Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 08-14-2018, 04:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,825
538 did a story very closely related to this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...maries-so-far/

They found that progressive candidates endorsed by the likes of Bernie Sanders are doing okay, but what's much more notable is how much the rhetoric and policy positions of "mainstream" Democrats has moved towards the platform of Sanders. Universal health care, $15 min wage, and much more, are now mainstream Democratic policy positions. That's a big, big win for progressives in the mold of AOC. The progressives may be being beat in primaries quite often, but just as often, if not more so, they're being joined, even when they lose. Most of these progressives who have lost have lost to other progressive candidates.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-14-2018 at 04:58 PM.
  #352  
Old 08-14-2018, 06:14 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
538 did a story very closely related to this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...maries-so-far/

They found that progressive candidates endorsed by the likes of Bernie Sanders are doing okay, but what's much more notable is how much the rhetoric and policy positions of "mainstream" Democrats has moved towards the platform of Sanders. Universal health care, $15 min wage, and much more, are now mainstream Democratic policy positions. That's a big, big win for progressives in the mold of AOC. The progressives may be being beat in primaries quite often, but just as often, if not more so, they're being joined, even when they lose. Most of these progressives who have lost have lost to other progressive candidates.
And will those newly minted progressives keep those progressive positions in the general election?
  #353  
Old 08-14-2018, 06:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
And will those newly minted progressives keep those progressive positions in the general election?
We'll see. Probably depends on how successful they are (how many seats they win, and whether they gain the speakership).
  #354  
Old 08-14-2018, 06:23 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Why Venezuelan socialism and not just plain ol socialism? Venezuela is just the latest place it doesn’t work because it wasn’t implemented right or something. Why not try it here though? Who isn’t looking forward to raiding the zoo for dinner?
The one time the USA butchered zoo animals for dinner was after the 1929 crash, caused by extreme capitalism.

Khrushchev's Soviet Union, while not perfect, did OK economically.

Maybe the difference in economic fortunes is due to something else.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 08-14-2018 at 06:24 PM.
  #355  
Old 08-14-2018, 06:47 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 6,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
The one time the USA butchered zoo animals for dinner was after the 1929 crash, caused by extreme capitalism.

Khrushchev's Soviet Union, while not perfect, did OK economically.

Maybe the difference in economic fortunes is due to something else.
Yeah capitalism at its lowest barely beats socialism at its best? That’s a great endorsement for failed leftist economics.

Last edited by octopus; 08-14-2018 at 06:47 PM.
  #356  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:11 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,243
That's not what I said. The "capitalist" economy you grew up in was shaped by social liberalism and central planning. Pure capitalism will lead to famine and war.

Khrushchev's Soviet Union was an economic success. Cuba seems economically stable. Less extreme "socialism," like social democracy, has a good record in the Benelux and the Nordic countries. Picking on Venezuela is cherry-picking.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 08-14-2018 at 07:11 PM.
  #357  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:26 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Khrushchev's Soviet Union was an economic success. Cuba seems economically stable.
When you're an economic success, you don't have to forcibly prevent your citizens from emigrating. Please don't tell me you're a Cuban apologist. Folks risk their lives to escape from that totalitarian, one-party state.
  #358  
Old Yesterday, 07:05 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
You're really afraid of her, aren't you?
The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes. What if she really is the future of the Democratic party?

A socialist nutbag with delusions of adequacy, who responds with accusations of sexism every time someone calls her out on a whopper. Come to think of it, maybe she is the present of the Democratic party.

Regards,
Shodan
  #359  
Old Yesterday, 08:08 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
That's not what I said. The "capitalist" economy you grew up in was shaped by social liberalism and central planning. Pure capitalism will lead to famine and war.

Khrushchev's Soviet Union was an economic success. Cuba seems economically stable. Less extreme "socialism," like social democracy, has a good record in the Benelux and the Nordic countries. Picking on Venezuela is cherry-picking.
Sorry, but I just don't see it - and I never agree with octopus on anything.

But economies that rely on centralized planning almost invariably turn out to be disasters. The market always outperform the 'superman' or 'supermen' who try to outperform it. You can redistribute the wealth that capitalism and free markets generate -- that is absolutely the place for economists. But not in creating and sustaining wealth. Hospitals? Schools? Institutions? I see a role for government control there, but not in the market itself.

That being said, I suspect a lot of "socialists" are mislabeling themselves or being mislabeled. I doubt most American "socialists" want to control the market; they just want to redistribute wealth through taxation and investment, which has been economic orthodoxy of many center-left democratic, capitalist societies for the last 70 years.
  #360  
Old Yesterday, 08:13 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes. What if she really is the future of the Democratic party?

