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

[GrGr]

On the contrary. I believe the current regime is working to overthrow the effects of the New Deal. A lot of people supporting Bush hates the New Deal with a passion. If, or rather when, the new severe crash happens, they will have prepared for that day a long time. For example stacking the Supreme Court with loyal stooges. The point is when the next crash comes they will make sure there is no new progressive New Deal or a new Roosevelt in charge. The Bush administration is thoroughly reactionary in many ways.

The Bushwackos are all for welfare, but only for the those that are not weak, for the Capital and mega rich - see the bailout by the Feds in the recent economic crunch for example. The rich now know they work in a protected workshop where the government will always bail them out no matter the cost to the rest of America, the working poor, those without medical protection, the little man. The Feds reinflated the bubble but the price will have to be paid eventually. And it won't be those responsible for it that will pay. It is the average worker who will pay through the hidden inflation tax. Meanwhile the chiefs of Countrywide have sold neary half a billion worth of their stocks over the last year in their own company. And so it will go. The rich will use their money and influence to keep enriching themselves out of the treasury indirectly. The Fed was created by the rich and for the rich, and by golly, it serves the rich.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GrGr
On the contrary. I believe the current regime is working to overthrow the effects of the New Deal. A lot of people supporting Bush hates the New Deal with a passion. If, or rather when, the new severe crash happens, they will have prepared for that day a long time. For example stacking the Supreme Court with loyal stooges. The point is when the next crash comes they will make sure there is no new progressive New Deal or a new Roosevelt in charge. The Bush administration is thoroughly reactionary in many ways.

The Bushwackos are all for welfare, but only for the those that are not weak, for the Capital and mega rich - see the bailout by the Feds in the recent economic crunch for example. The rich now know they work in a protected workshop where the government will always bail them out no matter the cost to the rest of America, the working poor, those without medical protection, the little man. The Feds reinflated the bubble but the price will have to be paid eventually. And it won't be those responsible for it that will pay. It is the average worker who will pay through the hidden inflation tax. Meanwhile the chiefs of Countrywide have sold neary half a billion worth of their stocks over the last year in their own company. And so it will go. The rich will use their money and influence to keep enriching themselves out of the treasury indirectly. The Fed was created by the rich and for the rich, and by golly, it serves the rich.

Okay, so we agree in many ways. Except I think you're overly partisan and you give FDR far more credit as a progressive than he actually deserves, but that's another issue. I think you may want to re-examine the Big Picture, and see how not only are they prepared, but they play both sides of the street. After all, the Roosevelts are about as rich as they come, hardly representative of the common people.

 

[db]

If there were economic collapse, I'm guessing that:
1. the public would blame the Republic party and therefore elect Dems to start out.
2. the government would have to rein in business/corporations in order to restore public trust.
3. a slow recovery would take place; eventually people would be able to start saving a little money and then eventually carefully spend it. Might take a long time for people to stop being risk-averse. Distrust of government, politicians and big business would eventually dispel with big business emerging from distrust first.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
My reply is a little OT, but I'd like to add to what I said earlier...

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.

I think Al Qaida, or militant Islamic fanaticism, is basically the tip of the iceberg, the revolt against the, at least perceived, tyranny of the US in the global world. Let's face facts, we are hypocritical when it comes to our foreign policy, and that is because we look out for ourselves, over anyone else, in the long run of things.

Some might see that as typical for any country, and that may very well be so, but we are in the spotlight, we were supposed to be the light at the end of the tunnel, and what we have become is dissapointment to many in the world. They may be sinners throwing stones at us, and it might not be fair, but the stones still hurt.

I think we'll get hit again by Al Qaida and/or militant Islamic fanaticism, it's only a matter of time before they hit us so hard, it'll make 9/11 seem like Disneyland. And if we are not tyrants to the rest of the world now, we sure will become so as a response to those attacks against us. It won't come quick, but in the long run, we will definitely play our foreign policy using rules even more unfair to the rest of the world.

It is fate and destiny rolled into one, we will become exactly what we once feared, and hated, and destroyed. And eventually the rest of the world will turn against us and any allies we may have. We'll see a war so ugly, so frightening, so evil, that in the aftermath, people will never want to see war again. And they'll give up everything in trade for their request. Enter a world of Totalitarian Socialism.

