We are not livestock

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 20, 2003.

  1. TM_Directbullshit, are you that stupid or what??:confused:

    go back to your HOLE and watch out for the dark and spacious :D :D

    Mondotrader is baaaccckkkk:D :D
     
    #21     May 21, 2003

  2. How did Helen Keller's parent's Punish her?
    They rearranged the furniture

    Why did Hellen keller have hemorrhoids?
    Her dad left the plunger in the toilet.:D
     
    #22     May 21, 2003
  3. When a drug dealer gains more than a professor for example...

     
    #23     May 21, 2003
  4. This is really true. When I lived in California the majority of people I talked to acted or talked socialistic. Didn't recognize this untill I saw this post!

    Good Trade!

    trend :)
     
    #24     May 21, 2003
  5. Ya, Socialists are really into driving nice cars with vanity plates.
     
    #25     May 21, 2003
  6. With a never-ending lifetime debt.......
     
    #26     May 21, 2003
  7. Next thing you know certainty becomes more important to pay off debt.

    Beginning of a socialist!!
     
    #27     May 21, 2003
  8. There two categories of "socialists" : those who really believe in socialism goodness and those who don't but just have advantage to promote it to profit from public goods.

    And the same on the other side. Did you ever read the classic authors of capitalism and free market ? I dare say that today those who pretend to defend capitalism or free market do defend the opposite because one thing that the classical authors have warned for is Monopolism which is true either when it comes from Governement or from Private Corporation. And what people do defend most of the time today: socialists defend Government Monopolism, and the others from the "opposite" side defend Big Corporation Monopolism, that is to say none defend the good principal of free economy of non monopolistic firms :D. So they defend exactly the same thing on principle: their very own interest depending on what side they belong but it is not people global interest but only government and big corporations interests not people's interests although they try to make people think that and they have been very successful to do so.

    Governement Monoplism + Corporation Monopolism = National Socialism = Nazism economy principle.

    No more individual property, even at term no more individual thinking this is the nazism principle that rejoins the collectivism of communism. One can say that nazism and communism are just the two facets of the same coin : duality again ! People think that these two forms are two different entities whereas they belong to the same single reality that exhibits differently depending on the point of view people want to look at it.

     
    #28     May 22, 2003
  9. I invite you to reread the story of the trader who won 3 billions per year :) : Mike Milken in which super Billionaire Jimmy Goldsmith emits this interesting opinion reported in epstein's article (see last page of the story @ http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/milken4.htm full here http://edwardjayepstein.com/archived/milken.htm) :D


    Sir James Goldsmith, who has been both a client and an opponent of Milken's, saw the conflict proceeding from the threat to take power away from those who had held it. "I don't know whether or not Mike Milken realized at the time that he had found a way of financing an immense revolution in America, but now <B><FONT COLOR=RED>he has witnessed the full power of the establishment triangle: big business, big unions and big government</FONT></B>." He then added, " As I European, I witnessed the same alliance trying to avoid change and <B>><FONT COLOR=RED>neutralizing</FONT></B> those responsible for it."

    This is why new economy cannot work: not by principle but because It would cause threat to the actual power so they let the boom happen with many excess and then wreck it as they have done with Mike Milken episod. If they wanted new economy to work they would have built it slowly but surely.

     
    #29     May 22, 2003
  10. AAA, correct me if I am wrong. But in your opening post, which made some valid arguments, it just seemed to me that the arguments weren't so much against "socialism", although that is the word you used, as they were against Soviet style "communism'.

    There is, at least to me, a significant difference.

    The Soviets tried to take a concept way too far. So far as to have the effect of achieving the complete opposite their original goal.

    Russian history may not be my strongest field of expertise, but the Russian Revolution was about ending the rule of the Czars who lived, like most monarchs, a very "royal" lifestyle while the an overwhelming majority of the masses lived in desperation. And "re-distributing wealth". But that was not what happened.

    But by the time Stalin was through corrupting the system, there was again a very class defined social strata. Except instead of being determined by birth, it was determined by politics.

    So you take socialism too far, and that is what happened. You take capitalism too far, and there are tragic results as well.

    Now I certainly do not believe in Communism. I think that, for example, Castro's Cuba is a total failure. And it is really the only prominent still functioning Communist government (for sake of this discussion....I am fully aware of China and N. Korea for example, but they exist in a non western culture and the way they corrupt the system is an entirely different thing. China and the USSR were at each other's throats, so let's forget those places for now).

