Robots Aren't Destroying Enough Jobs

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
Sooner or later the realization must set in for everyone.
The distribution of wealth based on jobs no longer works, because there are far more people around than jobs.

There are really only two viable options here, the alternative being do nothing and face the consequences which will be a recession that is a hundred times worse than the real estate crash in the 2000s or even the not so great depression.

  1. Universal basic income for those who don't win the job lottery
  2. Reduced 30-20-10 hour work weeks for everyone, while keeping the same wages.

The latter would probably be impossible to hammer trough corporations, but the former would also require huge tax increases for corporations. Which they will fight with all their lobbying power to the bitter end. Either way the ball is held by the corporations. Will they wait until they themselves start to suffer the recession, or will they compromise before that.

6 hour work days is already the normal for many.

But the big issue is still redistribution of wealth, even between companies.

One company can for example run entire off automated labour, while another company need a lot of human labour for care, education etc.

So besides basic income or universal income, dear child got many names. You also need to move money from a factory or office into something like a daycare, eldercare and educational institutions. Because their labour expenses as such will go up.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
Social Security is a program not a government model.
A govt. that uses its power over the country to implement anything like Social Security or social safety nets is, in some fashion, Socialist. A purely Capitalist economy wouldn't allow for that sort of thing.

Redistributive taxation Socalism is based on the government model where the citizens are told how and where to conduct their business and they take what they want from that business.
That isn't Socialism. That is a strawman you're whacking away on there. A strawman that BTW more closely resembles a Stalinist state/economy which was more of a fusion between Communism and a Totalitarian govt. model.

They have social programs but Socialism is very much opposing to Capitalism because the capitalists have the freedom to buy and sell what they want how they want with little input from government
Norwegians can buy and sell goods and own their own businesses too. But they also have to pay a large amount of their taxes towards their strong social safety net programs too. Again, that is something that wouldn't happen in a purely Capitalist economy.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
The most economic secure countries in the world is...socialist.

Australia AAA Negative
Canada AAA Stable
Denmark AAA Stable
Germany AAA Stable
Hong Kong AAA Negative
Liechtenstein AAA Stable
Luxembourg AAA Stable
Netherlands AAA Stable
Norway AAA Stable
Singapore AAA Stable
Sweden AAA Stable
Switzerland AAA Stable
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
Tax revenue would be increased by increasing taxes on the rich to address that issue. Personally I think a UBI/Mincome that provided $35K+ a year is a little too high to work out but I don't know all the details on the numbers (ie. you also have to account for all that money essentially be respent back into the economy) and I can't speak for him there.
Typical marxist... Increase taxes and the wealthy will only move their money offshore. They will cease to invest their money in our economy and our economy will continue to flounder. Marxist governments "always" fail eventually. Marxist governments "always" turn to totalitarianism to delay the eventual failure. The populations of a majority of the States in this country rejected the continuance of the marxist/progressive solutions in the last election. What you are suggesting is politically unsustainable.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
I think americans have a misunderstanding of what socialism is. But what they know is that they fear it.
They've been told its bad and to fear it and are given lots of scary strawman in the news about it but not told what it is exactly which is why these guys can't figure out you can blend Capitalism and Socialism. Its like.... unpossible to them.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
Typical marxist... Increase taxes and the wealthy will only move their money offshore. They will cease to invest their money in our economy and our economy will continue to flounder. Marxist governments "always" fail eventually. Marxist governments "always" turn to totalitarianism to delay the eventual failure. The populations of a majority of the States in this country rejected the continuance of the marxist/progressive solutions in the last election. What you are suggesting is politically unsustainable.

How is the economy in the US again? Poverty, massive debt, and going nowhere?

What is your mortgage rate again? Because all the extreme capitalists likes to award me for living in a socialist country with some of te worlds cheapest mortgages, if not the world cheapest mortgages. Surely there must be some kind of mistake?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,347
The strong welfare/social safety net funded through taxes is a big part of the Socialist aspect of their economy.

That is why so many GOP'ers rail on Social Security/SNAP/etc. as Socialism and therefore "bad".
The government ensuring the welfare of its citizens isn't a Socialist concept. But I agree that the Republicans often use it as a dog whistle to get their most conservative parts of their base riled up. Welfare and welfare state is a concept of Social Democracy, which has little to do with Socialism. While it may have its roots in the Socialist movement, modern Social Democracy no longer functions as a bridge to replace Capitalism with Socialism.
I can see plenty. And I live in it.