A socialist nutbag with delusions of adequacy, who responds with accusations of sexism every time someone calls her out on a whopper. Come to think of it, maybe she is the present of the Democratic party.

Regards,
Shodan
Since we're talking about socialists, and by virtue of that, human intervention in markets, what are your thoughts on the current president? How do you feel about his intervention in free trade? What are your thoughts on his repeated efforts to injure American brands with his twitter rage? These aren't the tactics of Obama, but rather Hugo Chavez or even Vladimir Putin. Where's your outrage?
  #361  
Old Yesterday, 08:16 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
When you're an economic success, you don't have to forcibly prevent your citizens from emigrating. Please don't tell me you're a Cuban apologist. Folks risk their lives to escape from that totalitarian, one-party state.
Just so we're clear, Cuba was (has been) hit with crippling economic sanctions from what would have been its largest trading partner.

I don't disagree with you that central planning is not a recipe for economic success, but I'm not sure Cuba's the best example. Venezuela might be a better one. The former Soviet Union, China, and Southeast Asian economies of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos being even better ones still.
  #362  
Old Yesterday, 08:19 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,023
Personally, I'm a free-market socialist. The government should be allowed to own companies that compete in any given industry. If the government company outcompetes the private ones, that's a sign that that's a function that government should be doing. If the private companies outcompete the governmental one, that's a sign that it's something that should be left to the private sector. If a company gets "too big to fail" and then needs a bailout, the bailout is in the form of a buyout, and now it's a government company (or merged into the existing government company, if there already is one). It's the same sort of situation we see now with the USPS successfully competing with UPS and FedEx, except without the government companies being deliberately crippled the way the USPS is.
  #363  
Old Yesterday, 08:35 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,049
Too much conflict of interest with the regulators competing with the regulated. Also the government is able to raise virtually unlimited amounts of capital, much of which is involuntarily sourced, which automatically puts it in an ant-competitive position.

So, you left out a few options: If a government owned company outcompetes a privately owned company it could very well mean that regulations were made favoring the government or that the government was able to coerce investors into investing in a company when they would have otherwise invested in a different company. The winner is determined not by who can attract the most investors, but by who can use the force of law to block investors from investing in the competition.
  #364  
Old Yesterday, 08:35 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes.
No offense man, but you DO know who the President of the United States is right now, right?

Quote:
Come to think of it, maybe she is the present of the Democratic party
And that is worse than the present of the Republican party?
  #365  
Old Yesterday, 08:46 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Too much conflict of interest with the regulators competing with the regulated. Also the government is able to raise virtually unlimited amounts of capital, much of which is involuntarily sourced, which automatically puts it in an ant-competitive position.

So, you left out a few options: If a government owned company outcompetes a privately owned company it could very well mean that regulations were made favoring the government or that the government was able to coerce investors into investing in a company when they would have otherwise invested in a different company. The winner is determined not by who can attract the most investors, but by who can use the force of law to block investors from investing in the competition.
I generally agree, though I would consider exceptions when it comes to public-use infrastructure and the production and distribution of essential services like utilities. Where I differ from republicans is that I would consider healthcare an essential service or somewhat like a utility, in need of strong regulation and perhaps some degree of central authority. Controlled monopolies or duopolies might be another viable alternative that strikes the right balance between public need and market-based economics.

But other than that, I'd be in agreement that we don't need a government option cutting across all sectors of the economy. The opportunities for corruption exist enough as it is now just from giving government the power to regulate industry.

Last edited by asahi; Yesterday at 08:47 AM.
  #366  
Old Yesterday, 09:12 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
No offense man, but you DO know who the President of the United States is right now?
Yeah, a Peepublican criticizing AOC for being less than truthful is like a big leaky 55 gallon barrel of crude oil calling the kettle black.

The typo in the above was originally unintentional, but I like it and I’m going to keep it. And I’ll use it again. It seems like a good moniker for a Trump supporter.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; Yesterday at 09:13 AM.
  #367  
Old Yesterday, 09:21 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,032
Funny how whataboutism oscillates into and out of favor as a debate tactic.

If no one can debate the topic of the OP, we can let it rest until the next time she sticks her foot in her mouth. So, twenty minutes, at least.

Regards,
Shodan
  #368  
Old Yesterday, 10:46 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,023
So you make the government companies follow the same regulations as the private companies. And inequalities would be just as likely to go the other way, like the regulations that the USPS has to work under which would strangle most companies. Yes, there would be opportunity for corruption, but there's opportunity for corruption in every system. Address the corruption, not the system.
  #369  
Old Yesterday, 11:01 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,049
The entire structure of our government is designed around checks and balances built into the system because governments have a unique ability to abuse power. And even then we get Trump. I like the idea of constraining governments proactively rather trusting that the government will police itself if we give it unprecedented powers. YMMV, and it obviously does.

