What modern Liberalism has come to...

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

This is your problem Craig...You can't seem to recognize this. Nobody is being hurt simply because someone gets wealthy. People who "hoard" money are not a drag on the economy. Even if we ignore the benefits of their savings (which are used to provide loans to individuals, small businesses, etc), the very fact that they have made so much profit in the free market is PROOF that they are already being incredibly productive and helpful to the lower and middle classes! To acquire so much wealth necessitates that you create jobs...that you provide a product or service that makes the public HAPPY! The only way to *legally* make money in a free country is by satisfying the wants and needs of the public.

And yes competition is a good thing and there is a role for government in preventing blatant abuse like your hypothetical one oil company scenario. I also agree that companies should pay for disasters like Exxon Valdez...but unfortunately the regulatory tendencies of the left go FAR beyond breaking up monopolies. The current definition of corporate "abuse" seems to mean "made alot of money".. The constant calls for a windfall profits tax from the "progressive caucus" in congress is all the evidence you need of this. The modern left wants the government's claws in nearly every aspect of business. This forces entrepreneurs to pay thousands each year just to cut through the federal red tape and puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

And I have to disagree with you that "The left is *in favor* of people doing very nicely for being productive,". Sorry, but actions speak louder than words...and if they left truly wanted people to be rewarded for taking risks and succeeding, they would not be continuously calling for increased capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, etc. If you really want productive people to be rewarded, you should simply reduce the PENALTY (tax rate) for their success. They will do far more for society with that money than any do-gooder bureaucrat could ever hope to achieve.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Why is that reasoning flawed? Why is conservation such a scary thing for you right wingers? Is the sheer idea that maybe money isn't everything so repulsive to you people?
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The idea that totalitarianism can eminate from the left is, of course, one of the founding principles of neoconservatism. People have been saying that leftist government interferes with everyday life too much since FDR if not earlier, and that government presence should be scaled back.

But only the priveleged can really 100% support that view, and deny there is oppressiveness of capitalism on vast swathes of the population; The usual argument against such thinking, is that pure unrestrained capitalism quickly leads to vast social inequality and a society in which political power derives to only the very few people at the top of the pyramid. It's a positive feedback loop which creates political structures completely out-of-whack with foundational constitutional principals. You know, that old-fashioned "all men are created equal" kind of thing. This is all a matter of perspective.

Not that I don't think totalitarianism can eminate from the left; it most certainly does. The mandated health insurance compromise, or the smoking bans of my home state, reeks of such overextension of power. Facism is a different story, and dismissing the chauvinist male aspect as part of certain types of facism robs it of its particularlity. In fact, Facism, intellectually, begins as a conservative reaction to the oppressiveness of the mandates of the masses expressed in leftist politics.

I am thinking about the traditionalism of Eliot, Pound and even Heidegger - all of whom rejected liberalism, communism, and mass culture as part of disease which was limiting the process and freedom of Man's being. This response - and subsequent embrace of high culture traditions - has a powerful draw to it, and certainly is part of what happened at the birth of neoconservatism, i.e - a bunch of leftist intellectuals swung hard right. However, it is essentially an attempt to recapture a "whole" in the face of disintegration and the influence of mass life on the individual.

That, in my opinion, is the type of unforgiving and uncompromising search for purity that is the true expression of the facist intellectual. Which mirrors populist facism in the ideological search for the fate or inner purpose of a nation, or people, which again hinges on an ideal of purity.

So while much liberalism can be totalitarian, I do not think it has that search for purity that really is the essence of facism; liberals often accept and embrace fragmentation and cosmopolitianism, the things conservatives see as currupting. Some people are missing the point by commiting the sin they accuse liberals of, i.e. overdeterming all other issues with economics.

But neoconservatives have been doing that since the begining of the movement, this is nothing to get hysterical about. They have always been perversly marxist.

I think the big problem with the left vs. right dichotomy which completely dominates political discourse is that it presents an oversimple view of political, economic, and moral structures which describes all positions as beads on some kind linear string. If it were up to me, I would banish the words "left" and "right" from such discourse altogether.

Both the extreme right and extreme left feel a need to control other people?s lives, but liberals often misguidedly want to protect the individual whereas the right often misguidedly want to protect an ideology. Both can be as dangerous as the other but there is a distinction. Extreme left is communism (which is in itself fascist) and the extreme right is fascism (which is in itself communist).