I think americans have a misunderstanding of what socialism is. But what they know is that they fear it.
Do your countrymen completely own the means of production? Are what you're able to buy and sell in the market controlled by a formula that determines the means and needs of its citizenry? Do you have a say in how the money accumulated by your employer is used and distributed?

I think you have a misunderstanding of what Socialism is.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,791
Typical marxist... Increase taxes and the wealthy will only move their money offshore. They will cease to invest their money in our economy and our economy will continue to flounder. Marxist governments "always" fail eventually. Marxist governments "always" turn to totalitarianism to delay the eventual failure. The populations of a majority of the States in this country rejected the continuance of the marxist/progressive solutions in the last election. What you are suggesting is politically unsustainable.
They can only move their money offshore as long as they can make money. And if the public has no purchasing power they can't make money to move offshore either. So they need a public with disposable income.

Do you have any other suggestion how to solve technological unemployment?
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
Typical marxist... Increase taxes and the wealthy will only move their money offshore.
They already do that now. They have offshored tens of trllions of dollars.

The rich need no motivation to further evade taxes and to hoard their wealth. And any loopholes in law can be fixed with a sufficiently motivated Congress and President. And no you don't need perfect laws either. If you can capture 90%+ of the tax evaders' money then you're fine most likely.

They will cease to invest their money in our economy and our economy will continue to flounder.
No they can't. If they pull out of the economy entirely they also give up the ability to sell goods there too. The US is still one of the bigger economies in the world. And at higher tax rates they'd still make money selling goods or services in it. Just not as much money.

Marxist governments "always" fail eventually.
All govt's always fail eventually. None of them are perfect.

The populations of a majority of the States in this country rejected the continuance of the marxist/progressive solutions in the last election. What you are suggesting is politically unsustainable.
The progressive candidate didn't get nominated (Bernie) to run at all remember? And Europe has had plenty of countries use a blended Capitalist/Socialist economy for decades without issue. It can and clearly does work.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
Do your countrymen completely own the means of production? Are what you're able to buy and sell in the market controlled by a formula that determines the means and needs of its citizenry? Do you have a say in how the money accumulated by your employer is used and distributed?

I think you have a misunderstanding of what Socialism is.

I see where you go wrong. Its about equal to ask if there is no government and regulations in a capitalist economy. In short, anarchy. because how can it be free without?

Also capitalism/planned economics and the political usage is quite different. They are not linked.

The Nordic model is based on taking the best and apply it. Not to sit with one old style ideology view.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
How exactly can one be socialist and capitalist at the same time? They're two opposing systems.
There is an important example of a country that was capitalist and socialist at the same time: Nazi Germany. Marx suggested that there is a process that a civilization must go through in order to realize the perfect worker's paradise. Fascism is one of the first steps. Fascism is based upon a socialist economy that allows private ownership of the means of production by capitalists who are heavily regulated (controlled) by the central government. I think both of us agree that this is not a path best taken by America.

The Universal Wage is "evil" and will only result in a new feudal system of elites lording over a giant under-class of nouveau peasants. What is ironic is that the pointy headed academics pushing this marxist drivel seem to have forgotten that both Stalin and Mao both eliminated the intelligentsia in their rise to power. Academia = Lemmings
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
There is an important example of a country that was capitalist and socialist at the same time: Nazi Germany. Marx suggested that there is a process that a civilization must go through in order to realize the perfect worker's paradise. Fascism is one of the first steps. Fascism is based upon a socialist economy that allows private ownership of the means of production by capitalists who are heavily regulated (controlled) by the central government. I think both of us agree that this is not a path best taken by America.

The Universal Wage is "evil" and will only result in a new feudal system of elites lording over a giant under-class of nouveau peasants. What is ironic is that the pointy headed academics pushing this marxist drivel seem to have forgotten that both Stalin and Mao both eliminated the intelligentsia in their rise to power. Academia = Lemmings

Didn't take long for the evil and fear card to come out. Fear still rules in the US. The worlds most scared population.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
The government ensuring the welfare of its citizens isn't a Socialist concept.
Its the means that are being used to ensure that welfare that make it Socialistic or not. And Social Security is exactly one of the sorts of things you'd see in a Socialist economy. Its only a form of retirement funding here in the US instead of a full blown UBI/Mincome but that is a difference of degree and not type.

