*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, July 12th, 2011 8:21pm PDT - promote requested by geo321.

cue free market apologists in 5..4...3..2..1....

You mean like bitcoin enthusiasts?
>> ^ChaosEngine:

cue free market apologists in 5..4...3..2..1....

>> ^ChaosEngine:

cue free market apologists in 5..4...3..2..1....


What you imply is that the free market rewrote the laws to favor giant corporations? That the common middle class man paid millions of dollars to lobby in the Capitol for laws which effectively enforce industry monopolies?

The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)

The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.

You know what really sucks for us old-worlders? Europe has been copying this shit for years.

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!

Us vs Them, the battle cry of politics at its finest.

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:

The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)

The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Us vs Them, the battle cry of politics at its finest.


Is there something in this video you disagree with, or are you just decrying the act of suggesting that the actions of one group might have negatively affected another?

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Of course. And is it not in the nature of man to push those lofty ideals on everyone else, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion?

My intention was only to point out that both sides equally play the zealot, interjecting their belief that all evils of the world are caused by/fixed by lassiez faire economics. Arm-chair idealists, if you will.

I'm not so sure it's human nature to always proselytize, regardless of the situation. Certainly there are some people who do it (I'm guilty of it for sure), but I think they're the exception and not the rule.

I also don't think it makes someone a zealot if they say "I disagree with your utopian zealotry because what you promise is impossible, and what you've done in pursuit of it has caused serious harm."

That seems like skepticism to me, not dogmatic belief.
>> ^soulmonarch:

Of course. And is it not in the nature of man to push those lofty ideals on everyone else, regardless of whether they are relevant to the discussion?
My intention was only to point out that both sides equally play the zealot, interjecting their belief that all evils of the world are caused by/fixed by lassiez faire economics. Arm-chair idealists, if you will.

Downvote...I expected a bigger Mike.

Wait, what? A fat white guy talking about how he's not well off any more?

With one of the the highest standards of living in the world, and much more in the way of wants, technology, and stuff, and commercial products than the family in the 1950s that he started talking about?

Oh, please.

>> ^Ajkiwi:

Wait, what? A fat white guy talking about how he's not well off any more?
With one of the the highest standards of living in the world, and much more in the way of wants, technology, and stuff, and commercial products than the family in the 1950s that he started talking about?
Oh, please.


Yes but we could be doing much better if we stopped the rich from taking WAAAAAAAAYYYY more than their fair share. And I mean single income homes and only 1 job rather than multiple jobs.

The funny thing is that much of what is says is economically indisputable. He's right. But even though I agree with most of it, I just want to shoot the fat, white, entitled sounding messenger.

(Today in NZ the opposition party is launching its pre-election tax-the-rich policy. Hell, I'll be voting for them. And I'm probably going to be counted as rich!)

I don't disagree with the overall message, but I think many people are poor because they live beyond their means. Although, that's likely because rich people use psychology tell us to buy things and it's in human nature to play along.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'move on, middle class, economy' to 'move on, middle class, economy, rebuld the dream' - edited by Trancecoach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'move on, middle class, economy, rebuld the dream' to 'move on, middle class, economy, rebuild the dream' - edited by xxovercastxx

We won't take it from the rich!!! We will only take it from one another!

Wait? I am sad now.

I don't doubt that the main failure of the US in recent decades is one of failed regulation. The institutions set up to manage the market have been dismantled and degraded, and perversely, the associated negative outcomes (such as income inequality) have been sold to the masses as evidence of why we need less regulation and further dismantling. That's the part of the equation that most interests me.

The rest of the world is watching America eat itself, while it proclaims between mouthfulls that it has never felt better.

Strange times.

You are just there to keep their homes, path to work, and restaurants operational. If you aren't worth a few million......you're just the labor force that keeps all the money makers able to keep making billions and living the high life.

How dare you want to have a life of your own that allows you to actually enjoy your free time instead of trying to look for yet another job that serves their interests.

It also basically insures that the trend will continue because this wealth, and the jobs associated with that wealth/power will remain in the control of the families that possess it. If they keep you so busy working you don't have time to spend on actually figuring out the scam....you're no threat.

