You really don’t understand this stuff, do you? It’s OK to admit that.
There are many means and places. I didn’t “whine,” I posted the goals and the need. How is that whining? Occupy Movements are a good start, but the energy needs to be applied in realistic ways.
It is a vital part of making it happen. Ideals conceived, can be achieved. Where there is no vision, the people perish. Dreaming is vital, and so is acting.
True, but a larger coherent vision keeps unity and endurance, instead of mere actions for specific things. A movement is needed, a coherent sense of direction and long-term goals, and a willingness to support the progressive side (since there is one), rather than claiming to please everybody.
What I did was “identify particular things in need of fixing.” I thought it was a good well-written statement of a need, and so I shared it. If you have a different set of goals, then share them. And we can all consider what to do about them. Do you know how to get people on board?
People who “understand” in that way, are merely defending the way things are done these days, which rip us all off.
Not sure I’m following you. As we speak, oil is being bought and sold. How is that being done if there are, as you say no market between buyers and sellers? How does the exchange happen? How are prices agreed to?
This intrigues me. From your perspective, for what reason should people be eager to go into finance?
And (as you’re finding out) the tenacity with which cynics and nonidealists will defend their positions.
But keep in there punching. Whatever the strength of your particular argument, the idea behind it is good and worthy of honest and open discussion, not just nitpicking and gainsaying.
How does a speculator meet anyone’s needs? These are useless middle men.
That is status quo current situations.
How is it a free market when a few companies dominate it, and get support from governments? And prices are not set by consumers and producers, but by gamblers?
Indeed; thank you.
Why do we need a separate institution to set prices? Can’t we just have the producers decide what they want to charge, and adjust as the market changes?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is very well reported. In the past, young people went into productive occupations; now they go into finance because finance companies have been allowed by relaxed laws to make lots of money. So the portion of our economic activity that is finance has increased 2 or 3 fold. Our economy is a stack of cards waiting to fall, because it is based on nothing. This is all well-known; why do you need to ask me?
Making excuses for not doing what we already know needs to be done and can be done and will work.
Repeating yourself doesn’t establish anything. Especially when you are one of those people.
I assume by “financially viable” you mean 'heading for bankruptcy".
You do realize that Obama wants to cut Medicare, do you not?
Since you can’t seem to prove any of what you claim, it is a problem, especially with those of us who don’t fall for the latest moonbeam vendor.
And yet, here we are, and there isn’t much you can do about it.
I mean, come on - you spout a lot of vague nonsense, and then when you are challenged on any of it, you repeat the nonsense and get huffy. This is supposed to convince us?
Thank you for demonstrating again that you do not understand even the basics of economics, but it wasn’t really necessary.
And this will have a good effect on the economy and tax receipts, to pay for all the wonderful things the government is going to do for you?
Regards,
Shodan
I think this says all that needs to be said about your prospects with the American electorate.
“Vote for the progressives!”
“Why should I do that?”
“SHUT UP AND DO AS YOU ARE TOLD!!!”
Good luck with that.
Regards,
Shodan
You claimed their was no market between buyers and sellers. If buy and selling are happening regularly—and they are—I don’t see how you can claim “there is no market between buyers and sellers”.
Huh? To recap, you said:
[QUOTE=Eric the Green]
People need to produce things, and not be so eager to go into finance just to make money.
[/QUOTE]
And I asked:
[QUOTE=Magellan01]
From your perspective, for what reason should people be eager to go into finance?
[/QUOTE]
So, I asked you about what you said because…YOU said it. Who else should I have asked? I’ll ask again: if you are of the opinion that people shouldn’t go into finance just to make money, for what reason should they go into finance?
Things cost more than you like, and there are inefficiencies in the system, that’s granted. Can you demonstrate a different method that would end up with things costing less, fewer inefficiencies, and no unintended consequences? There may be changes to the system that would do that, but until you come up with concrete examples you’re just selling vaporware.
It’s whining because you’re essentially parroting the 70s. The world is long past the stage of identifying issues. We’re in dire need of solutions.
Yes, but the balance has swayed far enough in one direction that now is the time for action, not more dreaming.
This is the crux of it. I think you’re making the perfect the enemy of the good, dreaming of some sort of utopian pan-national, multi-front progressive cause the likes of which the world has never seen, yet you’re proposing no way by which to bring it about.
Is there a charismatic leader? An imminent coup? An opportunistic war? A disruptive technology? A Borg brainwashing? What is going to suddenly enable this drastic, massive shift in popular belief and governmental policy that hasn’t been tried in the last 30-40 years of people working on most of those same issues?
In combining a vast swath of arguably relevant but ultimately discrete and individually difficult topics, you’ve defined the problem out of the realm of ambition and well into the realm of fanciful daydreaming.
Fine if you can back it up with some sort of strategy, but you haven’t.