Welfare and welfare state is a concept of Social Democracy, which has little to do with Socialism.
Social Democracy is a form of Socialism though. A mild one, blended with Capitalism, but it still is one. And yes the Norwegians, and most Europeans, no longer push for a purely Socialist economy but that is political issue and not one of economics per se. Just as you don't have to push for a more perfect form of Capitalism to be in a Capitalist country you don't have to be actively pushing for your country to become a more ideal version of Socialism to live in a Socialist country.

Neither need be an absolute. They exist along a economic spectrum. How they get blended together exactly depends on how the country decides it wants to do so which is where politics can come into it. There are no hard and fast rules there.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Sooner or later the realization must set in for everyone.
The distribution of wealth based on jobs no longer works, because there are far more people around than jobs.

There are really only two viable options here, the alternative being do nothing and face the consequences which will be a recession that is a hundred times worse than the real estate crash in the 2000s or even the not so great depression.

  1. Universal basic income for those who don't win the job lottery
  2. Reduced 30-20-10 hour work weeks for everyone, while keeping the same wages.

The latter would probably be impossible to hammer trough corporations, but the former would also require huge tax increases for corporations. Which they will fight with all their lobbying power to the bitter end. Either way the ball is held by the corporations. Will they wait until they themselves start to suffer the recession, or will they compromise before that.

You missed the only solution that has ever worked.

#3. Reduce excessive government regulations and taxes, freeing up capital and allowing the private sector to grow and provide more jobs.
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
You missed the only solution that has ever worked.

#3. Reduce excessive government regulations and taxes, freeing up capital and allowing the private sector to grow and provide more jobs.

It also gives a more fair society without the need to having to fight for something. For example due to permanently unable to work etc.

I think a lot of rich people have no idea how much they get back from the state as well. Usually via deductions and other return schemes.

But one thing is sure, universal income is a massive simplification to all countries for the laws and administrative work for welfare, deductions etc.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
There is an important example of a country that was capitalist and socialist at the same time: Nazi Germany.
LOL no.

You got tossed into a concentration camp if you were actually a Socialist in Nazi Germany. And the Strasserites (actual German Leftists) were mostly killed off during The Night of the Long Knives. And Hitler had a hard on for killing Bolsheviks (actual Communists). Big time.

Fascism is one of the first steps.
LOL noooo, Marx knew nothing of Fascism (which was invented by the Italians after he was dead) and Marx was quite clear that he saw Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism which he regarded as the ideal form of govt. You might dislike the guy but at least you should be correct about WHY you dislike him.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
How is the economy in the US again? Poverty, massive debt, and going nowhere?

What is your mortgage rate again? Because all the extreme capitalists likes to award me for living in a socialist country with some of te worlds cheapest mortgages, if not the world cheapest mortgages. Surely there must be some kind of mistake?
Poverty, massive debt and formally was going nowhere because of the progressive (marxist) policies of Barrack Hussein Obama. Funny how the election of Trump instantly caused a revival in the stock market and renewed optimism in the business community. We no longer have the fascist economic policies of government control of the economy through massive regulations. By returning to the economic policies that created the wealthiness and most powerful country in the history of the world it should be relatively easy, over time, to return to the prosperity those polices provide. Why commit to economic policies that have always eventually failed when we can simply follow the most successful model in history?
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
It also gives a more fair society without the need to having to fight for something. For example due to permanently unable to work etc.

I think a lot of rich people have no idea how much they get back from the state as well. Usually via deductions and other return schemes.

But one thing is sure, universal income is a massive simplification to all countries for the laws and administrative work for welfare, deductions etc.
But it is NOT fair. You are deciding to allow a small group of elites to rule over a massive underclass. When nearly every one is poor and powerless than everybody is equal? Sorry but "let them eat cake" is not an acceptable solution...
 

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
Poverty, massive debt and formally was going nowhere because of the progressive (marxist) policies of Barrack Hussein Obama. Funny how the election of Trump instantly caused a revival in the stock market and renewed optimism in the business community. We no longer have the fascist economic policies of government control of the economy through massive regulations. By returning to the economic policies that created the wealthiness and most powerful country in the history of the world it should be relatively easy, over time, to return to the prosperity those polices provide. Why commit to economic policies that have always eventually failed when we can simply follow the most successful model in history?