Yeah exactly. What can our politicians do for us to help rebuild the American Dream? Let's take out another astronomical loan, this time from India! This time give it to the lower-class and the lower-middle class. Let's experiment. I know what I'll buy with the money! - a plot of land and a tiny home in Canada.

That way if the lower and middle classes move out the upper-class will get what they want. They won't have to pay us these expensive $12/hr jobs. And they can sit in their offices picking their noses erm managing some guy who can't even understand in some other country. America will just be a country of managers, just the way they want it. District Managers managing Senior managers managing assistant managers managing part time assistant managers managing the managers somewhere else who are doing the same damn thing except over there, there will probably be someone doing some god damn work!

I've noticed that mostly managers seem like they're official, doing "important" things but a lot of them are just listening to other people talk - all day long. Conference calls, blah, blah, sitting on their asses. Lazy asses I tell you.

Is it just me, or does this guy look like a fat charlie sheen?

A rather simplistic, populist bit of tripe.

To start with, if this guy thinks that things were so great back in the 1960s then maybe he should think again. The 'middle class' he talks about in the 60s was a far smaller entity than it is in 2011. In the 60s the country had a higher proportion of people in the 'lower' class. Since that time, the average american family has gotten proportionally wealthier - not poorer - and enjoys a higher standard of living, more property, and greater economic freedom than ever before. The entire premise of this video is nothing but an anachronistic fantasy.

The pap about families easily affording homes, cars, education, and retirement in the 60s on a single income is also a load of bull feathers. Middle class stiffs had to make tough choices back then too, and didn't have the dosh to just toss around money like that. His cutsey chalkboard claptrap cartoons of a smiling 'middle class' family easily affording any expense they wanted is stupidly wrong.

And this moron acts like people on a single income TODAY can't afford a home, car, college, and retirement. I am the lone wage-earner in my family. Not ONCE have I gotten government assistance or a handout on the dole. And I own a home, 2 cars, have $13,000 in savings for the kids, and I'm on track to be a millionaire when I retire. How did I do it? Because I'm not stupid. The middle class doesn't have to go into debt for these things - and this JERK'S premise that MC families have to rack up huge debt to live life is absolute specious.

And unions - yeesh. I noticed carefully that this obviously neolib goombah didn't bother mentioning that the over 26 TRILLION dollars in debt this nation has only exists because of private and public sector union unfunded liabilities. Corporations send world overseas because unions ARE making the cost of business in the U.S. (not to mention the fact that we're #1 in the world in corporate taxation) unfeasible for many industries. And he also doesn't mention the decrease in union size is only in the private sector, but that PUBLIC sector unions have swollen in size to gargantuan, slovenly, grotesque levels - and are (of course) literally breaking America's bank with thier costs. Of course companies outsource labor when paying a US employee costs them 100X as much money for only a fraction of the output. Only in the neolib Planet Fantasy does everyone get 100,000 a year for pushing brooms, assembling widgets, and other unskilled jobs that any reasonably trained lemming can perform.

He also doesn't mention that the top 50% of American taxpayers are paying 95% of the taxes, and that the "middle class" that he disingenously claims to speak for is actually paying almost NO INCOME TAXES at all. The bottom 50% of wage-earners (that's the middle class for you neolib idiots out there) only pay 5% of the taxes. How much more can the you burden the top 50% with before they pull up stakes and leave? That's the problem New York City, Chicago, LA, and many other neolib Meccas are facing. They have raised taxes so high on "the rich" (which Obama defines as anyone earning over 200K) that they are leaving these leftist enclaves, which in turn are literally dying on the vine under the weight of their own stupid policies and union debt.

But I do agree with some of the comments about lobbyists and the tax code. I do believe that is a problem, but it is a GOVERNMENT problem not a lobbyist problem. The government is the new "Robber Baron", when 100 years ago the government was protecting people from Robber barons. But of course this guy doesn't focus on the fact that it is GOVERNMENT making these stupid laws, and not companies. In fact, many companies hated the repeal of Glass-Steagall but government wanted it so Barney Frank could have is precious UFFODUBBLE HOWZING! Banks never wanted to be forced to give loans to people who they never would have touched in the 1960s - but Government played the Race Card with accusations of redlining and forced it through.

The problems with income disparity people whine about are largely a phantom. More people in the US are wealthier than they've ever been in the nation's history. Carping about how much MORE the uber-rich have than the middle class is pure sophistry.