    You take "free enterprise" Capitalism to an extreme, and the same results occur, essentially as they do with any political-economic system that has no room for compromise.

    So far, it seems like our American style "blend" of socialism and capitalism strikes a pretty good balance. Not perfect, but that is OK. Because we get to experiment and make errors and correct them. Trial and error seems to work. Inflexible extremism doesn't.

    Social Security was a very hotly contested issue when it was proposed. And at the time, the conservative element absolutely hated the idea. Now, Social Security is a cause championed by the entire Republican party. Even the most conservative elements.

    Privatization as opposed to government running things has had very mixed results. The NY City Subway systems are a good example. When they were run privately, they were profitable. And it was very inexpensive for the passengers to use them. Now the Port Authority has control, prices for passengers seem to go up almost weekly, and still, the system does not pay for itself. But on the other hand, while it is now relatively much more expensive to ride the subways, it is also more efficient for the commuters. Now it is one system instead of three. Here is a case in which the elimination of "competition" did not hurt the "customers" in one sense (quality and service) and did hurt in another sense (cost). Which is more important? Ask people, and you will get different answers. Same can be said of the postal system. The expense has gone up astronomically in the past 30 years. And it certainly is not run very efficiently, since they lose money. But the service is pretty good (not perfect, but pretty good). If you absolutely positively need a letter sent overnight, you can pay for that. If you need it delivered even faster, you can pay for that with a private company. Here, private industry competes with the government. There seems to be room for both.

    socialized Medicine works in many countries. Better in some than in others. But certainly, no one can (at least no one should) believe that society (through government) should not assure that everyone has the right to basic medical care if they cannot afford it.

    The argument against this, (those who work hard deserve, and those who don't, don't) goes out the window when you have a child with no earning power who was unfortunate enough to have been born into a poor family and becomes ill.

    Some enterprises are too large to be run by the private sector. Imagine what our highway's would be like if they were privately held. Or our bridges and tunnels. Or our major airports. Or some of our government agencies (imagine if the FDA were privatized...how corrupt would that be???)

    I have crossed private toll bridges (yes, they still exist in the US; I think....I KNOW they did when I was in college. That's when I paid the private tolls) and I did not get my money's worth.

    Look what happened when the railroads were built in America. The "right of way" granted to the private builders was perhaps the biggest collusion between politicians and private industry (robber barons) ever. If I am not mistaken, the railroads "right of way" included 30 miles of property (or something like that) on either side of the tracks. And what would any property that WAS NOT within that corridor be worth?


    AAA, if you and I argue about politics (as we do), I can have a losing argument, be completely wrong, and you can be completely right. But the thing is, when you argue on the "right", there will always be someone like Dotslashfuture who will come along and trash your side of the argument. That is an advantage of arguing from the 'leftY" side (I prefer the "open minded" but "lefty" seems a dirty word, so it gets used). There aren't as many misinformed and just plain dumb contributors to ruin your side of any political debate when you take the more open minded ("liberal") side of an issue.

    Nothing worse than being in a debate and having someone like Dotslashfuture come along on your side.

    I think it was Albert Einstein that said something to the effect that when in a debate or argument, the worst thing that can happen is to find yourself in a position where you find yourself being supported by someone you wish didn't.

    AAA, as I have said before, I respect you, and I respect your opinions whether or not we agree. But sometimes I just feel sorry for you, 'cause you have a very week team when we argue in an open forum. Yes, you do have some strong conservatives here on ET. Hapaboy comes to mind, and there are many others. And certainly there are embarrassments to the "left". Just that overall, it takes only one MondoTrader or Dotslashfuture to set you back too far to be fair. Someone like Alphonso, for example on the more "lefty" (if you will) side, may be an extremist and sometimes an embarrassment to the "left", but at least he has a brain. Also, we have to acknowledge that non Americans can and do see things from a different perspective than we do. So no doubt, you and I will rally together sometimes on different issues just out of patriotism. I will readily admit that sometime it's impossible to be completely objective when someone bashes the place I love. And I know you feel the same. I couldn't agree with MSFE/Wild under any circumstances no matter what the content of his cut and paste posts. The guy hates America, so I can't be objective listening to what he says (or more accurately, what he quotes). I won't even read them.

    Peace,
    :)RS
     
    #30     Jun 7, 2003