Election 2012 (USA)

What I mean is, unless I'm wrong, you seem to very opposed to less government and supportive of more.
That more... is the means.

You also seem to be in the Social Democracy mold (Sanders, Kucinich) aka Sweden. (that's why I said that)
It will not happen here. Even if somehow those guys got their way, we're in such a bad situation. A large, efficient, open and corrupt free government will not happen here, we're too corrupt and set in our mindset.
I love their system, but besides the fact it's become unsustainable it simply will not happen here. So if that's what you'd like (as I did) you need to simply face reality.

If you are sincere in wanting better government and don't care the size, then we need less. I've been reading and researching for months now, so there's just so much info...but long story short, less is the best government to have.


Thank you for telling me unemployment is bad, I was unaware...
They will find new jobs. We all do (while supporting theirs) so they will find jobs.


Edited by JJLehto - May 04 2012 at 20:09

Rah rah Democrats
Rah rah Republicans

A line from my album, Refulgence:

"Our Constitution has grown weak like a field of dying grass.  The eagle's trampled underfoot by elephant and ass."

Slartibartfast wrote: This whole more or less government is vague.  What is more?  What is less?  You want less protection from polluters?  Government sucks at that. Less inspections of food?  Government sucks at that. Less firefighters, police?  Government sucks at that. Less protection from predatory companies?  Government sucks at that. But yes, call me social democrat, liberal, progressive.  The reality is that just because you can't have a perfect government doesn't mean you shouldn't stand for things that will make it better.

Edited by Epignosis - May 04 2012 at 20:32

manofmystery wrote: ^ “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” - Frédéric Bastiat

Not to get involved in anything, but to be serious for a moment....

That remark really misses the point of what socialism is....

Socialism is not about big government vs. small government.

Maybe people should call that Keynesian capitalist economics or national capitalism. Socialism doesn't really deal with the issue of intervention into the market. That is a mistaken impression due to labeling of Keynesian and national capitalists. Also of misconception of other economic system wrongly labeled socialist, but based on national centralization.

Socialism does not involve government intervention in its economic system or social system. It is based on supply and demand by consumer preference. Social spending is determined by consumer demand as well. Consumer allocation instead of producer allocation.

RoyFairbank wrote: manofmystery wrote: ^ “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” - Frédéric Bastiat Not to get involved in anything, but to be serious for a moment.... That remark really misses the point of what socialism is.... Socialism is not about big government vs. small government. Maybe people should call that Keynesian capitalist economics or national capitalism. Socialism doesn't really deal with the issue of intervention into the market. That is a mistaken impression due to labeling of Keynesian and national capitalists. Also of misconception of other economic system wrongly labeled socialist, but based on national centralization. Socialism does not involve government intervention in its economic system or social system. It is based on supply and demand by consumer preference. Social spending is determined by consumer demand as well. Consumer allocation instead of producer allocation.

RoyFairbank wrote: manofmystery wrote: ^ <span =message=""><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-: EN; mso-fareast-: EN-US; mso-bidi-: AR-SA" lang="EN">“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.” - Frédéric Bastiat</span></span> Not to get involved in anything, but to be serious for a moment....That remark really misses the point of what socialism is....Socialism is not about big government vs. small government. Maybe people should call that Keynesian capitalist economics or national capitalism. Socialism doesn't really deal with the issue of intervention into the market. That is a mistaken impression due to labeling of Keynesian and national capitalists. Also of misconception of other economic system wrongly labeled socialist, but based on national centralization.Socialism does not involve government intervention in its economic system or social system. It is based on supply and demand by consumer preference. Social spending is determined by consumer demand as well. Consumer allocation instead of producer allocation.

So you have explained what socialism apparently is not, but you have failed to explain what it actually is. Elaboration please?

Tomorrow I vote for the second round of elections in France. I hope the "so-called" socialist will not win...

The T wrote: So you have explained what socialism apparently is not, but you have failed to explain what it actually is. Elaboration please?

I think I explained it pretty well... it is about direct consumer preference... to use a political term, allocation is decided using democratic methods.

It cannot work or even exist in a centralized or a market based economy. That's the whole point. That is why Marx talked of the withering away of the state. It's functions are irrelevant. Talk of socialism in either of the two aforementioned cases is misguided, but understandable. Many self-described socialists were advocates of different types of Keynesian intervention in the context of a market economy. If one pays close attention the different socialists will acknowledge themselves as non-socialists and advocates of a opposing type of economics through various key phrases and concepts, such as Social Democrat, which means reform of capitalism, non-orthodox, revisionist, socialism in one country, market socialist.... This terminology is decisive but it is difficult for the uninitiated to differentiate. 

Once again, they are working from a different concept. Moreover, they usually don't directly pursue this concept, instead they are supporters of a certain faction or trend in capitalist politics and economics, or supporters of third world national consolidation (earlier times). They use the term socialist to indicate that there are trends in capitalism or national centralization that are viable. The historical reason is that these groups arose out of the decline of the workers movement in different decades, and considered themselves heirs, adjusting themselves to new conditions.

This creates confusion, which is exploited to create the myth that socialism is simply Keynesian intervention, or even the political support of it. According to Marx, socialism can only be realized by concerted establishment on a world scale, an economic revolution that is established and then realized. There is no such thing as a Socialist policy, or a socialist institution. Socialism is an economic stage which is entirely distinct and closed. It is the lower stage of communism, which is based on a highly evolved and automatic economy with few limits in productivity or operation. Both are future economies, but communism is a state of the very distant future.

 

The T wrote: Futuristic as in impossible. Rather convoluted wordy explanation but I guess that will have to do.

From the perspective of the times Marx was writing in, the future is already here. Production has been socialized, globalized. We are essentially moving into socialism but being yanked back by the capitalist mode of appropriation and allocation. Trotsky talked of times that were past ripe for socialism, but had become rotten. The tend to retract as nationalist and private accumulation is out of sync with socialized, globalized production. Hence the great depression, then the decades of expansion again toward American efficiency of production throughout the world (US becomes savoir of capitalism), then the outer reaches of this expansion, loss of hegemony by United States (first collapse of Bretton Woods) the rottenness again, finally, the cord loses slack and tightens suddenly and yanks back the out of sync demands of allocation by private and national accumulators.

Rather than impossible, it is too possible, so capitalism is destroying its own pregnant development (the billions wiped in GDP being the indication on one hand, national divisions expressing quite a bit more). It does this periodically, but there is a reason why it does it on this scale and namely in this particular fashion in 1929 and in 2008. This is capitalism eating itself, not just having a snack. The conditions for socialism are overripe, they are being destroyed, and capitalism maybe can reduce itself to a position where it can expand again, for a while. But history does not repeat itself. It has little basis for expansion today.


Edited by KarlMarx - Today at 21:38


Edited by RoyFairbank - May 05 2012 at 21:37

I hope Ron Paul runs independent.... I don't think he will, but its going to be really boring to watch Obama landslide Romney. I'd rather have some issues raised by the media refusing to allow Paul to participate.


I think its unhealthy for people to be in thrall of the Red Blue religion. Any momentary relief is welcomed.