So the bottom fifty percent of earners is the middle class?

What are you smoking?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

blahblahblah my regular bullshit blahblahblah

WP's right - the rich have it so bad right now, if you don't give them more tax cuts they're gonna move to India where your jobs are - and then who's gonna pay the country club memberships?

Silly.

Never said the rich 'have it bad'. All I'm saying is that it is a load of pure biased bullcrap to say "the rich" aren't paying "their fair share". This guy in the vid, a lot of you here on the Sift, and every neolib who exists make this constant drumbeat about the rich not paying their fair share. It is absolute hogwash. The top 1% ($380K & up) pay 40% of the taxes while the bottom 50% (below the median) pay a measley 2.9%.

If anything, the so-called 'poor' need to pay MORE taxes so they have a little skin in the game as opposed to constantly voting for more and more federal freebies. What needs to happen here (the one thing this guy got right) is tax reform. Income taxes need to be eliminated, and the system moved to a Flat tax or a Use tax with no more corporate, government, or any other kind of loophole. Then after that the government needs to cut spending by like 70% and never be allowed to change tax laws ever again.

I know better than to waste time arguing with you, champ, but I'll just make this point: by your logic, we should give the rich even more money than they currently get, so they can continue to pay more tax.

They pay an increasing proportion of tax because they're getting a disproportionately increasing share of wealth.

Honestly, up is down, black is white with you people.

At the risk of posting a link you'll never look at, here's how the US stacks up against Oz in the welfare stakes: http://inside.org.au/how-fair-is-australia%E2%80%99s-welfare-state/

Below is an explanation of why it is both fair and logical for the rich to pay more taxes. Taken from http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm The website also has an argument against the flat tax.

It was written a while ago (90s I'm guessing) but most of the points are still valid today.

For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income.

Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.

Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?

In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.

Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.

Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.

Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.

As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)

The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.

Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

For more, see Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman's informative little book, Take the Rich Off Welfare.

How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.

BUY MY BOOK!
VOTE FOR ME IN 2016!
I'LL LINE MY POCKETS WITH YOUR DREAMS!

There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.

Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, July 12th, 2011 11:40pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.


Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.

Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement

Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.

Ah, yes. SWEDEN. A monoethnic country of less than 10 million proving socialism really works.

Except it doesn't.

Just google "swedish socialism, failure" Close to 7 million results.


Speaking of results, the left can't hide the results of obamanomics.






>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.

Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.
Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement
Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.

This guy spends the whole video telling us what the symptoms are but ignores what got us here and how to fix it. No surprise the anti-free market (anti-freedom) people are oblivious to it.

Government and bankers have been running a ponzi scheme for most of the last century: Economic central planning and fractional reserve banking. Bankers have been stealing more and more from us every year through money manipulation and taxes.

Inflation is not some magical or natural occurrence. It is baked into the system. It is direct theft. A gallon of milk has pretty much the same value as it did 50 years ago, yet the price has changed, why? And for those that say, well prices have gone up but so have wages so it evens out. Not true. In the arbitrage between the two, you're always going to be on the losing side. And that ignores the theft of savings, and ignores how bankers exploit that arbitrage. That is why we have booms and busts. Bubbles are purposely induced through collusion and fraud to financially rape the people.

Without the fraud and collusion, there wouldn't be trillions of debt. And tax rates would probably be at the highest 10%. Income tax needs to eventually be abolished. In a free world, you trade your labor for wages. The government has no claim to your labor, so why does it have a claim to the wages you traded it for? Taxing consumption above the poverty level makes the most sense. But that can never be implemented without first eliminating the tax on income. You tax things you want less of, you bailout things you more of. The government taxes productivity (income), and rewards fraud (bank bailouts).

