Thread: State Capitalism and Fascism - Ron Paul comments and more

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

    It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

    It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.
    Do you mean like George Soros?
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by jediab View Post
    So what you are saying is that eventionally the mega business would colapse, or not be able to keep up due to it's own bureaucratic BS that all large companies have?

    Where would the serious competition come from? Let's say Walmart owns all. How would a start up business be able to do any sort of dent to Walmart's marketshare? Also since Walmart has the funds, contracts, and connections to get it's goods for a low price, they could undercut the prices at the smaller competitor thus attracting more customers.

    For the record I have nothing against Walmart. :D

    Would you say a good example of what you talk of is the PC industry? They moved faster than the laws could keep up with, thus a lot of things happened that before the government could react. IBM and Apple to start with. Now they are the small players because of companies like HP and Dell. Not to mention the emergence of Microsoft.
    The mega business does collapse. Just look at GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the hundreds of others in just the last few years. Without their bailouts, they would be gone. Then some other person or entity could make use of the capital they consumed.

    Walmart will at some point collapse unless the government deems it too big to fail. Look to Kmart as an example. As for competition, Walmart may have low prices, but they only carry commodities where product knowledge is not needed and variety within a product line is also not their strong point.
    Also look at the infrastructure Walmart has to support to remain in business on a daily basis. It would not take much instability to rock their world, and not in a good way.
    At some point, the economy will rebound and they will have problems finding low wage employees so they will either lose them or be forced to pay more in wages or benefits to retain them.

    Even as the left of center crowd likes to condemn the "rich", there are studies that show that the 5 quintiles of the economic ladder are really quite fluid in their individual makeup. Look even to the Forbes 500 richest Americans and names come an go on a regular basis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Yes Soros is a wealthy capitalist. He does align himself with progressive causes, but that's hardly a reason to parade him around. I find that many conservatives LOVE to mention soros because he's an example of a wealthy man who isn't pushing far-right propaganda.

    That's totally fine, and Soros, as well as many other wealthy individuals give a lot to charity. However, charity is not enough to solve our problems, just like the welfare state isn't.

    He aligns himself with liberal social policies that are common amongst Democrats but he is no Socialist by any measure. Even if he was (he's not), there are a dozen right-wing Murdochs and Kochs for every liberal Soros who are actively and purposefully planning and executing large scale propaganda campaigns solely to influence public opinion and elections.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    The mega business does collapse. Just look at GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie and Freddie and the hundreds of others in just the last few years. Without their bailouts, they would be gone. Then some other person or entity could make use of the capital they consumed.

    Walmart will at some point collapse unless the government deems it too big to fail. Look to Kmart as an example. As for competition, Walmart may have low prices, but they only carry commodities where product knowledge is not needed and variety within a product line is also not their strong point.
    Also look at the infrastructure Walmart has to support to remain in business on a daily basis. It would not take much instability to rock their world, and not in a good way.
    At some point, the economy will rebound and they will have problems finding low wage employees so they will either lose them or be forced to pay more in wages or benefits to retain them.

    Even as the left of center crowd likes to condemn the "rich", there are studies that show that the 5 quintiles of the economic ladder are really quite fluid in their individual makeup. Look even to the Forbes 500 richest Americans and names come an go on a regular basis.
    I was not a fan of the bailouts, not at all. However, I agree with the sentiment that these companies and institutions were indeed "too big to fail". If the government had not intervened on behalf of these companies there would have been catastrophic system failure and we'd be deep in Great Depression II. I think this just goes to show that there is no stable state of Correct Capitalism, given enough time, it begins to collapse, and while it may eventually restabilize, the size of modern day institutions and markets would make another Great Depression a global catastrophe.

    People seem to like to look back at a time and say it should have always been like that but every system is in a constant state of change and the ups and downs of modern capitalism are simply too much to be left to the free market. we are slowly but surely moving towards State Capitalism as a means to "prevent systemic failures".

