Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-30-2019, 08:24 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I have mentioned this before, but Democrats don't have to worry about moderates voting for Trump instead of some extreme progressive - they need to worry about them not voting at all.

The Trump faction in the GOP will vote for Trump no matter what. The anti-Trump faction in the Democratic party will vote for the Dem no matter what. Moderate Dems who can't bring themselves to support Trump but also can't support a socialist stay home. Moderate Republicans who can't support a socialist will IMO be more likely to vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump. If the Dems nominate Sanders or someone like that in 2020 (I don't think they will, but they might) I probably will vote for Trump. Because it is possible to have a worse President than Trump.

Regards,
Shodan
Aw look, a "fiscal conservative" caring about the deficit again after Republicans spent another two years blowing it up to give the rich a tax cut.
  #52  
Old 03-30-2019, 09:07 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
Totally Obama's fault. Things got so bad, the Waltons moved to California!

"Good night, John-Boy."
"Yo."
  #53  
Old 03-31-2019, 10:18 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 951
"Socialism," huh? Even if it were true that what some (not all!) Democrats are trying to peddle is true socialism (which I don't think it is) - even if that were true, that would be worse than what Republicans are doing to us all right now, in what way(s), hm? Please explain.
  #54  
Old 03-31-2019, 02:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
"Socialism," huh? Even if it were true that what some (not all!) Democrats are trying to peddle is true socialism (which I don't think it is) - even if that were true, that would be worse than what Republicans are doing to us all right now, in what way(s), hm? Please explain.
I dont believe a word of what the OP is trying to sell. Us democrats dont use "socialism" incorrectly like the republicans do. And afaik the Dem party is increasing.
  #55  
Old 03-31-2019, 06:06 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavesoflight View Post
I currently volunteer for an organization that helps elect Democrats.
...
Can you tell us the name of the organization?
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #56  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:01 AM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
My favorite is, "I didn't leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left me."
30 years ago the Democrat party was generally viewed as the working class party. Truck drivers, factory workers, and plumbers.

Doctors, lawyers, and the wealthy were the Republicans.

Today, the working class are Trump voters and the wealthy Bezos, Gates, and Buffet are the Democrats.

So when someone like a plumber says the Democrat party left him, it's pretty much true. The Democrat party shut down the government to help illegal aliens enter the country not to help rein in the cost of healthcare or fight the opioid epidemic things that the working class care about.
  #57  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:04 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
When did that happen, before or after Trump shut down the government to violate his primary campaign promise, because he wanted the US taxpayers to pay for his grift?
  #58  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
30 years ago the Democrat party was generally viewed as the working class party. Truck drivers, factory workers, and plumbers.

Doctors, lawyers, and the wealthy were the Republicans.

Today, the working class are Trump voters and the wealthy Bezos, Gates, and Buffet are the Democrats.

So when someone like a plumber says the Democrat party left him, it's pretty much true. The Democrat party shut down the government to help illegal aliens enter the country not to help rein in the cost of healthcare or fight the opioid epidemic things that the working class care about.
The polling statistics do not support this. While working class white people have tilted a bit more towards Trump/GOP than in past elections, working class black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian people (and other non-white categories) have tilted strongly away from Trump and towards the Democratic party, resulting in somewhat of a wash when overall working-class statistics are looked at.

And your assertions about the Democratic party (it's Democratic, not "Democrat party") are also false. The government shut down occurred because the President said he would shut down the government, then actually did what he said and shut down the government, at the same time that the Democratic party was passing bills to open the government that had past support from both parties.
  #59  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:43 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
The radicals hack out the path and clear the camp site. The progressives build the cabins and the liberals show up when the hot showers are installed.
Then the Trumpers build a wall around the site, and let the cabins fall into disrepair. Then they blame the liberals,and swear they have a plan to fix things which they will unveil in 2020.
  #60  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:49 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
30 years ago the Democrat party was generally viewed as the working class party. Truck drivers, factory workers, and plumbers.

Doctors, lawyers, and the wealthy were the Republicans.

Today, the working class are Trump voters and the wealthy Bezos, Gates, and Buffet are the Democrats.