You have no idea have you. Also why are some of the most successful countries in the world socialist with a broad welfare services? You have locked yourself into the view that its evil. And I bet it has to do with the fear of someone else getting something from you. Instead of thinking about it goes both ways.

And I assume you use an insurance company. What is the foundation of insurance again? :D
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
The US could spend much less if they denied and delayed health care like most countries with universal healthcare.

Funny, I come from a country with universal healthcare and I've never been denied coverage or had it delayed.

My brother was diagnosed with oral cancer (pre-cancer actually) and was in surgery within the week. My mother needed spinal fusion and that took about a month since she had to quit smoking first.

A standard checkup takes about a week, less if you aren't picky with timing.

About the only thing that sucks about healthcare in Canada is the ER, and even that's not nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. Sure, you have to wait a few hours, but at least you don't bankrupt your immediate family in the process.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983

Shintai

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
5,678
But it is NOT fair. You are deciding to allow a small group of elites to rule over a massive underclass. When nearly every one is poor and powerless than everybody is equal? Sorry but "let them eat cake" is not an acceptable solution...

Did you just describe the US?
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
A govt. that uses its power over the country to implement anything like Social Security or social safety nets is, in some fashion, Socialist. A purely Capitalist economy wouldn't allow for that sort of thing.


That isn't Socialism. That is a strawman you're whacking away on there. A strawman that BTW more closely resembles a Stalinist state/economy which was more of a fusion between Communism and a Totalitarian govt. model.


Norwegians can buy and sell goods and own their own businesses too. But they also have to pay a large amount of their taxes towards their strong social safety net programs too. Again, that is something that wouldn't happen in a purely Capitalist economy.

I like how you altered my quote there,but thats exactly the point im making. Your reaching for straws at this point. Capitalism is eroding away from our society which i said it was. The younger generation in this country wants socialism more than capitalism. The very fact that all these welfare state programs are popping up more and more is showing that we are being moved away from a capitalistic government.
As for Strawman the only one doing that is you. i'm providing the very definition of these governments and you are twisting my quotes. Socialism is a community based decision making government which means that anything that falls inside their regulation is distributed. Hence business regulations to distribute wealth to welfare of population.

Definition of socialism

  1. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

  2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

  3. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
straight from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
Poverty, massive debt and formally was going nowhere because of the progressive (marxist) policies of Barrack Hussein Obama.
BHO hardly got anything through Congress when the Dems actually had a majority back in 2008-10 thanks to the Repubs filibustering everything. And after 2010 he got virtually nothing done once the Repubs had a majority in the House of Reps.

Also most of the debt the US has racked up in the last decade or so is from the failed wars and bank bailouts neither of which had much to do with BHO either.

Funny how the election of Trump instantly caused a revival in the stock market and renewed optimism in the business community.
The stock market went up quite a bit during BHO's terms too you know. And most of the optimism is already gone in the business community.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
LOL no.

You got tossed into a concentration camp if you were actually a Socialist in Nazi Germany. And the Strasserites (actual German Leftists) were mostly killed off during The Night of the Long Knives. And Hitler had a hard on for killing Bolsheviks (actual Communists). Big time.


LOL noooo, Marx knew nothing of Fascism (which was invented by the Italians after he was dead) and Marx was quite clear that he saw Socialism as a stepping stone to Communism which he regarded as the ideal form of govt. You might dislike the guy but at least you should be correct about WHY you dislike him.
Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it... The Nazi's were the "National Socialists". They advocated for a socialist economic system. If you were their political rival, the "Communists" you were imprisoned. The Night of the Long Knives was the elimination of the Brown Shirts, the Sturmabteilung, the stormtroopers (the German equivalent of the Antifa) who were viewed as becoming too powerful and a threat to the main faction in control of the Nazi party.

Just as Marx was indirectly influenced by the American Revolution and the rise of the American Republic the Fascists were influenced by the principles of Marxism sweeping through Europe after the end of WW1. In as far as Marx predicted a process towards a true communist state, one in which the government eventual withers away, a hybrid capitalist/socialist (fascist) state is the logical first step.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,791
You missed the only solution that has ever worked.