Ughh... I like you, bamacre, because you tend to be polite and well-spoken, but I just can't agree with this. It just reeks of the usual we-need-to-be-punished-for-our-sins Christianity. I just can't buy off on that. Christ was a great man and Teacher, but too bad about his religion.

And no doubt, the US has brought about more than its fair share of harm upon the world. But we've also done more than our fair share of good as well. If we've taught the world anything, I'd like to believe that it was that it's still in the common good to believe in the sanctity of even a single human life. Chaotic perhaps, but still in the common good.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm not looking at this through religious eyes, just looking at history and what is going on now.

Like I said, sinners throwing stones at us. Forget about the religious pun, what I am saying is that we are not any more guilty than anyone else. We don't "need" to be punished, and we certainly don't deserve to be judged the way we are by others in the world, but we are. That's just reality. I'm just trying to see the USA through the eyes of the rest of the world. And you're right we've done good for the rest of the world, and at the same time, we've done our share of wrongs as well. Now, which of those is likely to be remembered? It is easy to answer that question when we have 160,000 troops in Iraq. China is beefing up their military, Russia is doing the same.

Like I said, it is only a matter of time until AQ and/or fanatical Muslims hit the US, and hard. What do you think our long-term responses are going to be to a major attack, or attacks, on US soil? Considering the effects of 9/11 (Afghanistan, Iraq, and we aren't done), it isn't going to be pretty.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GrGr
On the contrary. I believe the current regime is working to overthrow the effects of the New Deal. A lot of people supporting Bush hates the New Deal with a passion. If, or rather when, the new severe crash happens, they will have prepared for that day a long time. For example stacking the Supreme Court with loyal stooges. The point is when the next crash comes they will make sure there is no new progressive New Deal or a new Roosevelt in charge. The Bush administration is thoroughly reactionary in many ways.

The Bushwackos are all for welfare, but only for the those that are not weak, for the Capital and mega rich - see the bailout by the Feds in the recent economic crunch for example. The rich now know they work in a protected workshop where the government will always bail them out no matter the cost to the rest of America, the working poor, those without medical protection, the little man. The Feds reinflated the bubble but the price will have to be paid eventually. And it won't be those responsible for it that will pay. It is the average worker who will pay through the hidden inflation tax. Meanwhile the chiefs of Countrywide have sold neary half a billion worth of their stocks over the last year in their own company. And so it will go. The rich will use their money and influence to keep enriching themselves out of the treasury indirectly. The Fed was created by the rich and for the rich, and by golly, it serves the rich.

Okay, so we agree in many ways. Except I think you're overly partisan and you give FDR far more credit as a progressive than he actually deserves, but that's another issue. I think you may want to re-examine the Big Picture, and see how not only are they prepared, but they play both sides of the street. After all, the Roosevelts are about as rich as they come, hardly representative of the common people.

No I agree with you there Vic. They definitely play both sides of the street. That's the way the system is set up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

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?

Heh, that came out stupid I admit. Standard Oil used it's monopoly power to prevent railroads from hauling equipment competitors needed. No parts, no competition. That's how powerful monopolies can be.

I've heard libertarians all over the range when comes to "socialism". To a few I've heard, you could qualify as one, since you support any government influence on business. I just wanted to make sure I understood where you are

 

[Modelworks]

I think whats needed is to remove congress entirely.
It may have worked when the founding fathers had to put people in office to look out for the common man, often because the common man knew nothing of politics.
Now though, I say we get rid of congress.
Let the people vote on what gets passed and doesn't.
rather than put some figure head in office that makes choices for people.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice strawman, vic, based on a complete mischaracterization of the New Deal.

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).

First off, I'm not of the opinion that an economic collapse would necessarily bring about socialist reforms. What it would do is to open up extreme possibilities on both the left and right that couldn't exist without one.

Which was the situation when Roosevelt took office- one of extremes and of extreme possibilities. Fifteen years earlier, a similar situation led to the bolshevik revolution, while the forces of the far right were taking over in Italy and Germany even as Roosevelt was sworn in... each featuring rather brutal repression of opposing forces and totalitarian rule.

The dangers of both kinds of revolution were quite real, as was the threat of another civil war, for entirely different reasons than the first.

And, yeh, Roosevelt was wealthy, as was nearly every other president of the 20th century. He was also desperately despised among the financial elite of the day, often referred to as "a traitor to his class"...

Because the New Deal was a lot more than you represent it to be. It demanded a great deal of compromise from both sides in order to maintain domestic tranquillity, or at least some semblance thereof. And it was a lot more than SS as a sop to the middle class, with much of what we take for granted today rooted firmly in it-

http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.newdeal.html

Many of these programs survive in modified form today.

If anything, the New Deal didn't demand enough compromise from the elite, which has led to their resurgence in ways that you mention and also ways you omit...

Particularly the allowing of Trusts to avoid Estate Taxes, and other mechanisms to accomplish the same ends. The effects of that grow stronger every day- modern corporatism couldn't exist as we know it without the influence of great entrenched wealth.

Economic collapse would certainly require us to re-examine our whole conceptualization of "growth", when it's real or illusionary, where it comes from, and who should benefit from it.

The reason, of course, that economic collapse can even occur is as a result of overextension in the first place, which brings on a rightful loss of confidence in the existing system, such as happened in 1929. The damage from the loss of confidence being greater largely because it didn't occur soon enough... not because it wasn't warranted.

Hopefully that's not where we're at today, but the comparison between the overextension of credit wrt the stock market of that era and the housing market of today are seemingly apt, and disturbing. We'll see if the much eroded safeguards instituted during the New Deal are adequate to protect us, or not...

 

[Vic]

Text

You appear to require a refresher in what a straw man is, Jhhnn. Plus a lesson in economic history. When I said in the OP to "take your vacuous pompous rhetoric elsewhere," I was referring exactly to the kind of fartbag turd you dropped here. Telling us something we all already know, backed up with obvious hastily googled links and injected with your own unsubstantiated opinion, does not make you look smart or right.
For one thing, the effectiveness of FDR's make-work programs has been greatly contested by economists on both sides of the spectrum. The overall consensus is that all he essentially did was, through taxes, force the wealthy to reinvest in the economy when they may have been otherwise initially reluctant to do so. The economic consensus is that this may have helped at first, but prolonged the eventual recovery. Consider that unemployment still stood above 20% more than 5 years into his program to "to put people to work."
And if the financial elite of the time hated FDR, that had as much to do with his fickle nature of radical changes in economic policy on an almost daily basis as his tax policy.
Sorry, but it is no longer partisan to say that the notions that Hoover was a laissez-faire-ist and that FDR miraculously brought the country out of the Depression through social programs are both completely false -- as nonsensical and lacking in the actual historical facts as the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll.
FDR's war policy may have brilliant (at least, I think so), but his economic policy during the depression is now inarguably considered to have been reactionary and heavy-handed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

The overall consensus is that all he essentially did was, through taxes, force the wealthy to reinvest in the economy when they may have been otherwise initially reluctant to do so.

Bahahahahaha caught again.

What happened to your rich buds wanting to "Trickle Down"?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

hmmm. so explain the New Deal to me as if it weren't socialism. You can't 😉

Please read the OP. If you think the US is a socialist country now, you're trippin' just as much as the ones who call it an "unregulated" capitalism.

edit: or is my sarcasm meter broken again? Damnit.

fire in your pants too strong at the time of that post?

I specifically referred to the New Deal as a socialist program (which it undoubtedly was), and in no way suggested that the US continued on a socialist path afterwards. let Loki respond. If you feel wounded from the previous bitchfest with EZduzit, take it out on them.

(FDR implemented a socialist program to get us out of Depression. It worked. Reset. Loki claims this never happened. I disagree...That's all I'm saying)

my post is as clear as a bell. no need to muscle your way in at this point 😉

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
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.

free markets aren't exactly crash proof either.

Free Markets are rather crash prone in fact.

Only when interfered with by government...the fed...false "injections" of capital, etc.

If we had a stable government and a currency backed by something tangible (gold), crashes would be much less likely...and in the end, as productivity rises, we would be prone to a steady deflation in general prices, which is a GOOD thing for savers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Aww... hit a nerve, again. Somebody call a wahmbulance for poor vic- he's got foaming potty-mouth again, brought on by being called on his erroneous premises. From his own Wiki link-

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

That covers the OP rather nicely, as I pointed out earlier.... Vic didn't even allow the opposition to actually argue, he did it for them in the first paragraph... classic strawman, reinforced by a yes/no poll, offering no possibility of "maybe"....

Followed by the usual obfuscation and misdirection, expletives and vituperation added.