So when someone like a plumber says the Democrat party left him, it's pretty much true. The Democrat party shut down the government to help illegal aliens enter the country not to help rein in the cost of healthcare or fight the opioid epidemic things that the working class care about.
You misspelled "Trump shut down the government to force the American people to pay for the wall he said Mexico was going to pay for", but even with that, you're still largely wrong.
  #61  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:50 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Anyway, isn't this just the bullshit "Walkaway" movement which was breathlessly promoted by GOPers which didn't amount to shit, but translated to White Folk?
  #62  
Old 04-02-2019, 12:03 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
30 years ago the Democrat party ...
There was no Democrat party 30 years ago, Republicans have been using that term for like 8 or 10 years, in my experience.
  #63  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:29 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
There was no Democrat party 30 years ago
There still isn't one, but many Republicans have a hard time spelling or pronouncing words correctly, so we shouldn't be too rough on them about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie
Today, the working class are Trump voters
Actually, most Trump voters aren't working class, and most of the working class aren't Trump voters.

Old white racists are overwhelmingly Trump voters, but they don't make up most of the working class.
  #64  
Old 04-02-2019, 08:40 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,996
Hell, I embraced the Democratic Party because of socialism. Can I have some more, please?
  #65  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:24 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 237
The rise of AOC and Sanders in the Democrat party is not an affirmation of Democrat values or platforms on steroids. It's a repudiation of the tired and failed policies from sexual predators like Biden and Kennedy and Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.

So when Democrats leave over socialism, it's because they yearn for the status quo and the perks of being able mistreat women and get away with it.
  #66  
Old 04-02-2019, 09:34 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
So when Democrats leave over socialism, it's because they yearn for the status quo and the perks of being able mistreat women and get away with it.
No, when Democrats want those perks, they join the party whose leader explicitly espouses such behavior.
  #67  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:24 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
What's the important difference between "socialism" and the capitalism of the consumer economy? Any capitalist with two brain cells to rub together realizes that a consumer economy without consumers with expendable income is a dead economy. Like the first robin of spring in a snow bank.

So, they know that. And their solution is to scrimp and save on labor cost in the hope that the other guy, their competitor, won't do that, the other guy will support the economy. And they skim off the cream.

How many times have we seen this in action? GreedCo is in a bit of trouble, stock market-wise. So they bring on a new CEO, who promises to "cut the fat" in labor costs, be "lean and mean"....and the stock price rises on the enthusiasm of the investing class. The labor movement is the second best thing that ever happened to the American economy, the first best was WWII, which we won and everybody else lost.

"Socialism" is a term that belongs to the ages, like Joe Hill songs, Pinkerton strike breakers, labor agitators. I don't know where progress will end up, what we will call it, but "socialism" belongs to copasetic cats in a zoot suit with a reet pleat and a drape shape. Boodly acky sacky, want some socialism, mama!
  #68  
Old 04-03-2019, 11:35 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,317
"Socialism" means "Someone else is getting something, and I don't think they deserve it because they are lazy/undeserving/different."

For some, they don't like "socialism" because they were completely and individually responsible for their own success, and didn't rely on ANYone else. Because they were born in an orphanage, and paid for their own schooling (taught themselves to read and write), have never been in a public library, built their own roads to the cabin in the woods that they built themselves out of tools crafted out of sticks. Society has given them NOTHING, so why should they give anything back?
  #69  
Old 04-03-2019, 02:29 PM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
For some, they don't like "socialism" because they were completely and individually responsible for their own success, and didn't rely on ANYone else. Because they were born in an orphanage...
An orphanage?! Paid for with my tax dollars?! This person sounds like a dirty communist.
__________________
According to the Anti-Defamation League, "In 2018, domestic extremists killed at least 50 people in the US, a sharp increase from the 37 extremist-related murders documented in 2017....every single extremist killing from Pittsburgh to Parkland had a link to right-wing extremism."
  #70  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:00 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Quote:
Quoth Left Hand of Dorkness:

No, when Democrats want those perks, they join the party whose leader explicitly espouses such behavior.
No, Trump doesn't espouse that behavior, because if he did, he'd be unfaithful to it.
  #71  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:28 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
What's the important difference between "socialism" and the capitalism of the consumer economy?
The difference is that socialism seeks to direct economic behavior from the top down, whereas capitalism is a rules-based system that allows for emergent, bottom up organization. Like every other evolved social species on the planet.