#3. Reduce excessive government regulations and taxes, freeing up capital and allowing the private sector to grow and provide more jobs.
You mean allowing some players in the private sector to demolish or acquire all competition, ending up with a single player sooner or later, making them kings with total control? And then they'll sure to look out for the little guy. Is that the idea?

And what will happen with services provided by the government that are not profitable, but an absolute necessity if we remove taxes? For example public transport? Social services? Fire and health departments?

If it were up to the corporations we'd still have 10 hour work days and only one day off. Why would they hire more people if the same job can be done with one wage slave?
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
I like how you altered my quote there
What did I alter? Selective quoting isn't alteration either.

The very fact that all these welfare state programs are popping up more and more is showing that we are being moved away from a capitalistic government.
What new sweeping welfare state programs have been implemented recently? Quite a lot of them have been around for decades.

Socialism is a community based decision making government which means that anything that falls inside their regulation is distributed. Hence business regulations to distribute wealth to welfare of population.
You could describe the US with the same vague platitudes you know.

Also quoting the textbook definition of the Socialism isn't proof it can't be blended with Capitalism or against anything I said in my previous reply to you either.

However, here is some food for thought: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mixed-economy.html

"mixed economy

An economic system in which both the private enterprise and a degree of state monopoly (usually in public services, defense, infrastructure, and basic industries) coexist. All modern economies are mixed where the means of production are shared between the private and public sectors. Also called dual economy."

 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
WEll im done with this thread since it seems we have been invaded by the activists. The debate has fallen into the politcal realm which i've grown tired of hearing about how one side is right over the other. Its no longer about the Robots taking over.....or maybe they already have...in human form? Cyborgs anyone? Terminators?
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
BHO hardly got anything through Congress when the Dems actually had a majority back in 2008-10 thanks to the Repubs filibustering everything. And after 2010 he got virtually nothing done once the Repubs had a majority in the House of Reps.

Also most of the debt the US has racked up in the last decade or so is from the failed wars and bank bailouts neither of which had much to do with BHO either.


The stock market went up quite a bit during BHO's terms too you know. And most of the optimism is already gone in the business community.
BHO was able to move away from the traditional American Capitalist system by using the Federal Bureaucracy and the power within the executive branch to heavily regulate and thereby control private business (like the fascists). Thankfully because he did not go through congress those policies are easily reversed.

Sorry but the greater majority of the massive debt you cite occurred under BHO and can be attributed to massive expenditures on social/welfare programs. The stock market recovered from the collapse of the banking system, precipitated by the collapse of the Euro and Oil during the first week of July, 2008, but America never reached 3% growth during BHO term. The BHO economy was stagnant... Optimism remains high in the business community...
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,408
WEll im done with this thread since it seems we have been invaded by the activists. The debate has fallen into the politcal realm which i've grown tired of hearing about how one side is right over the other. Its no longer about the Robots taking over.....or maybe they already have...in human form? Cyborgs anyone? Terminators?

Every thread turns to this eventually anymore. Giant presidential fighting of which party is the correct one and you are stupid if you disagree. Gets old quick when you really just want to read about the topic you clicked on.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
WEll im done with this thread since it seems we have been invaded by the activists. The debate has fallen into the politcal realm which i've grown tired of hearing about how one side is right over the other. Its no longer about the Robots taking over.....or maybe they already have...in human form? Cyborgs anyone? Terminators?
You can't allow the socialists to dominate and force their narrative down our throats. They "must" be challenged!!
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
he Nazi's were the "National Socialists".
Yes they called themselves that but so what? North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and is anything but Democratic. Its an obvious lie.

They advocated for a socialist economic system.
Very early on before Hitler took over and consolidated power yes. Once he did, no. By the early 30's if you were a actual Socialist you were thrown out of the party (just like Otto Strasser) and by the time the war started if you were a Socialist you were tossed into a concentration camp along with the Jews and everyone else the Nazi's hated.

The Night of the Long Knives was the elimination of the Brown Shirts, the Sturmabteilung, the stormtroopers
They killed everyone who was against them then, not just those groups. And Hitler was quite clear he hated the Leftists/Bolsheviks.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,466
Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it... The Nazi's were the "National Socialists". They advocated for a socialist economic system. If you were their political rival, the "Communists" you were imprisoned. The Night of the Long Knives was the elimination of the Brown Shirts, the Sturmabteilung, the stormtroopers (the German equivalent of the Antifa) who were viewed as becoming too powerful and a threat to the main faction in control of the Nazi party.