 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Perhaps you gents would care to pay homage to another Milton Friedman quote:

"To spend is to tax."

Reminds me of a few people too. You think Obama is part of a dangerous liberal agenda? Friedman thought deficit spending was the epitome of irresponsibility. At least Obama isn't offering to spend billions while simultaneously cutting everyone's taxes, a fiscally impossible scenario attempted by the last few "republican" presidents.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Why is that reasoning flawed? Why is conservation such a scary thing for you right wingers? Is the sheer idea that maybe money isn't everything so repulsive to you people?

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

What you are saying is a massive distortion of what Obama said. The purpose of his quote was that Americans need to realize the foreign policy implications of our energy usage, not that we are 'stealing' it from the rest of the world or that we need to ration our energy and food.

I would love for you to find me some in context quotes by Obama where he says we need to ration our energy or our food. I won't hold my breath though.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Perhaps you gents would care to pay homage to another Milton Friedman quote:

"To spend is to tax."

Reminds me of a few people too. You think Obama is part of a dangerous liberal agenda? Friedman thought deficit spending was the epitome of irresponsibility. At least Obama isn't offering to spend billions while simultaneously cutting everyone's taxes, a fiscally impossible scenario attempted by the last few "republican" presidents.

I don't think any conservatives here would argue on that point, that many of the republicans in congress (and Bush and McCain) are far too liberal for our liking.

You seem to think that just because we are against liberal democrats, we are automatically in favor of republicans, regardless of their ideology. Let me clarify. We conservatives/libertarians dislike liberalism in all its forms, regardless of political party lines or lame media associations.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

What you are saying is a massive distortion of what Obama said. The purpose of his quote was that Americans need to realize the foreign policy implications of our energy usage, not that we are 'stealing' it from the rest of the world or that we need to ration our energy and food.

I would love for you to find me some in context quotes by Obama where he says we need to ration our energy or our food. I won't hold my breath though.

I took Obama at his words. I didn't try to find what I wanted to hear in his words and ignore the rest. Here is the actual speech. Decide for yourself.

http://www.cultureandmediainst...08/20080519212450.aspx
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

What you are saying is a massive distortion of what Obama said. The purpose of his quote was that Americans need to realize the foreign policy implications of our energy usage, not that we are 'stealing' it from the rest of the world or that we need to ration our energy and food.

I would love for you to find me some in context quotes by Obama where he says we need to ration our energy or our food. I won't hold my breath though.

I took Obama at his words. I didn't try to find what I wanted to hear in his words and ignore the rest. Here is the actual speech. Decide for yourself.

http://www.cultureandmediainst...08/20080519212450.aspx

That's exactly what you did actually.

He said that if we're going to tell other countries to curb their carbon footprint that we won't be able to do so when we're consuming a quarter of the world's energy with 3% of the population because it would be hypocritical and they would ignore us. That's simply a fact.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
I want to point out a few observations based on reading these forums for awhile as well as the news. If you consider yourself a liberal and don't agree at all with some of these, please post why if you care to forgoe the standard intellectually dishonest ad-h attacks and diversions like (well you believe...).

1) The liberal left on here finds anything bad for America as news. A bunch of marines die and they fall over themselves to post about it. They are addicted to bad news. Any enemy of the USA that comes out and speaks against us, the Liberal left give them all the audience they could ever want. This isn't all bad in itself, but it does speak to their world view. To the liberal left, the USA can do little good and anything good about the USA is not worth talking about to anyone or anytime.

2) The liberal left wants to give up their freedom of healthcare choices. Instead of having the freedom to go out, get a job, get whatever healthcare they want, the liberal left wants to give the responsibility (read: POWER) to the federal government. They'll happily hand over rights and responsibilty in exchange for tax funded healthcare. In a perfect world, I agree, but people are lazy and a lot more freedoms will be lost to control the general health of the average american to support the system.

3) The liberal left wants to give up the freedom of education. School vouchers? No way! The liberal left wants all children indoctrinated in failing liberal schools that they have control over. Nevermind the results of private schools or home schooling, they don't indoctrinate the kids into their atheistic and panthesistic point of view enough so they are completely willing to forgoe this freedom.

4) The liberal left doesn't want the rule of law. They want illegal immigration in droves because the people that immigrate are poor and easily controlled with federal handouts. They want the war of drugs destroyed because it attempts to bring minorities and slums out of the doldrums by prosecuting crimes that destroy lives and make people dependant on a substance instead of independent from even the state.