This is truly the fundamental difference between the two. There are degrees of socialism, and degrees of capitalism. But capitalism ultimately requires that the majority of capital be held in the private economy, so that market participants can make economic choices with it.

This is what is wrong with the notion of taxing away 'the rich'. It moves money out of the private economy and gives control of it to central authorities. And that's why the damage happens - central authorities simply do not have the information required to make efficient economic decisions. They can't coordinate economic activity well because they don't know even remotely all the factors required to do so. Some of that information doesn't even exist until it emerges as part of the price system due to individuals bidding prices up and down based on their own knowledge, skills, and goals.

Now, that doesn't mean that the same flaws can't happen in a capitalist economy. Monopolies, crony capitalists, huge corporations that centralize decision-making... all start to take on aspects of central planning, or allow themselves to be manipulated by central planners so long as they personally profit from it. This is why being pro-market is not the same as being pro-business. Businesses can be corrupt or stupid. Businesses are not always right, or moral. But the market is better at regulating economic activity in a complex economy than anything else we have when it's functioning correctly.

If the term 'socialism' bothers you, we don't need the term at all. We can simply identify the policies that the 'socialists' want. For example, 90% tax brackets on the 'rich', or nationalizing the energy infrastructure, or government jobs programs, or whatever. Call it whatever you want, it's still central planning of the economy to some degree, and the difference between social democrats, socialists and communists is more a matter of how far they want to go than a fundamental difference in thinking.

Quote:
Any capitalist with two brain cells to rub together realizes that a consumer economy without consumers with expendable income is a dead economy.
Demand-side economics is cargo-cult thinking. Look, healthy economies have lots of consumer spending! So if we just artificially goose consumer spending, we too can have a healthy economy! I remember a city, I think it was Chicago or Philadelphia, which found that the cities that had a vibrant business class tended to have large business centers catering to them. So they thought, "If we build a large business center, we too can have a vibrant business class!" It didn't occur to them that business centers emerge from the needs of a vibrant business class. They don't cause it. But hey, it allowed them to 'do something' about all those businesses driven away by high taxes, corruption, and over-regulation.

This is the modern equivalent of a south-sea islander noticing that metal birds came and landed and brought lots of good things after people leveled the ground and put weird things on their heads and talked into strange discs. So, they built runways and made headphones out of coconuts and built bamboo airplanes to sit beside the runway, but what do you know, the metal birds failed to show up. That's what happens when you get cause and effect backwards, or try to understand and manipulate a complex system from the top down.

An economy isn't healthy when you stimulate the demand side. It's not healthy when you stimulate the supply side. A healthy economy is one in which people coordinate their activities efficiently, where capital tends to flow to the most efficient and important uses, where there is a good match between the needs of the consumers and the abilities of producers, etc. In other words, a healthy economy needs a hell of a lot of complex things to be happening correctly, and simply stimulating demand is a silly way to make that happen.

Democrats have taken a very limited aspect of Keynsianism - the need to, on occasion, artificially prop up demand in times of crisis, and turned it into the idea that you can spend your way to riches if you just give lots of money to the people to 'consume'. Spend more, get more consumption. The economy grows faster. The tax revenue pays for the spending, just like Henry Ford's raises allowed his employees to buy his cars, paying for their raises. Free lunches everywhere!

The only problem is that it's horseshit.

Quote:
So, they know that. And their solution is to scrimp and save on labor cost in the hope that the other guy, their competitor, won't do that, the other guy will support the economy. And they skim off the cream.
So why isn't their competitor doing that? And if their competitor won't do that, how are they keeping good people from leaving for their competitor? And how is their competitor staying in business when they are being undercut by the company with the cheap labor? And if the company is making extreme profits by paying less to their workers, why doesn't some other company eat their lunch and take away their employees by offering a little more to the workers, and still making a good profit?