Just as Marx was indirectly influenced by the American Revolution and the rise of the American Republic the Fascists were influenced by the principles of Marxism sweeping through Europe after the end of WW1. In as far as Marx predicted a process towards a true communist state, one in which the government eventual withers away, a hybrid capitalist/socialist (fascist) state is the logical first step.

I don't think you really understand what national socialism is.

http://www.differencebetween.net/mi...ces-between-socialism-and-national-socialism/

Give this a read and then come back to the discussion.

Overly simplified:

Socialism = everything for the good of the people
National Socialism = everything for the good of the state

They're on totally different sides of the political spectrum FFS....

left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg
 

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,941
What did I alter? Selective quoting isn't alteration either.


What new sweeping welfare state programs have been implemented recently? Quite a lot of them have been around for decades.


You could describe the US with the same vague platitudes you know.

Also quoting the textbook definition of the Socialism isn't proof it can't be blended with Capitalism or against anything I said in my previous reply to you either.

However, here is some food for thought: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mixed-economy.html

"mixed economy

An economic system in which both the private enterprise and a degree of state monopoly (usually in public services, defense, infrastructure, and basic industries) coexist. All modern economies are mixed where the means of production are shared between the private and public sectors. Also called dual economy."

You placed

"Redistributive taxation" Socalism is based on the government model where the citizens are told how and where to conduct their business and they take what they want from that business.

Into my "quoted " text, i never said anything about "redistributated taxation "

And you keep arguing points that i never brought up. I simply said the TWO are not based on the same principles THEREFORE they are opposing and you started going on and on about blending them.....once blended it doesn't exists as a purebred, its a mutt of a government plain and simple.
I don't care about your view you think they can be blended or not. Dual economy means there are 2 not one.....that's not a blend. As I said in my last post i'm done. This is pointless arguing over something that really has nothing more to do with the article but more to do with your wanting to talk about how your right and i'm wrong about politics and government.
Say what you will but I won't replay anymore.
 

mesyn191

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,983
BHO was able to move away from the traditional American Capitalist system by using the Federal Bureaucracy and the power within the executive branch to heavily regulate and thereby control private business
LOL nooope. You're just making stuff up now.

Sorry but the greater majority of the massive debt you cite occurred under BHO and can be attributed to massive expenditures on social/welfare programs.
Nope.

Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. That is because the recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase.

The War on Terror, although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program. The CBO found that the largest contributor to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.

The next largest was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It added $787 billion between 2009 and 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects. Like the Obama tax cuts, the ARRA was an attempt to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis

Obama increased military spending to an average of $800 billion a year. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record.

In FY 2013, he requested $851 billion. That happened even though he withdrew troops from Iraq in 2012 and eliminated the threat from Osama bin Laden in 2011. Obama spent $857 billion in contingency funds during his administration. That was more than the $850 billion Bush devoted to the War on Terror.

What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term. That's because most of its costs began in 2014. That's when it set up health insurance exchanges and extended coverage to more low-income people. In fact, tax increases offset costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010 and 2019. For more, see Obamacare Costs.

Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit by a small percent. When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. (Source: Ezra Klein, "Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits," The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2014.)

precipitated by the collapse of the Euro and Oil during the first week of July, 2008
Uh no, you don't remember Bear Sterns, the Housing Bubble, and the Global Credit Bubble? The Euro and Oil prices were reactions to those events.

but America never reached 3% growth during BHO term. The BHO economy was stagnant... Optimism remains high in the business community...
Yeah growth was crap because he couldn't do much to pursue growth policies. The closest he came was the ARRA but that was half tax cuts! If Congress wants to knee cap the President surprise surprise he can't do anything. And they knew he'd get the blame for everything too: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/31/the...gy_for_everything_do_nothing_and_blame_obama/

SMB optimism started to drop in April BTW.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
The most economic secure countries in the world is...socialist.

Australia AAA Negative
Canada AAA Stable
Denmark AAA Stable
Germany AAA Stable
Hong Kong AAA Negative
Liechtenstein AAA Stable
Luxembourg AAA Stable
Netherlands AAA Stable
Norway AAA Stable
Singapore AAA Stable
Sweden AAA Stable
Switzerland AAA Stable

So go live there.
 
Top