Things going poorly at the office? Discord at home? Go kick the dog- don't take it out on the rest of humanity... Or, heaven forbid, back up, reconsider the underlying premises for long-held opinion... question your own belief structure, such as it is...

 

[jackace]

No i do not think socialist reforms will take place.

My problem is with our banking system. It fosters and encourages debt, and at the same time it all but forces someone to be a "loser." We have all become economic slaves to the system in a sense. Most people can't afford to buy a house or a car without a loan. This leads to long-term repayments resulting in paying lots of interest to banks for money they never actually had in their vaults to loan. They essentially created money out of nothing and charged you interest to borrow it. Yes I do know there are guidelines and things they must follow, but this is basically what they are doing, creating income from nothing.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

The overall consensus is that all he essentially did was, through taxes, force the wealthy to reinvest in the economy when they may have been otherwise initially reluctant to do so.

Bahahahahaha caught again.

What happened to your rich buds wanting to "Trickle Down"?

And here we have a textbook straw man, as I have never supported "Trickle Down" economics. Dave lies again.

Tell us, Dave, why is it a requirement for you to repeatedly lie in order to get your point (if there is one) across?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Aww... hit a nerve, again. Somebody call a wahmbulance for poor vic- he's got foaming potty-mouth again, brought on by being called on his erroneous premises. From his own Wiki link-

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

That covers the OP rather nicely, as I pointed out earlier.... Vic didn't even allow the opposition to actually argue, he did it for them in the first paragraph... classic strawman, reinforced by a yes/no poll, offering no possibility of "maybe"....

Followed by the usual obfuscation and misdirection, expletives and vituperation added.

Things going poorly at the office? Discord at home? Go kick the dog- don't take it out on the rest of humanity... Or, heaven forbid, back up, reconsider the underlying premises for long-held opinion... question your own belief structure, such as it is...

No, it's because you're trolling my thread with your stupidity. Your "facts" about FDR are erroneous. Exactly the kind of rose-colored glasses "let's go back to the good old days of the depression" socialist conservatism that I was referring to in the OP. If either of us is using straw man, it is you, by completely bypassing this point of mine with your senseless vacuous rhetoric and trollish personal attacks.
I must say though, your argumentative style must make your hero Limbaugh proud.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jackace
No i do not think socialist reforms will take place.

My problem is with our banking system. It fosters and encourages debt, and at the same time it all but forces someone to be a "loser." We have all become economic slaves to the system in a sense. Most people can't afford to buy a house or a car without a loan. This leads to long-term repayments resulting in paying lots of interest to banks for money they never actually had in their vaults to loan. They essentially created money out of nothing and charged you interest to borrow it. Yes I do know there are guidelines and things they must follow, but this is basically what they are doing, creating income from nothing.

This is the nature of our inflationary economy and the Federal Reserve system. I have long argued that control of the monetary system needs to be returned to the Congress, as the Constitution requires.

And speaking of inflation and rose-colored glasses, it was FDR's policy during the depression to attack any and all signs of deflation. The National Recovery Administration actually jailed farmers and merchants for price-cutting, insisting that goods remain unsold instead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

hmmm. so explain the New Deal to me as if it weren't socialism. You can't 😉

Please read the OP. If you think the US is a socialist country now, you're trippin' just as much as the ones who call it an "unregulated" capitalism.

edit: or is my sarcasm meter broken again? Damnit.

fire in your pants too strong at the time of that post?

I specifically referred to the New Deal as a socialist program (which it undoubtedly was), and in no way suggested that the US continued on a socialist path afterwards. let Loki respond. If you feel wounded from the previous bitchfest with EZduzit, take it out on them.

(FDR implemented a socialist program to get us out of Depression. It worked. Reset. Loki claims this never happened. I disagree...That's all I'm saying)

my post is as clear as a bell. no need to muscle your way in at this point 😉

Huh. I guess I'm the only one here who is aware that the modern economic consensus is that FDR's programs did not work. For reasons probably related to his heroic leadership in WWII, FDR seems to be immune from criticism regarding his economic policies during the depression which actually extended its length (including a horrendous renewed downturn in '37-'38, years into the New Deal), and which has left this country mired in public debt to this day.
Here's some good reading on the subject: The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
It's not necessarily authoritative, but a good intro on the subject. I'm sure that Jhhnn will flip out on the WSJ/CFR/Bloomberg author. I really don't care. Just because it's not "fair" to his particular brand of extremism doesn't mean it's not balanced.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Aww... hit a nerve, again. Somebody call a wahmbulance for poor vic- he's got foaming potty-mouth again, brought on by being called on his erroneous premises. From his own Wiki link-

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

That covers the OP rather nicely, as I pointed out earlier.... Vic didn't even allow the opposition to actually argue, he did it for them in the first paragraph... classic strawman, reinforced by a yes/no poll, offering no possibility of "maybe"....