5) The liberal left wants to take pseudo science of climate change, call it settled law and enact legislature that will control every aspect of our lives from light bulbs to cars to homes.

It's going to be a dark day in America if Obama gets elected and signs into law every piece of trash legislature that comes to his desk that advances the liberal agenda.

Thank you for posting Rush Limbaugh. Now run along and do your morning radio show and take your meds mkay?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

What you are saying is a massive distortion of what Obama said. The purpose of his quote was that Americans need to realize the foreign policy implications of our energy usage, not that we are 'stealing' it from the rest of the world or that we need to ration our energy and food.

I would love for you to find me some in context quotes by Obama where he says we need to ration our energy or our food. I won't hold my breath though.

I took Obama at his words. I didn't try to find what I wanted to hear in his words and ignore the rest. Here is the actual speech. Decide for yourself.

http://www.cultureandmediainst...08/20080519212450.aspx

That's exactly what you did actually.

He said that if we're going to tell other countries to curb their carbon footprint that we won't be able to do so when we're consuming a quarter of the world's energy with 3% of the population because it would be hypocritical and they would ignore us. That's simply a fact.

What? You just tried to tell me I was wrong, while making my point at the same time. We are not using 25% of the pie. We are PRODUCING 25% of the world's energy because our free capitalist system has been so successful.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Why is that reasoning flawed? Why is conservation such a scary thing for you right wingers? Is the sheer idea that maybe money isn't everything so repulsive to you people?

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

Actually, Obama doesn't propose rationing anything. What he is talking about is the oil crisis that has already started to grip the world. Right now, the primary source of 90% of our energy is oil and oil only exists in finite quantities. So, right now, 90% of the world's energy IS, in fact, a zero-sum game. There are promising technologies on the horizon, but we don't have anything that can replace crude oil wholesale and as demand grows from China, India, and the rest of the world, we are paying for it in higher and higher prices.

What I think Obama was driving at wasn't "forced rationing," but rethinking the way you and I spend our energy. Our country is configured for driving. An increasing proportion of our population lives in subdivisions, which encourage, if not require driving to get around. Most of our country drives around in large, fuel-inefficient vehicles.

I don't see a problem with a leader suggesting that we might want to change a few of those things.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).

What you are saying is a massive distortion of what Obama said. The purpose of his quote was that Americans need to realize the foreign policy implications of our energy usage, not that we are 'stealing' it from the rest of the world or that we need to ration our energy and food.

I would love for you to find me some in context quotes by Obama where he says we need to ration our energy or our food. I won't hold my breath though.

I took Obama at his words. I didn't try to find what I wanted to hear in his words and ignore the rest. Here is the actual speech. Decide for yourself.

http://www.cultureandmediainst...08/20080519212450.aspx

That's exactly what you did actually.

He said that if we're going to tell other countries to curb their carbon footprint that we won't be able to do so when we're consuming a quarter of the world's energy with 3% of the population because it would be hypocritical and they would ignore us. That's simply a fact.

What? You just tried to tell me I was wrong, while making my point at the same time. We are not using 25% of the pie. We are PRODUCING 25% of the world's energy because our free capitalist system has been so successful.

We consume over 20 million barrels of oil per day.
http://www.nationmaster.com/gr...energy-oil-consumption

How much of that do we produce?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: QuantumPion

What? You just tried to tell me I was wrong, while making my point at the same time. We are not using 25% of the pie. We are PRODUCING 25% of the world's energy because our free capitalist system has been so successful.

Uhmmm, actually we are using 25% of the world's energy. And trust me, I'm not making your point. What Obama said was simply the acknowledgment of reality and the idea that we might want to do things differently. If you want to go crazy about it, enjoy yourself. It's not like you were ever going to vote for him anyway so it matters little.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Why is that reasoning flawed? Why is conservation such a scary thing for you right wingers? Is the sheer idea that maybe money isn't everything so repulsive to you people?

Who said anything about conservation or money? Your attempt to deflect the issue has failed miserably.

Voluntary conservation due to market forces is fine and dandy. "Forced conservation", otherwise known as rationing, is not, and is a common feature of socialist and communist regimes.

Obama proposes rationing our energy and food resources, on the false notion that we are stealing them from the rest of the world. This is dangerous because it will lead to a decrease of freedom and an increase of fascism (i.e. state control of the private sector via regulations, if not outright nationalization).[/q]

Funny, the only time in 47 years in California when we had rolling blackouts, was when Bush was in the white house and Enron was gaming the power market.

