yep, because goodness knows, if I don't like the prices the US gov't puts up, I can always... oh, wait.

3/27/2011 10:14:53 PM

Vote? Yep

3/28/2011 9:13:04 AM

Quote :

"if I don't like the prices the US gov't puts up, I can always..."

vote
leave
revolt

any of those, it just depends on how much you don't like it and how much others don't like it.

3/28/2011 5:49:23 PM

You left out "COMPLAIN". We can certainly complain. Until they arrest us. And you can certainly revolt, until they kill you. And you can certainly leave, until they make leaving illegal as communist countries tend to do.

3/28/2011 6:24:40 PM

What's your point?

3/28/2011 6:45:49 PM

Quote :

"any of those, it just depends on how much you don't like it and how much others don't like it. "

And you can do the same with corporate monopolies. It's good to see you finally admit that corporate monopolies are a temporary problem that don't need government intervention to solve.

3/28/2011 7:39:14 PM

Quote :

"And you can do the same with corporate monopolies"

I can vote or leave?

Quote :

"It's good to see you finally admit that corporate monopolies are a temporary problem that don't need government intervention to solve"

Governments have tended to become better over time, one cannot say the same about monopolies.

3/28/2011 8:39:08 PM

Quote :

"What's your point?"

You are a communist. People that called themselves communists did bad things. Therefore, you would do bad things if granted political power. Therefore, we should marginalize you on the internetz.

3/28/2011 9:10:07 PM

Quote :

"Governments have tended to become better over time"

Unclever troll is troll.

3/29/2011 7:17:43 AM

Quote :

"I can vote or leave?"

Sure you can. Buy a share, and you can vote same as any other shareholder. Or you can simply not buy their product.

3/29/2011 7:45:31 AM

Quote :

"People that called themselves communists did bad things."

I'm also an atheist, I'm also a democrat. My beliefs have nothing to do with atrocities that they had nothing to do with except being claimed by those who committed them. It's strange to me that no one would consider The Democratic People's Republic of Korea to actually be democratic, yet they will immediately claim them to be communist simply because they are not capitalist. I don't have to apologize for atrocities committed under the flag of communism any more than capitalists have to apologize for the murders and racism that occurred in the US, or the disease and starvation widespread in Africa for centuries.

Quote :

"Buy a share, and you can vote same as any other shareholder."

That only works if they are publicly shared.

Quote :

"Or you can simply not buy their product"

That only works if it's a product you can live without

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 7:57 AM. Reason : ]

3/29/2011 7:55:54 AM

Quote :

"It's strange to me that no one would consider The Democratic People's Republic of Korea to actually be democratic, yet they will immediately claim them to be communist simply because they are not capitalist."

actually, no, they are communist because they do everything a communist regime would do. Oh, and they also cal themselves communists. durrr

3/29/2011 11:23:09 AM

Quote :

"That only works if they are publicly shared. That only works if it's a product you can live without"

Which is of course the same problem with a government monopoly.

3/29/2011 12:54:10 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-28-2011/i-give-up---pay-anything---?xrs=share_copy

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : embed didn't work]

3/29/2011 2:19:54 PM

Quote :

"they do everything a communist regime would do"

First, we both know that you don't even know what communism is. Secondly, what it isn't is a political system. Thus there is no such thing as a "communist regime" just like there's no such think as a "capitalist regime". There are regimes that claim to support or espouse communist or capitalist economic beliefs, but that does not make them "Xist regimes".

Quote :

"Oh, and they also cal themselves communists. durrr"

They call themselves democratic as well, does that mean any atrocities they commit must be to blame on democracy?

Quote :

"Which is of course the same problem with a government monopoly."

In this government we can vote regardless of the ability to buy the government out.

3/29/2011 6:38:22 PM

Quote :

"First, we both know that you don't even know what communism is"

Actually, I know very well what communism is. you are the one who has the fantasy world definition where it's roses, sunshine, and lollipops, and it's whatever we want it to be. pretty fucking worthless definition, if you ask me.

3/30/2011 2:49:02 PM

Quote :

"Actually, I know very well what communism is."

Challenge accepted. What is it? Please define it with literary examples from Marx.

3/30/2011 6:01:00 PM

Good idea. You, the communist, should go first.

3/30/2011 8:04:21 PM

Seconded...lollerskates...a communist doesn't recognize democratic principles.