Followed by the usual obfuscation and misdirection, expletives and vituperation added.

Things going poorly at the office? Discord at home? Go kick the dog- don't take it out on the rest of humanity... Or, heaven forbid, back up, reconsider the underlying premises for long-held opinion... question your own belief structure, such as it is...

No, it's because you're trolling my thread with your stupidity. Your "facts" about FDR are erroneous. Exactly the kind of rose-colored glasses "let's go back to the good old days of the depression" socialist conservatism that I was referring to in the OP. If either of us is using straw man, it is you, by completely bypassing this point of mine with your senseless vacuous rhetoric and trollish personal attacks.
I must say though, your argumentative style must make your hero Limbaugh proud.

I don't see anyone looking back except you.

Why are you looking back eighty years?

Trying to divert attention to what destruction your heros have done the last seven?

 

[dullard]

I do believe that there will be some impact from a hypothetical economic collapse. People will realize that countries and it's citizens DO need a safety net. If you fall off the bar in a flying circus act, you'll be glad there was a safety net. Today, many people (especially on Anandtech) have never experienced a situation where they have fallen. Thus, they arrogantly assume it won't happen to them, that they are prepared for when a fall happens without a safety net, that a safety net is a useless drain, etc. However, if a true economic collapse happens (where many of them do fall), they will change their tune. How many 1st world countries don't have some form of national health care? One day people will realize what they are missing, and an economic collapse may be what is needed for them to see it.

So I believe a significant collapse will probably get more support for the safety nets (ie socialist reforms).

However, those people do have a point. A safety net should not be a crutch. If you are falling into the net daily (ie abusing welfare or other socialist programs), then get out of the circus. I really truely hope these reforms are made in a way such that the programs are a limited safety net - and not an ongoing and needless method of forking money from the rich to the poor.

But, what if we have an even bigger collapse? The depression was big, but not too big. The country could easilly make it out of the depression. What if we get one that is even more massive? Eventually, the country itself couldn't fund the social programs. In that end, a really massive economic collapse would be the END of socialist reforms. But, heck, it'll also be the end of America as we know it.

Note: I think that economic collapse (or the threat of it) just a minor factor in the reforms. I think we are entering a backlash phase against Bush and the Republicans that will bring on a lot of socialist reforms. The pendulum swing towards the liberal side will have a much bigger impact than a possible economic collapse.

 

[yllus]

I think that many forget that the United States does not promise a comfortable standard of living to anyone. It merely promises opportunity, of which I can assure all of you the U.S. has in spades in relative to the rest of the world. I had dinner with a (very attractive) PhD economics student last night during which we discussed some things relevant to her thesis: The varying levels of opportunity in some parts of the Western world as opposed to others.

My nation of Canada tends to go with the don't-rock-the-boat system, which works well as our economy is based on banking and natural resources - nice, steady, boring money machines. The U.S. is a lot more chancy, and for that I'm somewhat jealous. I know there are opportunities I am losing out in here in Toronto that I could seize in Silicon Valley. So even in your very similar neighbour to the north are you ahead in terms of opportunity to create wealth.

There will never be an economic reform in the United States that will bring on more government controls; it's just too contrary to the values of the people, who maintain enough sense to know that more government = worse standard of living in almost any situation. If anything I can see greater privatization and selling off of government assets, which to some extent I'm not quite comfortable with (must be my liberal-minded upbringing still affecting me).

Not to be insulting, but if the picture of opportunity is slanted here in P&N, it's because we have a large collection of lifelong losers and bitter (near-)retirees who have more than a little bit of jealousy in their eyes. Instead of making peace with what they can accomplish, they've chosen to blame one of many boogeymen: Immigrants. Outsourcing. Corporate America. Never mind that most successful entrepreneurs fail a half dozen times before it actually works out, and that there's really no guarantee it ever will. The country has failed them by not fulfilling their sense of entitlement and they won't hear another word elsewise.