How do we fix this:
1. Eliminate the cancer: The Federal Reserve. Eliminate the whole concept of a central bank deciding monetary policy in general. Allow free choice and freedom of currency. Force banks to disclose their reserve ratio to issue loans. The free market will probably force banks to hold close to 100% of reserves. And banking would also become more of a co-op system like credit unions.
2. Cram down all the toxic loans on the Fed's balance sheet to the fair market value of the home and renegotiate the terms for the home owner.
3. Close down the Military Industrial Complex. End all wars. Close down all foreign military bases. Focus Department of Defense on actually defending threats instead of creating them. Abolish the CIA.
4. Break the global oil cartel.
5. Probably have to break up the big banks and pass regulations similar to Glass-Steagall to keep them from getting "too big to fail". Separate banks from investment firms, insurance firms etc. Enforce real regulations that protect consumers, not the parasitic speculators. If a hedge fund makes bad bets and loses, then they lose. No bailouts.
6. Eliminate the false free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT. Stop incentivising global companies to outsource production oversees.
7. Eliminate tax on production. (Income tax)
8. Ban health insurance. (The middle man) We would probably have to fully nationalize health care. (It is anyway really) And then work towards a system of free choice and volunteerism.

Probably more solutions, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. And yes, I'm a free market idealist.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, yes. SWEDEN. A monoethnic country of less than 10 million proving socialism really works.
Except it doesn't.
Just google "swedish socialism, failure" Close to 7 million results.

Speaking of results, the left can't hide the results of obamanomics. >> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.

Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.
Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement
Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.



Oh right, I forgot, how true a statement is is based on how many google results you get, like when I type "united states capitalism fail" and I end up with nearly 15 million results. Well it MUST be true now!!!

As far as the countries rank up according to current data:
USA's national debt: $738,600,000,000
Sweden's national debt SURPLUS $37,990,000,000
source

That doesn't look like fail for Sweden to me. What are you using to measure this fail? How is this not a shining example of successful socialism?

>> ^NetRunner:

The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.



Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
The essence of any utopianism: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
>> ^soulmonarch:
The Free Market barely even gets a place in the debate, due to the simple fact that it was circumvented by corrupt politicians long before it would have made any difference. "Freedom" requires that the law treats us all equally, and that freedom disappeared the moment politicians decided to use their positions to profiteer. (i.e. The second they got into office, for most of them.)
The "Free Market" is an ideal... one that has never held any real place in economics, except in the wistful dreams of poets and Presidential candidates.


Are you saying freedom is an impossible ideal? That we must submit to a greater authority to manage our lives?


If your ideal of "freedom" is "no one can ever tell anyone else what to do", then yes, I think that's an impossible demand on reality.

If your ideal of "freedom" is "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property", then it's not freedom, it's authoritarianism.

But mostly I'm saying proponents of free markets should try to address claims in this video about the negative effects of a shift toward free market policies, and not just deny that looking at events in the US can tell us anything meaningful about conservative/libertarian/free market/right-wing ideology because we haven't abolished things like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and Congress yet.

We have it the same in Denmark.
I'm on of the "poorest" earners here, so I play 37 % income tax. The rich pay up to 70 % income tax.
Plus all the sales taxes and stuff.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.

Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.
Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement
Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.

The U.S. could start more wars with a 50 percent tax rate.

That's probably what they'd do with it, too.

>> ^NetRunner:
If your ideal of "freedom" is "no one can ever tell anyone else what to do", then yes, I think that's an impossible demand on reality.
If your ideal of "freedom" is "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property", then it's not freedom, it's authoritarianism.
But mostly I'm saying proponents of free markets should try to address claims in this video about the negative effects of a shift toward free market policies, and not just deny that looking at events in the US can tell us anything meaningful about conservative/libertarian/free market/right-wing ideology because we haven't abolished things like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and Congress yet.


No, my idea of freedom is we adhere to the principle of natural rights and follow the rule of law. Gotta love the hyperbole arguments though.

Free market policies didn't cause the problems. Fraud and collusion did. And rewarding white collar criminals instead of locking them up is not a free market policy. In a free society, the government actually prosecutes fraud.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
If your ideal of "freedom" is "no one can ever tell anyone else what to do", then yes, I think that's an impossible demand on reality.
If your ideal of "freedom" is "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property", then it's not freedom, it's authoritarianism.
But mostly I'm saying proponents of free markets should try to address claims in this video about the negative effects of a shift toward free market policies, and not just deny that looking at events in the US can tell us anything meaningful about conservative/libertarian/free market/right-wing ideology because we haven't abolished things like taxes, the Federal Reserve, and Congress yet.