This was after a disastrous DEREGULATION of the electrical power industry, pushed by the Republican governor and the monopoly CORPORATION PG $ E.

This didn't occur because of over-regulation, but because of deregulation and corporate monopolization.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Perhaps you gents would care to pay homage to another Milton Friedman quote:

"To spend is to tax."

Reminds me of a few people too. You think Obama is part of a dangerous liberal agenda? Friedman thought deficit spending was the epitome of irresponsibility. At least Obama isn't offering to spend billions while simultaneously cutting everyone's taxes, a fiscally impossible scenario attempted by the last few "republican" presidents.

I don't think any conservatives here would argue on that point, that many of the republicans in congress (and Bush and McCain) are far too liberal for our liking.

I'd hate to see the people farther right then Bush. Part of the "Earth First: Strip mine the other planets later" group?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

This is your problem Craig...You can't seem to recognize this.

What a joke. You really get off on the wrong foot when you say something so false, and even more so when you tell me my view so completely wrongly.

Milton Friedman in my opinion was a son of a bitch who was wrong on big things (read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"), but I absolutely *as my post made clear* have a pie that changes size based on the policies as part of how I view economic policy. When I talk about policies increasing and decreasing productivity, what am I talking about but changing the size of the pie?

Naturally, when you begin with such a falsehood, the conclusions you reach are worthless.

Nobody is being hurt simply because someone gets wealthy.

Here comes the ideological recitation from you, I see.

That's a wrong generalization. You have to look at how they become wealthy to determine that. If I come in to the fishing village and buy the fishing rights and tell all the fishermen that now they can fish for low wages or get out of town, they're hurt that I was able to buy those rights, even though I can make money from them.

If everyone in your community doubled their incomes but you, you would be poorer, because many prices are based on the relative wealth of the buyers. Homes would become nearly twice as expensive. Babysitters would cost nearly twice as much. You are hurt in your purchase of anything affected by the buyers' wealth when many others become wealthier and you don't. It goes further, of course - if some in your community gain a thousand times the wealth, and donate to political candidates...

Sometimes, it might be 'justified', when society benefits from a larger and more efficient fishing operation; other times it's not, when it's just a money maker for the new owner.

But your statement is just the sort of ideological dogma that is the enemy of understanding the economic issues and how people are affected, it *shuts down* discussion.

People who "hoard" money are not a drag on the economy.

Yes, they are. While some of the money does some good, they're a whole lot about their wealth increasing their ownership of the assets of the society, locking up those assets from being available as incentives for productivity to others. On the one hand, Henry Ford (for all his flaws) was 'productive' and rewarded. On the other hand, most of the Walton family (owners of a lot of Wal-Mart stock) are basically leeches, compared to that wealth being held by people doing more with it. How would harm society for the $100 billion in their pockets to be distributed to other people where it was more actively funding economic productivity, instead of mainly increasing the ownership, the personal wealth, of Waltons?

You are not getting that as the top 1% own 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and more of the assets in society, that's an increasing drag on the productivity, with fewer crumbs for people.

Look, I'll try a nerd analogy. Why do you think it is in the game Civilization that the more centralized wealth and power systems are so less productive than more democratic ones?

We're not talking about Sam Walton here, when he 'innovates retail' and is rewarded. We're talking about when wealth is excessively concentrated, as in an oligarchy.

Reward for productivity is good. Macro-level concentration of wealth is bad. But you have your little 'it doesn't matter' ideology script and so you probably could care less.

How convenient for the ultra wealthy that you vote for their interests over yours and society's. The funding for the right-wing think tank propaganda was well spent.

Even if we ignore the benefits of their savings (which are used to provide loans to individuals, small businesses, etc), the very fact that they have made so much profit in the free market is PROOF that they are already being incredibly productive and helpful to the lower and middle classes!

No, it's not proof of any such thing. It shows that 'the rich get richer' by the power of ownership and the profit going to them.

Some wealthy people do things to earn it, and some don't, but have the wealth somehow that makes yet more.

Tell you what, To acquire so much wealth necessitates that you create jobs...that you provide a product or service that makes the public HAPPY! The only way to *legally* make money in a free country is by satisfying the wants and needs of the public.

That's not only false, it's the most naive statement I've seen in this forum in months. No wonder you are confused. You're like a schoolgirl with a crush on the free market.