3/30/2011 8:11:32 PM

Quote :

"a communist doesn't recognize democratic principles"

Apparently, neither do capitalists.

3/30/2011 8:34:16 PM

It wasn't a serious comment.

3/30/2011 8:47:53 PM

3/31/2011 12:29:09 AM

This...is pretty shitty.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/23/report-gm-to-get-14-billion-domestic-tax-break/

4/1/2011 11:06:24 AM

4/11/2011 11:40:54 PM

4/12/2011 11:26:12 AM

Quote :

"Seconded...lollerskates...a communist doesn't recognize democratic principles."

What? Communism is exactly Democratic principles applied to economy in addition to government, if anything it's theoretically a framework for a MORE Democratic society than anything America's ever seen.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 11:30:53 AM

Depends on your communism. In the most utopian there is no state, therefore there are no elections at all nor a reason to hold them. In the less utopian, the state owns everything so without permission for access to the tools required to spread ideas, it is infeasible to mount a political challenge of any sort, so even if elections are held the idea of democratic competition is impossible.

As such, it is my opinion that communism anywhere precludes the idea of democracy. Perhaps you can describe to us how your democratic form of communism would operate in practice? Who has the guns, who decides what political discourse is considered counter-revolutionary, and who decides how the media apparatus can and cannot be used?

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/12/2011 5:27:18 PM

Do you really need to state "as such" so often? It's pretty much implied by just typing it out.

4/12/2011 5:41:08 PM

I agree, "as such" sucks, I should go back to using "Therefore" or nothing at all, but it has crept in, so unless I pay attention, typing what I think means it will be in there.

4/12/2011 6:39:36 PM

heh, not to bust your balls or anything. I guess I just noticed stuff like that because I'm subscribed to Karl Denninger and he uses "point of fact", "as such" and "black letter of the law" so many damn times every single day that I want to reach through the screen and strangle his pompous bloviating face.

4/12/2011 6:58:13 PM

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/04/the_one-percenters.html

Quote :

"What puzzles me is why there isn't more indignation. The Tea Party is the most indignant domestic political movement since Norman Thomas's Socialist Party, but its wrath is turned in the wrong direction. It favors policies that are favorable to corporations and unfavorable to individuals. Its opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a "populist" movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests. The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations that oppose labor unions and financial reform. The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped. Consider taxes. Do you know we could eliminate half the predicted shortfall in the national budget by simply failing to renew the Bush tax cuts? Do you know that if corporations were taxed at a fair rate, much of the rest could be found? General Electric recently reported it paid no current taxes. Why do you think that was? Why do middle and lower class Tea Party members not understand that they bear an unfair burden of taxes that should be more fairly distributed? Why do they support those who campaign against unions and a higher minimum wage? What do they think is in it for them? If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under? A system under which the very rich have doubled their share of the nation's income in 25 years? I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Isn't that an American credo? How did it get twisted around into an obscene wage for shameless plunder? One of the challenges facing the One-Percenters these days is finding ways to spend their money. Private residences grow as large as hotels, and are fitted out with the amenities of luxury resorts. Fleets of cars and private airplanes are at their owners' disposal. At work, they sink absurd mountains of money into show-off corporate headquarters that have less to do with work than with a pissing contest among rival executives. Private toilets grow as large as small condos, outfitted with Italian marbles and rare antiques. This is all paid for by the shareholders. One area of equality between the One-Percenters and the rest of us is that we sit on toilets of about the same size. What's different is the size of our throne rooms. "

4/13/2011 12:39:57 AM

Quote :

"Consider taxes. Do you know we could eliminate half the predicted shortfall in the national budget by simply failing to renew the Bush tax cuts?"

Tax cuts which fell primarily upon the non-rich.

It seems to be a question of maturity. If you can't be rich, then no one can be. Well, the rest of us are more mature. It is none of my business that Sergey Brin and his ilk are filthy rich. No vote of Congress gave them their wealth. What bothers me is the billions of dollars going into the pockets of the super rich out of the national treasury by order of our duly elected representatives, spending which you clearly support.

4/13/2011 1:44:43 AM

Quote :

"ts opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a "populist" movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests."

The same insurance companies which are now government protected and financed businesses because of the heath care legislation?

4/13/2011 8:26:04 AM

From Jesse Ventura:

Quote :

"You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat. We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you. You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed. We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence. You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings. You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions. You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living. You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame. We are hit… we are bleeding… but we ain’t got time to bleed. We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution! "

http://weaintgottimetobleed.com/

4/13/2011 12:17:06 PM

Quote :

"Depends on your communism. In the most utopian there is no state, therefore there are no elections at all nor a reason to hold them. In the less utopian, the state owns everything so without permission for access to the tools required to spread ideas, it is infeasible to mount a political challenge of any sort, so even if elections are held the idea of democratic competition is impossible. As such, it is my opinion that communism anywhere precludes the idea of democracy. Perhaps you can describe to us how your democratic form of communism would operate in practice? Who has the guns, who decides what political discourse is considered counter-revolutionary, and who decides how the media apparatus can and cannot be used? "

You don't seem to know anything about Communism except a caricature of the Stalinist USSR.
It doesn't get much more Democratic than a classless society with common ownership.

The central premise of Communism is that everybody has common ownership over the means of production and through Democratic associations decide what to produce. It can be through trade unions, workers councils, a bureaucratic state (though this is more for the Socialist transition phase), or other means. The fact that the USSR was only nominally Democratic says very little about Communism itself. That's like me saying that Capitalism is inherently racist because for the past 500 years it has manifested as such over and over again. Capitalists feel no need to make excuses for these multiple barbaric centuries, yet they expect every person who's even vaguely left wing to make excuses for Stalin or Pol Pot as though they were representative of what's really a relative very new, very theoretical, and very ahead-of-its-time economic model.




[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2011 1:25:48 PM

^^ Yet another rant against the Government. Seriously, you can't blame government for everything, especially things that aren't even wrong!

Quote :

"The central premise of Communism is that everybody has common ownership over the means of production and through Democratic associations decide what to produce. It can be through trade unions, workers councils, a bureaucratic state"

Trade unions, workers councils, and a bureaucratic state are not inherently democratic. I argued, by monopolizing the means of spreading ideas, they were inherently anti-democratic. Multiple trade unions can compete against each other in the political realm, so can competing bureaucracies, and can workers councils, but there is nothing to say such competition will be allowed. It is not obvious how to start a newspaper if one trade union or bureaucracy has a functional monopoly on their production and use. Given this, there is clearly nothing inherently democratic about these forms of communism, only the possibility of democracy.

Meanwhile, capitalism by its very nature implies competition in the realm of ideas, as there is no mechanism within capitalism available to monopolize the means of spreading ideas. Anyone that wants to start a newspaper can, all they need is enough money to buy a printer.

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/13/2011 1:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you can describe to us how your democratic form of communism would operate in practice?"

We have something like one operating now, although this could change sometime in the future as Chavez seems intent on entrenching himself through oppressive means. Communism, much like capitalism, is held back by the weaknesses of available political systems.

Quote :

"It seems to be a question of maturity. If you can't be rich, then no one can be."

Yeah, that's a strong enough argument to write off any kind of taxes on the wealthy .

Quote :

"It is none of my business that Sergey Brin and his ilk are filthy rich."

They get rich, in some degree, off the work we do. Economics, in reality, doesn't work as the little meritocracy that ardent capitalists like yourself like to think that it does. Your ability to get rich relies just as much, if not more, on the environment you are in as it does any sort of effort you put in.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, capitalism by its very nature implies competition in the realm of ideas, as there is no mechanism within capitalism available to monopolize the means of spreading ideas. Anyone that wants to start a newspaper can, all they need is enough money to buy a printer."

One could in many forms of communism as well.

4/13/2011 6:35:27 PM

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

4/13/2011 7:43:29 PM

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! SOMEONE ELSE HAS MORE MONEY THAN I DO!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!

4/13/2011 8:07:25 PM

Quote :

"They get rich, in some degree, off the work we do."

And we get rich, in some degree, off the work they do. Mutual exploitation is the greatest gift to mankind, as both sides are relieved of the need to use force against the other to acquire what they desire.

Quote :

"Your ability to get rich relies just as much, if not more, on the environment you are in as it does any sort of effort you put in."

Absolutely. Does not mean relieving society of the incentive to properly allocate resources would result in anything but poverty.