Edit: Grammar.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yllus
I think that many forget that the United States does not promise a comfortable standard of living to anyone. It merely promises opportunity, of which I can assure all of you the U.S. has in spades in relative to the rest of the world. I had dinner with a (very attractive) PhD economics student last night during which we discussed some things relevant to her thesis: The varying levels of opportunity in some parts of the Western world as opposed to others.

My nation of Canada tends to go with the don't-rock-the-boat system, which works well as our economy is based on banking and natural resources - nice, steady, boring money machines. The U.S. is a lot more chancy, and for that I'm somewhat jealous. I know there are opportunities I am losing out in here in Toronto that I could seize in Silicon Valley. So even in your very similar neighbour to the north are you ahead in terms of opportunity to create wealth.

There will never be an economic reform in the United States that will bring on more government controls; it's just too contrary to the values of the people, who maintain enough sense to know that more government = worse standard of living in almost any situation. If anything I can see greater privatization and selling off of government assets, which to some extent I'm not quite comfortable with (must be my liberal-minded upbringing still affecting me).

Not to be insulting, but if the picture of opportunity is slanted here in P&N, it's because we have a large collection of lifelong losers and bitter (near-)retirees who have more than a little bit of jealousy in their eyes. Instead of making peace with what they can accomplish, they've chosen to blame one of many boogeymen: Immigrants. Outsourcing. Corporate America. Never mind that most successful entrepreneurs fail a half dozen times before it actually works out, and that there's really no guarantee it ever will. The country has failed them by not fulfilling their sense of entitlement and they won't hear another word elsewise.

Edit: Grammar.

You're not missing out on anything here unless you already have a lot of money and just want more than you can possibly ever need or use.

It has become extremely rare for anyone without a lot of money to be able to accumulate a lot of money with simply "hard work".

If you honestly feel you can accumulate a lot of wealth trhough hard work here then why haven't you moved to Silicon Valley yet?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You're not missing out on anything here unless you already have a lot of money and just want more than you can possibly ever need or use.

It has become extremely rare for anyone without a lot of money to be able to accumulate a lot of money with simply "hard work".

If you honestly feel you can accumulate a lot of wealth through hard work here then why haven't you moved to Silicon Valley yet?

You're the last person on Earth I'd take career advice from, so you'll excuse me if I tell you to shut the fuck up.

 

[jackace]

We are still one of the best countries in the world to start a business. Honestly that is realistically the only way for most American's to make a lot of money with hard work these days. Most American's will never make a lot of money working for someone else. They will live a good life and save for retirement, but you will not see many of them with large net worths until retirement.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

hmmm. so explain the New Deal to me as if it weren't socialism. You can't 😉

Please read the OP. If you think the US is a socialist country now, you're trippin' just as much as the ones who call it an "unregulated" capitalism.

edit: or is my sarcasm meter broken again? Damnit.

fire in your pants too strong at the time of that post?

I specifically referred to the New Deal as a socialist program (which it undoubtedly was), and in no way suggested that the US continued on a socialist path afterwards. let Loki respond. If you feel wounded from the previous bitchfest with EZduzit, take it out on them.

(FDR implemented a socialist program to get us out of Depression. It worked. Reset. Loki claims this never happened. I disagree...That's all I'm saying)

my post is as clear as a bell. no need to muscle your way in at this point 😉

Huh. I guess I'm the only one here who is aware that the modern economic consensus is that FDR's programs did not work. For reasons probably related to his heroic leadership in WWII, FDR seems to be immune from criticism regarding his economic policies during the depression which actually extended its length (including a horrendous renewed downturn in '37-'38, years into the New Deal), and which has left this country mired in public debt to this day.
Here's some good reading on the subject: The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression
It's not necessarily authoritative, but a good intro on the subject. I'm sure that Jhhnn will flip out on the WSJ/CFR/Bloomberg author. I really don't care. Just because it's not "fair" to his particular brand of extremism doesn't mean it's not balanced.

I read a lengthy review on that book a few weeks ago...which is actually what I was referring to in my posts 🙂

Yeah, I certainly should not have explicitly said that FDR's New Deal worked, or at least to the degree that it halted the Depression (late-night exhaustion on my part). I actually agree with you, and honestly...have no recollection of me saying that the New Deal worked...wowzer.
I was kind of shocked to reread that this morning, hehe :Q