Answering these questions might give you a little insight into the market and help innoculate you against simplistic thinking about robber barons and dog-eat-dog capitalism and how the workers are completely helpless.

One last thing to think about - Of the 80 million hourly workers in the U.S., only about 550,000 of them make the federal minimum wage, or about .7% of hourly workers. In a world where only the government protects the workers from rapacious capitalists who want to pay the absolute minimum they can for labor, this should not be possible. So how come? And before you say "Unions", only 6.4% of laborers in the U.S private economy are unionized.

Quote:
How many times have we seen this in action? GreedCo is in a bit of trouble, stock market-wise. So they bring on a new CEO, who promises to "cut the fat" in labor costs, be "lean and mean"....and the stock price rises on the enthusiasm of the investing class.
That only happens if the market decides that the reason Greedco is tanking is because it's paying its labor force too much. It could also be that the company is tanking because it paid its labor force too little, and is now saddled with a sub-par work force and poor products, and the market might cheer 'investments' in labor and raises for top performers and all that. In short, your scenario is a 'just so' story that fits your narrative, but in the real world it's not true. Or rather, it's only true in cases where a too-large or over-paid work force is an identifiable problem in the company.

Quote:
The labor movement is the second best thing that ever happened to the American economy, the first best was WWII, which we won and everybody else lost.
If labor movements are great for the economy, please explain what happened to Britain between 1950 and 1970. Lots of labor unions, lots of nationalization, lots of taxes, lots of government. And a moribund economy. Heavily unionized coal miners demanded that coal be mined even when it wasn't profitable to do so. Rolling strikes were commonplace, crippling economic activity. Sky-high taxes drove some of the best and brightest people out of the country. Thatcher was elected because the hard turn to the left Britain undertook after the war turned it from being a major world power into an economic basket case.

Quote:
"Socialism" is a term that belongs to the ages, like Joe Hill songs, Pinkerton strike breakers, labor agitators. I don't know where progress will end up, what we will call it, but "socialism" belongs to copasetic cats in a zoot suit with a reet pleat and a drape shape. Boodly acky sacky, want some socialism, mama!
Given that Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist, and three of the newly elected Democrats belong to the Democratic Socialists of America, it seems like the death of socialism has been greatly exaggerated.

Unfortunately.
  #72  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:36 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
30 years ago the Democrat party ...
You just lost your argument right there.
  #73  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Can you tell us the name of the organization?
I noticed he is dodging the question. I think this is astroturfing. There's no such movement.
  #74  
Old 04-03-2019, 03:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
You just lost your argument right there.
Bah. I use that and I have been a Democrat longer than you, I will bet. Dont let your opposition choose what you call yourself.
  #75  
Old 04-03-2019, 04:10 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,439
Democrats better get used to the "socialists" because we are the wave of the future. Chicago just elected a mayor who had never held public office, never even run for one, and was considered outside of the powerful "machine" and therefore a longshot, largely due to the support of Democratic Socialists. Lori Lightfoot won in every single voting ward; something no other Chicago mayor has ever done!
And there are 2 city council members who are active members of the Democratic Socialists of America. And several others who might as well be based on their political stance.

The future is here.

mc
  #76  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
Mayor is the kind of position I'd expect to be won by someone who's never held public office. And what wins votes in Chicago is hardly representative of what will win votes in the country as a whole.
  #77  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:11 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
... in the Democrat party .. of Democrat values ...when Democrats ....
Hey, you got it right once! Big pat on the back for you!
  #78  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:20 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But the market is better at regulating economic activity in a complex economy than anything else we have when it's functioning correctly.
That may be true, but who gets to decide when it's functioning correctly? If people wait for the people with the wealth and power to make that determination, it might be a long wait. For them, it's already functioning correctly. Meanwhile, 40% of the population in the US can't afford a $400 emergency. Some of those people might say it's not functioning correctly for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If the term 'socialism' bothers you, we don't need the term at all. We can simply identify the policies that the 'socialists' want. For example, 90% tax brackets on the 'rich',
So the US was socialist between 1951 and 1963 and then changed to capitalist?