Last edited by John Mace; Yesterday at 11:01 AM.
  #370  
Old Yesterday, 11:05 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Funny how whataboutism oscillates into and out of favor as a debate tactic.

If no one can debate the topic of the OP, we can let it rest until the next time she sticks her foot in her mouth. So, twenty minutes, at least.

Regards,
Shodan
I don't think referring to the current President is whataboutism. Referring to past Presidents, I would agree with you.
  #371  
Old Yesterday, 11:58 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,032
I think you are wrong, and that it is a nearly laboratory-grade example of whataboutism.

We kind of rang the changes on how these kinds of threads run.
  • She is an exciting new face, inspiring the progressives, which is far more important than nitpicking details. After all, this is a wedding election! Let's not spoil it with a lot of petty bickering about who killed who!
  • She wasn't wrong
  • Okay, she was wrong, but she wasn't WRONG wrong. If you tilt your head and squint your eyes just right, some of what she said was actually right
  • Okay, it wasn't right, but she was just using hyperbole to inspire, just like FDR. Haven't you ever hear of hyperbole?
And, when those didn't pan out and she said some more bone-headed things, the inexorable
  • What about Trump? How can you possibly support a politician who lies to stir up her his base?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez preempted one of the steps by playing the sexism card, but apart from that, it went pretty much by the book.

Regards,
Shodan
  #372  
Old Yesterday, 12:12 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think you are wrong, and that it is a nearly laboratory-grade example of whataboutism.

We kind of rang the changes on how these kinds of threads run.
  • She is an exciting new face, inspiring the progressives, which is far more important than nitpicking details. After all, this is a wedding election! Let's not spoil it with a lot of petty bickering about who killed who!
  • She wasn't wrong
  • Okay, she was wrong, but she wasn't WRONG wrong. If you tilt your head and squint your eyes just right, some of what she said was actually right
  • Okay, it wasn't right, but she was just using hyperbole to inspire, just like FDR. Haven't you ever hear of hyperbole?
And, when those didn't pan out and she said some more bone-headed things, the inexorable
  • What about Trump? How can you possibly support a politician who lies to stir up her his base?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez preempted one of the steps by playing the sexism card, but apart from that, it went pretty much by the book.

Regards,
Shodan
That may be true, but that's not why I was asking. I don't think she is an exciting new face of anything. I think it's funny that she beat what's his name in the primary, that's all. I doubt she knows much of anything but I don't expect her to know everything about everything, even in subjects she has a degree in.

However, when someone says "The idea of someone as badly misinformed as this with her finger in national politics does concern me a bit, yes." it makes me wonder how they feel about the current President, since I don't remember reading you stating this about the current President. If you have, then my bad. If you haven't, then my next question would be "If you don't care about how badly misinformed the current President is, why in the world would you care how misinformed a Democratic Primary winner in a Congressional Race is"?

Don't lump me in with others on this board. I actually want to know what you think, not set up gotchas or whatever.
  #373  
Old Yesterday, 04:08 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't think she is an exciting new face of anything. I think it's funny that she beat what's his name in the primary, that's all.
Yeah, it was so funny that she beat what's his name. You know, that really famous guy!
  #374  
Old Yesterday, 04:41 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
When you're an economic success, you don't have to forcibly prevent your citizens from emigrating. Please don't tell me you're a Cuban apologist. Folks risk their lives to escape from that totalitarian, one-party state.
I was talking about economics, not party control. The USA actively suppressed left parties at the same time Stalin actively suppressed dissent in the USSR. Pinochet had a dictatorship that stood for liberal economics without liberal democracy. Capitalism is not necessarily freedom, so don't sell me freedom and switch in capitalism.

A very, very small fraction of Cubans leave Cuba. Fidel was never overthrown. Maybe the ones who want to leave are just outliers! Has that occurred to you?

Last edited by foolsguinea; Yesterday at 04:41 PM.
  #375  
Old Yesterday, 06:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Yeah, it was so funny that she beat what's his name. You know, that really famous guy!
He was the OLD new face of the Democratic party!
  #376  
Old Yesterday, 10:09 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
I was talking about economics, not party control. The USA actively suppressed left parties at the same time Stalin actively suppressed dissent in the USSR. Pinochet had a dictatorship that stood for liberal economics without liberal democracy. Capitalism is not necessarily freedom, so don't sell me freedom and switch in capitalism.

A very, very small fraction of Cubans leave Cuba. Fidel was never overthrown. Maybe the ones who want to leave are just outliers! Has that occurred to you?
Capitalism cannot occur without freedom to engage in voluntary exchange. You seem to conflate freedom with democracy.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017