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/13/2011 11:46:46 PM

Quote :

"And we get rich, in some degree, off the work they do."

Well...that part depends. How much of that money do they spend? The less they spend and invest, the less we get back, of course we could always just eat some of that wealth through taxes to get some back. But the point is I don't care if they get wealthy out of some immature jealousy, I just want the money that they owe me.

Quote :

"Mutual exploitation is the greatest gift to mankind, as both sides are relieved of the need to use force against the other to acquire what they desire."

But we aren't. We are forced to take that money from the wealthy through taxes, otherwise we would begin to revert to feudalism. And really it's no fault on them, they act in their own best interest.

Quote :

"Absolutely. Does not mean relieving society of the incentive to properly allocate resources would result in anything but poverty."

Quite the strawman. Why don't you respond to the argument I made rather than the one you wanted to argue against.

[Edited on April 14, 2011 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

4/14/2011 12:45:04 AM

Quote :

"Well...that part depends. How much of that money do they spend?"

Irrelevant. The money we gave them was in exchange for something we wanted. As such, they already served us in the manner negotiated and therefore don't owe us anything.

Quote :

"But we aren't. We are forced to take that money from the wealthy through taxes, otherwise we would begin to revert to feudalism. "

Where are you getting that? By what mechanism could this assertion possibly be true?
I call Bullshit. This assertion is a religious belief of yours and there is no justification for it beyond your own internal contradictions. It would only be through high taxes that the rich could defend their social position, as the statistics show. In high tax Europe the richest men of a decade ago are the richest men today. But in relatively lower tax America the list of the richest men keeps getting replaced by upstarts. Part of this is cultural, but quite a bit of it is because such taxes are on income, which is a poor approximation for wealth.

Quote :

"Why don't you respond to the argument I made rather than the one you wanted to argue against."

What is to respond to? You were absolutely right on this narrow assertion. But, going even further, let us assume being "rich" has nothing to do with you as person and everything to do with dumb luck. Therefore, what? What would you have us do? Impoverish us all just because nothing about ourselves makes us deserve our wealth?

4/14/2011 2:14:52 AM

haven't read most of this thread, but without cutting military spending (until we exit the Afghan war), i think we need to go back to the same spending and taxing levels that we had under Clinton.

4/14/2011 12:15:14 PM

^easy there. Hell going back to 2008 levels means killing old people, im not sure we can go way back to the dark ages of the clinton years.

Look how much resistance there is going all the way back to 2008 levels. FUBAR

4/14/2011 12:23:09 PM

Quote :

"Does not mean relieving society of the incentive to properly allocate resources would result in anything but poverty. "

"Properly"?

4/14/2011 4:19:27 PM

Well, you can improperly allocate resources, as under communism, or you can properly allocate resources, as under a price system.

4/14/2011 4:41:35 PM

Quote :

"Irrelevant."

No, you stated that we get rich off of them, which isn't necessarily true. We get rich off them if they spend, they get rich off us if we spend, as the wealth gap widens it shows that one part of that is getting out of whack.

Quote :

"It would only be through high taxes that the rich could defend their social position, as the statistics show."

Really? Why not compare the top marginal american tax rates with the wealth gap? You'll find the statistics show something different.

Quote :

"But, going even further, let us assume being "rich" has nothing to do with you as person and everything to do with dumb luck. Therefore, what? What would you have us do?"

Well it's not dumb luck, it's an environment that creates wealth and discourages poverty. I would have us create that environment. Poverty encourages poverty and extreme wealth encourages income disparity. I would argue for income stabilization, and although you keep trying to paint it as mutually exclusive to a pricing system, it is not.

Quote :

"Well, you can improperly allocate resources, as under communism, or you can properly allocate resources, as under a price system."

Capitalism doesn't efficiently allocate resources as you I'm sure you know, that is why we have market failures.

4/14/2011 6:45:43 PM

Right now our tax policy is fostering a new aristocratic class. Let's raise the inheritance tax to 80% on anything over 10 million bux.

4/14/2011 7:05:32 PM

Quote :

"In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-obamas-deficit-plan-speech-2011-04-13?pagenumber=2

4/14/2011 7:22:30 PM

Quote :

"Well, you can improperly allocate resources, as under communism, or you can properly allocate resources, as under a price system."

This answer is wholly inadequate

4/14/2011 7:24:13 PM