Between 1951 and 1963, the highest marginal tax rate was between 91-92%.

Between 1932 and 1981, the highest marginal tax rate in the US was not lower than 60%. On average, it was much higher than 70%.

Reagan cut it down to 50% in the 80's, and it's been sliding ever since, adding enormously to wealth inequality for the last 40 years.

AOC's idea wasn't new, and it wasn't radical. Marginal tax rates averaging in excess of 70% have already been done for 50 years in the US. Some of those years were economically expansive years.

This was pointed out [youtube] to Michael Dell by an MIT professor at Davos, at a gathering for the super wealthy. Dell's argument was that he was capable of making much better philanthropic choices with his money than the government can. The problem with his argument is that he doesn't have enough money by himself to solve the big problems facing the country.

When people were afraid that their healthcare was going to be taken away, people asked Bill Gates why he didn't do anything about the healthcare problem in the US. His answer was that he didn't have enough money to do that. Gates has billions. The healthcare issue requires trillions. It will take more than 1 billionaire to help solve the big problems of the country. It will take a bunch of them pooling their money together to do that. That's more likely to happen with a tax.
  #79  
Old 04-03-2019, 05:37 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
please explain what happened to Britain between 1950 and 1970.
Um, it was doing pretty well?
Quote:
The 1950s and 1960s were prosperous times and saw continued modernisation of the economy. [...]

During the "golden age" of the 1950s and 1960s, unemployment in Britain averaged only 2%. As prosperity returned, Britons became more family centred. [...]

The post-World War II period witnessed a dramatic rise in the average standard of living, with a 40% rise in average real wages from 1950 to 1965.
The problems Britain faced from its competition had more to do with inefficient management and industrial policy than with over-demanding labor:
Quote:
Industrial growth in Britain, while remaining steady through the 1950s, was not nearly as strong as on the continent. The statistics can be deceptive, because Britain was far ahead of other European nations in terms of industrial development and urbanization. [...]

There was also a systemic malaise in British industry, which was famously inefficient and opposed to innovations. Tony Judt described the prevailing attitude of post-war industrialists: "British factory managers preferred to operate in a cycle of under-investment, limited research and development, low wages and a shrinking pool of clients, rather than risk a fresh start with new products in new markets." The overriding emphasis placed on exports by the British government, in its effort to repair the nation's dollar deficit, made things worse, because it encouraged manufacturers to place all investment in expanding output, at the expense of updating machinery, introducing new technologies, improving production methods, etc.
  #80  
Old 04-04-2019, 10:13 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,895
I really was looking forward to reading this entire thing. Then I came across:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The difference is that socialism seeks to direct economic behavior from the top down, whereas capitalism is a rules-based system that allows for emergent, bottom up organization. Like every other evolved social species on the planet.

[snip].


Oh well.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #81  
Old 04-04-2019, 10:59 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Dogs are a social species.

Pretty sure the last 10k years of breeding has been a rules-based system imposed upon by a dominant top-level hierarchical species which, many times, frowns upon the dogs asserting their own emergent organizations by means of unchecked breeding.

The opposite of capitalism, but it seems to have worked for the dogs. But what do I know?
  #82  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:03 PM
Icerigger's Avatar
Icerigger is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 3,407
More Capitalism in action, hey seeing is now a luxury.


https://boingboing.net/2019/03/12/luxottica.html
  #83  
Old 04-07-2019, 07:39 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 25,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Democrats have taken a very limited aspect of Keynsianism - the need to, on occasion, artificially prop up demand in times of crisis, and turned it into the idea that you can spend your way to riches if you just give lots of money to the people to 'consume'. Spend more, get more consumption. The economy grows faster. The tax revenue pays for the spending, just like Henry Ford's raises allowed his employees to buy his cars, paying for their raises. Free lunches everywhere!