See above. The goals are obvious. They were obvious thirty years ago. The solutions are not, and the line of thinking posited by this thread – that we just need to band together and dream together – bring us no closer to realization of solutions.
No, I don’t know how to get people on board, but I’m looking into it every day. If I ever find out, I’ll be sure to report back, but in the meantime I hope people keep looking instead of idly bemoaning the state of the world. It’s cathartic at first, perhaps, but ultimately that’s what leads to cynicism because eventually they just give up altogether in the face of this giant, hopeless wall off all the world’s woes.
Anyway, I’m going to leave this thread for a bit, but I owe you an apology first. Looking back at my last few posts, I was clearly ranting emotionally. I think your post just really hit a nerve because I’m surrounded by this kind of talk all day, every day, and it’s just irritating and depressing because every. single. person. is yelling about all the fucking problems but so very few of them are doing anything about it.
But, hell, at least you want the same things I do, and you probably didn’t deserve the vitriol. So, good luck. Sorry I lashed out.
I agree with Eric, we do need a new progressive party in America. The Democratic Party has co-opted some of the progressives, but the ultimate result of being co-opted has been to render them impotent. Any attempt by progressives to criticize Democratic policies, and especially Obama’s, are met with repeated responses that “Sure, it’s not exactly what you want and may be much closer to what Republicans want, but hey, if you don’t like it your only choice is to vote Republican, which you know is a lot worse, so sit down and shut up.”
The result: the 2012 election will be between Obama, who is essentially a Reagan Republican and is totally owned by the finance industry, and Mitt Romney, who’s an actual Republican and is a PART of the finance industry. And the leaders represent their parties well, overall, though I think Romney is a “best case” conservative who is well to the left of many in the Republican Party, especially the Tea Partiers. While Obama is not a “worst case” Democrat … that would be any blue dog Democrat … he is pretty much normal for the Democratic Party as we know it now … a bunch of gutless Reagan Republicans on most issues.
The progressives need to establish their own party outside the Democrats with candidates at the local and state level as well as the Federal level. This will hurt the Democratic party, but frankly, the Democrats need to be beaten pretty hard with the lefty stick, they are WAAAAAY out of line with their constituents and they need to know it.Here’s a nice analysis of a recent Gallup poll that shows that the vast majority of Americans (even a majority of Republicans) embrace many progressive viewpoints, from The Young Turks.
The points you listed are all good ones, and arguing about them on the Dope repeatedly with conservatives can be helpful in certain respects, because they tend to ask hard questions that can help you craft winning arguments and discard bad ideas, but the ultimate result of arguing points with conservatives on the Dope is that you argue points with conservatives on the Dope … this is not a forum that I think will ever lead to direct action. (Not that this is a flaw in the Dope or a problem, it is what it is.) But if you want to start a new progressive movement, you should probably seek other outlets that are more action oriented … and tell the rest of us about them when you find them, if you do.
While I generally disagree with anything Evil Captor says, and mainly disagree with his post here as well, from an ideological perspective he’s probably right…if you think the current progressive movement and Progressive Party are flawed or wrong, your best bet is to either found or join a group you DO believe in and who’s ideology more closely suits your own world view…and, perhaps, is more action oriented. From a practical perspective it’s pretty foolish to dilute the rather fringe progressive movement further by doing something like this (taking away your support for them is not a trivial blow to their numbers :p), and if you want real change the best thing to do is work through the current Democratic party and the system as it works in reality, as opposed to how you think it should work. But maybe the best way to effect real change is to join or found a better progressive movement or Party, one that attempts a more grass roots oriented and focused campaign to get progressive ideas and ideals out to the masses, yearning to vote in a brave new world.
There is nothing wrong with political activism and pushing for change you believe in.
-XT
The kind folks over at FoxNews will be more than happy to assist you in this worthy endeavor.
Here’s a theme song for most people recently posting to this thread:
I meant the plan of medicare for all is financially viable.
Medicare taxes are too low now, and the price of drugs and medicine is too high, so no wonder Medicare causes debt. But there’s no use having a program if it does not provide benefits.
It is a matter of supporting what we already know is right. I don’t know what you mean by “proof;” these aren’t scientific issues, but moral and political ones. The data are out there and I can post some of it as I have time. The principles I posted, if they were so obvious, why haven’t they been adopted after all these years? We seem to need to be reminded and focused on them again. All that is needed to implement them, is to vote Republicans out and support legislation most of which has already been worked out in all its details. For the rest, we can work on it.
I can wait for you to go away. 
Who’s getting huffy?
Economics is a dismal science. We need the government to do things for us, and we need to pay for it. Pretty simple; not complicated or vague at all.
There does not NEED to be middlemen beetwen buyers and sellers.
They should NOT go into finance; that’s the point. At least fewer of them than today. Wasn’t that obvious? More productive work; less gambling with money the producers generate.