No, my idea of freedom is we adhere to the principle of natural rights and follow the rule of law. Gotta love the hyperbole arguments though.
Free market policies didn't cause the problems. Fraud and collusion did. And rewarding white collar criminals instead of locking them up is not a free market policy. In a free society, the government actually prosecutes fraud.


Okay, so what does "the principle of natural rights" mean?

I guess what I'm really getting at is that left-ish answers to this whole crisis is stronger banking regulations, better enforcement from the agencies responsible, and in a crisis of this size, direct actions to prevent bank failures, and to try to bring unemployment down with loose monetary policy and fiscal stimulus.

I suspect most if not all of those are somehow not compliant with "freedom" under your definition of the word. To me, it's entirely compliant with freedom, because if we don't do those things, lots of people will lose all control over their lives as the economy crashes even worse than it already has.

As for the "it's not free market, it's fraud!" argument, that's a perfect example of what I'm saying. People committing fraud is something you need to actually deal with, since it's obviously a problem that comes up in real-world markets. You can't just assume that there's going to be an omniscient, infallible, incorruptible government keeping everyone consistently and fully honest -- that's an impossible demand on reality.

There are no natural rights. Only what we "agree" are natural rights. Morality is fluid, but given a point of view some are better than others.

I'm a little late to the party, but I had to comment.

So that's the criteria to see if something works, let's try googling:

United States capitalism failure

SCORE! 11,300,000 hits!

P.S. I value capitalism and market ideology. I just think measuring google hits is a completely absurd way to disprove economic ideologies.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, yes. SWEDEN. A monoethnic country of less than 10 million proving socialism really works.
Except it doesn't.
Just google "swedish socialism, failure" Close to 7 million results.

Speaking of results, the left can't hide the results of obamanomics.



>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no shining example of the triumph of socialism anywhere in the world.
Greece is our future under clueless odumbo. He is a one-term failure; time and a hopefully wiser brand of hopey-changey fools who voted for the empty suit will see to it.

Sweden is doing very well for having one of the lowest gini coefficients in the world.
Sure their total tax revenue was near 50% across the population, but in Sweden you don't have to pay for:
-Schooling (up to PHD level)
-Child Care
-Health Care
-Retirement
Here's the real shocker, people are not just giving up on working in spite of the country being a welfare state that also provides unemployment insurance. Swedish unemployment rates are at only 7.9% (that's lower than the US [9.2%] for those just joining us). If you need more info, I'll let a socialist Swedish economist explain it.

Put that in your anti-welfare-state-pipe and smoke it.

Thank you, winston for putting reality back in order.

And thank you, netrunner, for posting a thought provoking video =).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

A rather simplistic, populist bit of tripe.
To start with, if this guy thinks that things were so great back in the 1960s then maybe he should think again....

I have the 'benefit' of actually - you know - having LIVED in the 60s. Back then the average interest rate on a home loan was along the lines of 16% to 18%. Needless to say this video glosses over a lot of the challenges the great middle class had in making ends meet.

The dini index is a rather foolish barometer - which is why neolibs like it so much. It allows a neolib to take perfectly happy, content, functional societies and act like everyone there should be miserable because they don't hit the right note on an artificial standard. Look instead at the relative standard of living enjoyed by a country. By any standard, the US has it pretty dang sweet. Just saw a report yesterday where those in the supposed "poverty" level have (A) homes they own (B) 2+ Big Screen TVs (C) 2+ cars (D) video game systems, DVD players, computers, and smartphones (E) and eat 'out' as often as twice a week. "Wah wah wah - the US isn't as good on the dini index as a bunch of pinheads think it should be!" Neolibs can whine all they want about wealth concentration. The fact that the bottom 5% is buying luxuries that many other nation's RICH can't afford (while paying ZERO income taxes) proves that the bellyaching is meaningless drivel.

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.

So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

Oh man, where to start...