The only problem is that it's horseshit.
So is calling that a paragraph a description of Democrats. Only one political party fits that description, and it isn't the Democratic Party.
  #84  
Old 04-09-2019, 01:08 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I really was looking forward to reading this entire thing. Then I came across:





Oh well.
Yep, moved on right after that bizarro-world statement.
  #85  
Old 04-09-2019, 02:11 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,772
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”

― John Maynard Keynes
  #86  
Old 04-10-2019, 02:20 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Call it socialism, radical liberalism, or whatever you want to call it. The Dems need to stomp it out if they ever want to win the White House again. AOC and her ilk are just too extreme to win. They will draw the hard lefties, but that gains them nothing. Hard lefties, like hard righties, will vote for whatever idiot their party nominates. The hard lefties are not going to draw moderates--like me, and others who are fed up with Trump but can't stomach hard left either.
  #87  
Old 04-10-2019, 02:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Call it socialism, radical liberalism, or whatever you want to call it. The Dems need to stomp it out if they ever want to win the White House again. AOC and her ilk are just too extreme to win. They will draw the hard lefties, but that gains them nothing. Hard lefties, like hard righties, will vote for whatever idiot their party nominates. The hard lefties are not going to draw moderates--like me, and others who are fed up with Trump but can't stomach hard left either.
We used to say the same thing about hard-right, Trumpian style (before Trump) bigotry politics. I'm unconvinced. There are lots of hard lefties who stayed home in 2016.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #88  
Old 04-10-2019, 02:52 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We used to say the same thing about hard-right, Trumpian style (before Trump) bigotry politics. I'm unconvinced. There are lots of hard lefties who stayed home in 2016.
Y'all could not win with Clinton--who, as much as I despise her, is not in the same political zip code as AOC et al. Y'all lost to the absolutely worst GOP candidate in my lifetime. If y'all want to beat Trump, you need to find someone about where Hilary is politically, but without all the baggage she brought to the table. I don't know who that is, but I hope y'all find that candidate.
  #89  
Old 04-10-2019, 02:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Y'all could not win with Clinton--who, as much as I despise her, is not in the same political zip code as AOC et al. Y'all lost to the absolutely worst GOP candidate in my lifetime. If y'all want to beat Trump, you need to find someone about where Hilary is politically, but without all the baggage she brought to the table. I don't know who that is, but I hope y'all find that candidate.
Maybe, or maybe your political instincts are no better than mine were at this time in 2015. We'll see. You're espousing the conventional wisdom, and I don't trust the conventional wisdom anymore as anything better than a guess.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #90  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:01 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
I think the y'all says it all...
  #91  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:40 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
I think the y'all says it all...
I'm holding off on the stinkeye until you explain yourself here....

As for the theory, I will forever remember the gist (if not the actual words) of an Onion headline: "Trump, Clinton Fortunate Enough To Run Against The Only Candidate They Could Possibly Beat."

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 04-10-2019 at 03:40 PM.
  #92  
Old 04-10-2019, 03:46 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Oakminister constantly refers to the non-Trump team as "y'all". "Y'all need to do this... y'all need to do that."

Count me among the hesitant to accept his advice as to what the Dems should do to appeal to someone who still would vote for Trump after all this shit. The Dems have better things to do than waste energy appealing to such a person. Want to vote Trump because of "socialism"? Go ahead!

Last edited by JohnT; 04-10-2019 at 03:47 PM.
  #93  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:00 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,878
And that's exactly what a lot of people will do - vote Trump if the alternative is socialism.

This reminds me of the pre-Clinton era, when the Democrats kept convincing themselves that everyone wanted a left-wing 'peace' candidate. so they ran McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, and got their butts kicked. Then they got smart and nominated a fairly centrist southern governor, and he wiped the floor with the Republicans.

But by all means, run another California lefty or a 76 year old socialist. That's how you get more Trump.

The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
  #94  
Old 04-10-2019, 04:27 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 22,265
Another one I would hardly take advice from.

Seriously, guys, if you had gone to the GOP Leadership in 2014 and say that they need to veer hard Authoritarian Right via a candidate who is the most morally corrupt and intellectually vapid to run for the office, a man who admits to being pro-choice, agnostic, and has a propensity for preferring wives who are Eastern European Communists instead of American Baptists (#TeamMarla) and who openly asks for the support of an ex-KGB colonel-turned-authoritarian-ruler of a country which once vowed to "bury us", you would not have made it past the secretary with that pitch.