    I believe, as China is proving, that in our lifetimes we will see the loss of democracy as civil rights are eroded in order to protect Capitalism from failing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    That's exactly the problem. Government officials gravitate toward the wealthy because of greed and the wealthy gravitate towards government for the same reason. It's a quid pro quo, and it shouldn't be a surprise.

    It's not enough to say "government and big business shoudln't be in bed together", they already are and they have been for well over a century. Politicians stay in power by not challenging the wealthy elite who own institutions. The wealthy elite keep their profits and wealth growth by buying off politicians. We can say whatever we like but unless we elect politicians who are hell-bent on breaking up this sleazy hook-up between big business and government, then it will just keep happening.
    Which is why we have to get the corporostatists on both sides of the aisle into the unemployment lines. I have never claimed this was either strictly the Dempublicans or Republicrats fault.
    Hell even the current crop of phony conservatives took the recent tax cut extension carrot for the trade off of higher estate taxes, 13 months of extended don't need to find a job time and current tax rate extensions without even a hint of demanding corresponding cuts in federal outlays. Great eh? Now all I need is a Tee shirt that says "My grandpa got a tax break and all I got was another trillion in debt to pay"
    Think that is not going to give the other side some ammo in the next election cycle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Madisonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Michiganistanovia
    Posts
    2,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I was not a fan of the bailouts, not at all. However, I agree with the sentiment that these companies and institutions were indeed "too big to fail". If the government had not intervened on behalf of these companies there would have been catastrophic system failure and we'd be deep in Great Depression II. I think this just goes to show that there is no stable state of Correct Capitalism, given enough time, it begins to collapse, and while it may eventually restabilize, the size of modern day institutions and markets would make another Great Depression a global catastrophe.

    People seem to like to look back at a time and say it should have always been like that but every system is in a constant state of change and the ups and downs of modern capitalism are simply too much to be left to the free market. we are slowly but surely moving towards State Capitalism as a means to "prevent systemic failures".

    I believe, as China is proving, that in our lifetimes we will see the loss of democracy as civil rights are eroded in order to protect Capitalism from failing.
    It is well past bed time and I actually look forward to picking up this debate sometime tomorrow.
    I complement the thread and participants for the civility displayed. Well so far, anyway.:D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    Which is why we have to get the corporostatists on both sides of the aisle into the unemployment lines. I have never claimed this was either strictly the Dempublicans or Republicrats fault.
    Hell even the current crop of phony conservatives took the recent tax cut extension carrot for the trade off of higher estate taxes, 13 months of extended don't need to find a job time and current tax rate extensions without even a hint of demanding corresponding cuts in federal outlays. Great eh? Now all I need is a Tee shirt that says "My grandpa got a tax break and all I got was another trillion in debt to pay"
    Think that is not going to give the other side some ammo in the next election cycle?
    About the tax cuts and estate taxes, Congressman Bernie Sanders says it better than I can, explaining exactly who benefits from this recent bill:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcLWDGb0RqA


    As for the parties, they are both terrible but it is not their fault, it's ours. I am encouraging as many Republicans and Democrats to not vote for these two parties this election. Vote Libertarian, vote Socialist, vote Green or vote Conservative, hell it doesn't matter who you vote for but we need to stop giving our votes to the major parties because "we dont want the other team to win". This is GARBAGE.

    This is how they stay in power. We need to stop voting against "the other team" and start voting FOR principles, whatever they may be. I know many people here disagree with me on a lot of things, but I think we can all agree that our two major parties have totally failed the American people and do not deserve to be in power.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Madisonian View Post
    It is well past bed time and I actually look forward to picking up this debate sometime tomorrow.
    I complement the thread and participants for the civility displayed. Well so far, anyway.:D
    ah-thank you


    I must say this forum seems far more civil and hospitable since I was last here a couple of weeks ago. I like it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Bleda
    Guest
    I don't really view it as a vote for the Party; it's for the individual. I would gladly vote for a Democrat who is 90% 'good' over a Republican who is 10% good. It's just that, 99% of the time, the better candidate happens to be a Republican. In my case, at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •