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?
More Capitalism in action, hey seeing is now a luxury.
So is calling that a paragraph a description of Democrats. Only one political party fits that description, and it isn’t the Democratic Party.
Yep, moved on right after that bizarro-world statement.
“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
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.
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.
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.”
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. :dubious:
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.
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.
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
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.
And as I just said, those higher tax rates had pretty much no effect on revenue. So what’s the point?
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.
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.