"You're wrong, dad, he's a WONDERFUL boy! <swoon>"

*Some* wealth is created that pretty little textbook way, and liberals like that type of wealth creation. Your naivete hides a lot of other, destructive types under the rug and allows them because you happily skip along singing the "Yay free market" song that doesn't bother to notice how it's working.

I tell you, arguing with free marketers reminds me most of arguing with communists, and I think I have to give the upper hand to the communists for being able to learn.

And yes competition is a good thing and there is a role for government in preventing blatant abuse like your hypothetical one oil company scenario.

Whoa, go back to your concession. Why is an oil monopoly a 'blatant abuse'? Don't just agree and then go on to defend the same basic problems. Isn't opposing the big oil monopoly, as you do, 'hating them for their wealth', isn't it based on 'jealousy', aren't they simply wonderfully efficient and 'deserving' of the rewards if they get to be a monopoly?

I'd like to make the poiint there to show you how empty the rhetoric your side uses is.

I also agree that companies should pay for disasters like Exxon Valdez...but unfortunately the regulatory tendencies of the left go FAR beyond breaking up monopolies.

Except that the right wing politicians are fighting hard to keep Exxon from any regulations that prevent such disasters, and with 'tort reform' they reduce the small guy's ability to get any justice when the 'big guys' act terribley and do things that hurt people. If the courtroom door is shut in your face, you're screwed. Exxon still hasn't paid a dime to the locals who were so harmed by their behavior, 20 years later, as I recall.

The current definition of corporate "abuse" seems to mean "made alot of money"..The constant calls for a windfall profits tax from the "progressive caucus" in congress is all the evidence you need of this. The modern left wants the government's claws in nearly every aspect of business. This forces entrepreneurs to pay thousands each year just to cut through the federal red tape and puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

"us", huh? Bull. The oil industry is a unique case because of the combination of the industry having such huge increases in wealth not from anything they did but from the situation increasing the price of oil, which is taking a big hit on the American citizen, such that they're talking about some 'corrective action' for the society who has to pay those higher prices getting back some benefit, instead of leaving the many billions not 'earned' but a 'windfall' in the pockets of big oil (to fund more anti-global warming campaigns, in part).

You post the next line in the ideology, the one where vague beauracrats and 'regulations' cause such harm, empty air behind which you try to gut needed regulation.

And I have to disagree with you that "The left is *in favor* of people doing very nicely for being productive,". Sorry, but actions speak louder than words...

And ideology epeaks louder to you than actions.

You are insisting on your straw man, because you are quite invested in it's being true. How much of your ideology makes sense if liberals want people to be prosperous?

You know, you ought to let a little reality influence your views. If the liberals are so terrible for the marketplace, why don't you chart the last century of stock market performance under Democrats and Republicans? 100 data samples start to even out any anomilies like looking at one presidency can have. Oh, I'll save you the time if you want the gist of the result, since I did look it up - the stock market (and other major economic indcicators such as growth and unemployment) are clearly better consistently under the democrats. Hm!

Do you want to keep going with the nonsense ideology, or learn how to help the nation?

and if they left truly wanted people to be rewarded for taking risks and succeeding, they would not be continuously calling for increased capital gains taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes, etc. If you really want productive people to be rewarded, you should simply reduce the PENALTY (tax rate) for their success. They will do far more for society with that money than any do-gooder bureaucrat could ever hope to achieve.

And if you had any idea about economics, you would not simply post unconditional calls for moving rates a certain direction without any mention of the current rates. Calling for increased capital gains tax is *exactly* what they would be doing, when they want the wealthy investor class who is making the lion's share of income in the nation to stop getting a lower tax rate than the working class who pay higher rates on 'ordinary income' every year, while the 'owner class' sits on 15% rate tax-deferred money. They'd be for lightening the relative tax burden on the general public by doing that - and by using the money to balance the budget, reducing the huge waste of the interest paid (what is it, 8% of the entire budget and a third of all discretionary spending).

Your posting talking points is not worth rebutting them. You clearly are an injector of kool-aid when you make the nutty claims that a dollar for an extremely wealthy person, who isn't being 'incented' but is rather well into the realm of 'abusive wealth collection', will do more good for society than spending it to reuduce the debt or pay for Medicare or put it in the pocket of a consumer who will spend it, not simply bid up some asset's value.

Like I said, the right-wing think tanks propaganda funding was money well spent, when it clearly has conquered you like this, warrior for the billionares and enemy of society.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying billionares are bad, I'm saying that the 'billionare agenda' in the current environment, where they're greatly increasing the share of the pie, is bad.

It was one of them who said, 'Class warfare is going on, and my [the billionare] class is winning'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I'd hate to see the people farther right then Bush. Part of the "Earth First: Strip mine the other planets later" group?

Meet Grover Norquist, extremely influential in right-wing politics.

In 2000, he made an analogy about how he had a plan to radically change American that would take decades, and how he was aligning with Bush who was far less radical because 'when you want to go from Washington to Hawaii, and someone else [Bush] wants to go as far as St. Louis, you can ride with them that far.'

Captalizt posted from Milton Friedman approvingly; these guys are wanting to do what Friedman did for Chile in the 1970's under Pinochet, which was a nation Friedman had spent years gaining ideological dominance in in the economist field, and where he was basically handed the country as a laboratory - Pinochet appointed Friedman's students to all key economic positions. It was, of course, disastrous for the Chileans, but good for the wealthy class.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: marincounty
Funny, the only time in 47 years in California when we had rolling blackouts, was when Bush was in the white house and Enron was gaming the power market.

This was after a disastrous DEREGULATION of the electrical power industry, pushed by the Republican governor and the monopoly CORPORATION PG $ E.

This didn't occur because of over-regulation, but because of deregulation and corporate monopolization.

Note, Enron imploded with corrupt business practices and no longer exists (with great harm to people), and PG&E went bankrupt. Give us more of your 'business expertise', right wing.

By the way, how is the Tennessee Valley Authority that the idiot liberals under Roosevelt gave us doing, damn commies who can't chew bubble gum much less anything important?

Oh ya, it's running ok since 1933.

Of course, the right doesn't care and continue with their mythology - the national spokesman *against* Medicare, Ronald Reagan, was against TVA:

Then-movie star Ronald Reagan had moved to television as the host and a frequent performer for General Electric Theater. But he was fired by General Electric in 1962 in response to Reagan referring to the TVA as one of the problems of "big government"
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Exxon still hasn't paid a dime to the locals who were so harmed by their behavior, 20 years later, as I recall.

Exxon spent some $2.1 billion in cleanup efforts, pleaded guilty to criminal violations occasioning fines, settled a civil action by the United States and Alaska for at least $900 million, and paid another $303 million in voluntary payments to private parties

later,

the Court takes for granted the District Court's calculation of the total relevant compensatory damages at $507.5 million


from the summary preceding the opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. et al. v. Baker et al.
 

bobcpg

Senior member
Nov 14, 2001
951
0
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The liberal left, when confronted, cannot win any argument in an intellectual, logical way. They will resort to flippant humor that assumes everything they don't like is a joke without actually pointing out anything funny or making any arguments with real substance.

Cha-Ching! So true.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
?Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.? - Milton Friedman

Just the quote I was looking for.

Reminds me of that speech Obama gave, where he said something along the lines of "we can't keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time and eat whatever we went, using 25% of the worlds energy even though we only account for 3% of the population, and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that" (paraphrasing). His reasoning is that there is a fixed amount of energy in the world, and that we are using more then our fair share. This kind of reasoning is flawed--and particularly dangerous part of the liberal agenda.

Perhaps you gents would care to pay homage to another Milton Friedman quote:

"To spend is to tax."

Reminds me of a few people too. You think Obama is part of a dangerous liberal agenda? Friedman thought deficit spending was the epitome of irresponsibility. At least Obama isn't offering to spend billions while simultaneously cutting everyone's taxes, a fiscally impossible scenario attempted by the last few "republican" presidents.

I don't think any conservatives here would argue on that point, that many of the republicans in congress (and Bush and McCain) are far too liberal for our liking.

I'd hate to see the people farther right then Bush. Part of the "Earth First: Strip mine the other planets later" group?

I would say 70% of the Republican party is "right" of Bush. He's not conservative at all.

Also, where do you get the idea that conservatives want to "Earth First: Strip mine the other planets later"????
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1

I would say 70% of the Republican party is "right" of Bush. He's not conservative at all.

Also, where do you get the idea that conservatives want to "Earth First: Strip mine the other planets later"????

By any reasonable use of the term Bush is extremely conservative. We've discussed this before. I always find that conservatism is one of those ideologies that cannot fail, it can only be failed. When conservative politicians enact legislation or policies, if the policies fail it always just seems to be because the guy wasn't conservative enough.