more involved in determing & implementing the solution, instead of *punting* or relying on others. Again, who will be the perceived savior?

Can we have a collapse so profound & devastating that socialist reforms are not even possible? Sort of like the third option (somethig like anarchy results) in the conclusion of Deus Ex? 🙂

Fern.
Click to expand...

Any truly profound and devastating collapse would surely result in tyranny and dictatorship of an elite few, not actual socialism (unless one thinks of cult of personality leaders doling out tiny bones to an impoverished populace ala Chavez or Castro as socialism). Look to any African warlord.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I voted No because the OP still doesn't get it.

I have nothing against Corporations.

I do have issue with bogus Corporations which is what a good majority in the U.S. have become thanks to taking over the Republican party and thereby the U.S. Government.

I'm not saying the same thing couldn't happen with the Democrats but it is under the Republicans the last seven years that the majority of this shift has occured.

A skeleton of a company in the U.S. only with office staff and a peice of paper saying it is a U.S. Corporation while the product is made with child labor and dangerous materials in China does not a U.S. Company make.

Bring back manufacturing to the U.S. under non-biased supervision with a Government not controlled by Corporate Lobbyists.

That is what will occur after an "economic collapse".

Basically the OP and his buds will have to look for another country to pilfer.
Click to expand...

I understand quite clearly, Dave, that you have the total ignorance, and subsequent belief in almighty powers, of any radical conspiracy theorist.
Faced with things you have no understanding of, and unable to accept the real life truth of small causes having big effects (like a lone crazed gunman assasinating a popular President all on his own), you construct various Satans and Lucifers and Beelzebubs to explain to yourself those aspects of reality that don't conform to your personal ideal.

edit: BTW, when did people fall for this looking back on the past with rose-colored glasses and cries of "bring back" such-and-such as being liberalism? That's like the very definition of conservatism. Sorry, Dave, we're moving forward. Not back.
 
The only way an economic collapse will come about is if some of the candidates actually get elected and manage to get their ideas made into law. The bulk of these ideas would cost so much money that the economic system we rely on would become overburdended.

Simply put, the US will have happen to it what has happened in many of our great cities. An overburdensome tax system combined with a mountain of special interest driven policies will sap the economic strength of the economy.

When the stock market plows down to the 10k level or below you may just as well pray your job doesn't disappear. It can happen and possibly will simply because the politicians have no clue or simply don't care how they acquire, let alone spend our money.

They will guilt you, they will shame you, and they will break the US economy all the while doing so. They will villify the successful people by brandishing them as part of some evil rich. They will make examples of people like Paris and apply that to all of those who actually earn their money... oh not by comparing the hard work but by what they have and use this class warfare tactic to implement policies to bring them down. The problem is that many of these people in the 100k-250k realm are those who drive this economy.
 
Do you believe that an economic collapse will bring about socialist reforms?
Click to expand...

I believe that an economic collapse will bring about social reforms.... much needed social reforms so as far as I'm concerned bring it on.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
The only way an economic collapse will come about is if some of the candidates actually get elected and manage to get their ideas made into law. The bulk of these ideas would cost so much money that the economic system we rely on would become overburdended.

Simply put, the US will have happen to it what has happened in many of our great cities. An overburdensome tax system combined with a mountain of special interest driven policies will sap the economic strength of the economy.

When the stock market plows down to the 10k level or below you may just as well pray your job doesn't disappear.

It can happen and possibly will simply because the politicians have no clue or simply don't care how they acquire, let alone spend our money.

They will guilt you, they will shame you, and they will break the US economy all the while doing so. They will villify the successful people by brandishing them as part of some evil rich. They will make examples of people like Paris and apply that to all of those who actually earn their money... oh not by comparing the hard work but by what they have and use this class warfare tactic to implement policies to bring them down. The problem is that many of these people in the 100k-250k realm are those who drive this economy.
Click to expand...

What jobs? They've been shipped overseas by your heroes.

Nice rant of the possibility of Dems getting in real power.

Interesting how you Republicans use the stock market to suit your agenda at the time.

When all was going your way you claim the market has nothing to do with your hero in the Oval office, now not going so well or possibly going even further south with a Dem in office it's all the Dems fault.

All your lies, fraud and deceptions have been called out on the carpet for all the world to see.

Doesn't feel so good being shown the puppets that you are eh?
 
No, it goes against to many things that the US is built on. And if push come to shove and the world did start spiraling into a Great Depression the US would probably go plunder some countries.

Socialism and Communism are great in theory but they both take too much away from motivation, creativity, and human nature (greed for starters).
 
Yes a collapse will lead to more socialist reforms, and this is unfortunate, because socialism is what will have caused the collapse in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top