But that's who y'all gleefully, with malice, chose.

Given that, I'm not interested in the Right's opinion of what is palatable to them re: a Dem candidate. I'm just not.

Last edited by JohnT; 04-10-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #95  
Old 04-10-2019, 05:15 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,421
Considering that the largest third of the electorate has linked itself to neither party, I would like to see the Democrats nominate a person who is intelligent, civil, experienced, decent, a practicing Christian, youngish, and probably a white guy, whose platform is moderate-left -- like the majority of this country, whether they know that's what they are or not. That's the person the largest number of people will vote for.

Bernie is too old, so is Biden. No matter what their platforms, they are simply too old.
And Cortez isn't running, so why bother talking about her?
  #96  
Old 04-10-2019, 05:20 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,065
I'm unaware of any such movement, as well. Having extreme people in your party is not a deal breaker, and one cannot discount the need to excite the base. One of Clinton's huge problems vs. Obama is that she didn't excite anyone.

It's also foolish to kick out the progressives simply because what is progressive today often becomes more mainstream tomorrow. Not all of it, but some of it is useful. You need people in your party on the edge with the new ideas.

It doesn't mean they should steer the party. That should still always be a big tent idea, working together for common interests.

AOC is rather representative of where younger liberals and progressives are today, and it's a good idea to have them in your party. It's not a reason for more moderate people to leave, since we still have the majority of what we believe in common. The progressives are just more extreme.

Last edited by BigT; 04-10-2019 at 05:21 PM.
  #97  
Old 04-10-2019, 05:21 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Y'all could not win with Clinton--who, as much as I despise her, is not in the same political zip code as AOC et al. Y'all lost to the absolutely worst GOP candidate in my lifetime. If y'all want to beat Trump, you need to find someone about where Hilary is politically, but without all the baggage she brought to the table. I don't know who that is, but I hope y'all find that candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
And that's exactly what a lot of people will do - vote Trump if the alternative is socialism.

This reminds me of the pre-Clinton era, when the Democrats kept convincing themselves that everyone wanted a left-wing 'peace' candidate. so they ran McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, and got their butts kicked. Then they got smart and nominated a fairly centrist southern governor, and he wiped the floor with the Republicans.

But by all means, run another California lefty or a 76 year old socialist. That's how you get more Trump.

The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Against my better judgment, I'm actually going to try and answer these...

"Y'all" may not be considering that it may be less about positions on the political spectrum and more about personality...or personability. Sam Stone said it himself: he despises Clinton. Not necessarily her positions, her somewhat hawkish stance...her personally.

I was a little young to remember George McGovern, but Mondale and Dukakis were two of the biggest non-personalities that the Democratic Party ever managed to dredge up in the last century. The "fairly centrist southern governor" that the Democrats found, who wiped the floor with the Republicans, could sell sand in the Sahara Desert. To deliberately misquote the man himself, "It's the personality, stupid."

And getting back to McGovern, let's not forget Nixon and his Dirty Tricks Squad's effort to subvert the 1972 (and 1968) election.

So if the Democratic Party finds a California lefty who connects with people the way Bill Clinton or Barack Obama could (and how Hillary Clinton repeatedly failed to do), I think the naysayers in this thread would do well to eschew snottiness.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #98  
Old 04-10-2019, 06:42 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
That may be true, but who gets to decide when it's functioning correctly?
Functioning properly is more an economic determination than a social one. A market is functioning properly if there is competition, where prices float with supply and demand, where participants have the information needed to make decisions, where externalities are small or nonexistent, etc.

Properly functioning markets don't have to have the social outcome you want. Markets are not tools for social justice - they are a mechanism for efficiently coordinating the activities of the citizens of a country. This can certainly lead to winners and losers.

The difference between socialists and social democrats is generally that social democrats recognize the efficiency and importance of markets, but want to use government to build safety nets for the people who can't compete or have bad luck or whatever. Socialists, on the other hand, want strong governments control markets or replace them with state enterprises, on the premise that the smart socialists can do what the market does more efficiently or more justly. For example, the Democratic Socialists of America believe that the state should nationalize large, capital intensive businesses and forcibly transform smaller businesses into worker collectives. They believe that the inclusion of 'democratic' decision making into the operation of the economy as opposed to the government will be a better idea than free markets. I think they would rapidly destroy the economy, and history is on my side.

Quote:
If people wait for the people with the wealth and power to make that determination, it might be a long wait. For them, it's already functioning correctly. Meanwhile, 40% of the population in the US can't afford a $400 emergency. Some of those people might say it's not functioning correctly for them.
And as I said, that's the wrong criterion. EVERY economic system will have winners and losers. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The best true socialist economies have managed is to bring everyone down to a miserable level, rather than bring the poor up to the quality of life enjoyed by the rich.

The proper answer to unequal market outcomes is not to scrap the market, but to create a safety net to help those who can't make it on their own.

Quote:
So the US was socialist between 1951 and 1963 and then changed to capitalist?

Between 1951 and 1963, the highest marginal tax rate was between 91-92%.

Between 1932 and 1981, the highest marginal tax rate in the US was not lower than 60%. On average, it was much higher than 70%.

Reagan cut it down to 50% in the 80's, and it's been sliding ever since, adding enormously to wealth inequality for the last 40 years.
You need to look at the difference between effective tax rates and marginal tax rates. In the U.S., there were so many loopholes and incentives that no one paid anywhere near 90%.

Taxes on the Rich were not Much Higher in the 1950's than Today

Quote:
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Also, if you look at the percentage of GDP the U.S. takes in as revenue, it has hovered between 14% and 21% since 1945, regardless of what tax rates were. The highest it ever was was in 1999 during the dot-com boom. The peaks and troughs in revenue track with recessions and booms, and not the tax rate. Kennedy dropped the tax rate from 91% to 70%, and revenue remained about the same. Reagan dropped it all the way to 28%, and again revenue remained about the same. It would appear that high marginal tax rates don't really buy you more revenue - either because of tax avoidance, or maybe because the economy slows down when taxes go up, or something else. Look up Hauser's Law for details.

In short, if you are counting on higher taxes to raise all the money you need for your socialist plans, prepare to be disappointed.

Quote:
AOC's idea wasn't new, and it wasn't radical. Marginal tax rates averaging in excess of 70% have already been done for 50 years in the US. Some of those years were economically expansive years.
And as I just said, those higher tax rates had pretty much no effect on revenue. So what's the point?

Quote:
This was pointed out [youtube] to Michael Dell by an MIT professor at Davos, at a gathering for the super wealthy. Dell's argument was that he was capable of making much better philanthropic choices with his money than the government can. The problem with his argument is that he doesn't have enough money by himself to solve the big problems facing the country.
Dell by himself might not, but add all the millionaires, billionaires, corporate charity and smaller individual charity, and you get quite a sum. In 2009 private charity was about $423 billion dollars. But again, I'm not arguing against a government safety net - just government control of the economy.
  #99  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
How about free-market socialism? The government is allowed to own businesses, which compete with the other businesses in the same industries. If it's something that government can do more efficiently, then the government business will end up outcompeting the private business. If it's something that the government doesn't do efficiently, then the private business will end up outcompeting the government one. Either way, we end up with the efficient option.

Except, don't handicap the government business by making them fund pensions for people who aren't even born yet, and the like.
  #100  
Old 04-10-2019, 09:03 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
How about free-market socialism? The government is allowed to own businesses, which compete with the other businesses in the same industries. If it's something that government can do more efficiently, then the government business will end up outcompeting the private business. If it's something that the government doesn't do efficiently, then the private business will end up outcompeting the government one. Either way, we end up with the efficient option.

Except, don't handicap the government business by making them fund pensions for people who aren't even born yet, and the like.
I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek or not, but it's not hard to 'out-compete' someone when your 'business' operates with a bottomless pit of taxpayer money, and when you are also the referee that determines the rules under which everyone plays.
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 03:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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