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people. On the face of it, patently absurd. Yes, some leftists are corrupt. No question about it. So are many capitalists, too. Doesn't mean either philosophy is bankrupt.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument the stimulus may do more harm than good in the long run, but it wasn't done to shovel money into big bloated, criminally negligent gov't troughs. It was done to save jobs, and help the economy. Even if I disagreed with waterboarding, I wouldn't go around telling people the Bush administration did it because they loved the thrill of torturing people.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false. UN reports show the following:

In the U.S. the top 10% hold 70% of the country’s wealth
In France, the top 10% hold 61% of the country’s wealth
In the U.K. , the top 10% hold 56% of the country’s wealth
In Germany, the top 10% hold 44% of the country’s wealth
In Japan the top 10% hold 39% of the country’s wealth

France, UK, and Germany are significantly to the left of US in terms of their economic system without question. Japan is a weird beast, but still more socialist than we are. Their personal income tax rates are very low, but their corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. They also have significant elements of socialism in their economy, such as universal health care, publicly funded education, transportation, etc., but there is also a lot of free market elements as well. They also have a progressive income tax, although it has become less progressive as years have gone by.

So, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Finally, let me explain why some such as myself favor a form of mixed economy with a blend of socialism and capitalism: it works better for virtually everyone - rich, poor, and the middle class. As a very simple example, universal mandatory education, which was not a part of US society until it was publicly funded, helped businesses in the end because it increased the skill set and productivity of workers, which allowed businesses to increase profits in the long run. Universal, compulsory publicly funded education is socialist in nature. And how can society afford this? Partly by progressive taxation, which you claim is "poor people" believing that they have a right to the rich's money. Well, guess what? It worked BEAUTIFULLY! Universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age. Weird how that worked, huh?

Now, I know people such as myself you consider a "neolib", but we're actually moderates, many of us are well intentioned, as I'm sure is true about conservatives, and we also have quite a bit of facts on our side to back us up, too. Raising marginal tax rates on the richest 1% of Americans is socialist in nature, but doing it a small amount isn't tantamount to socialism. And socialist ideas aren't inherently bad either (same for capitalistic ideas).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.
So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.

Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.

I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.

For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.

Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.

Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.

The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

come on winston!
anecdotal evidence does not an argument make and you should know better and whats with the name calling?
this is not a political ideology problem but a greed and corruption problem which is more a personal flavor than a political one.
leftie,rightie,neolib,spendocrat,rethuglican...
who cares? they are all paid whores for their corporate and wall street masters and by the looks of your previous comments you have bought their line of tripe hook,line and sinker.

the fact of the matter is that after WWII america became a manufacturing juggernaut (mainly due to other manufacturing countries being leveled from bombings).our government dealt with the public in a pretty straight forward manner (relatively speaking of course).the unionized american work force set the standard and helped usher in the middle class,a hard fought standard i might add.this was the first appearance of the "middle class" and it was not just handed over but fought for tooth and nail by our grandparents and their parents.

the 60's were a time of great changes,not only politically but socially and marked a definitive change how our government dealt with the people and thus began the slow march we find ourselves in today.
consider this:
1.in 1972 the dollar was worth .78 cents on the dollar (22 cents interest per dollar)
in 2011 the dollar is worth .03 cents on the dollar.that loaf of bread didnt increase in price but rather the purchasing power of your dollar decreased.
2.in 1968 the phrase "for the public good" was removed from the corporate charter.hows that been working out for us?
3.in the 60's the middle class was roughly 48% of the american population and controlled 72% of americas total wealth.this was unheard of on a global scale,this sharing of wealth and was one of the main reasons why so many wished to come to america and take a swing at opportunity.fast forward to the present the "middle class" is roughly 11% of population and controls less than 10%.
4.while america still outproduces the rest of the world,has the largest and richest economy (yes,we still are the biggest).now lets consider the fact that the american worker produces more,works longer hours (on avg),yet receives less benefits in the forms of health care and retirement and the wages have stagnated since the 80's and when you factor in inflation,american workers are actually making LESS than their counterparts from 40 years ago.

let us all be clear on one thing.
capitalism,socialism or communism are NOT political ideologies but rather ECONOMIC systems and right now the system is rigged.
lowest tax rates in 40 years right along with interest rates.
this is NOT a coincidence.
you are being robbed.
at least the blacks KNEW they were slaves.
you on the other hand...remain clueless.
the fox is in the henhouse and people waste their time waxing poetic about political perfunctory.

@marbles
right on man.

I'm very confused. Let me get this straight...

You're gonna blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a law that REGULATED financial markets) on Barney Frank who voted AGAINST the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall?! You do realize you're basically making effectively a socialist argument, right?! You're saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was intended to help the poor, but it didn't. Glass-Steagall is fundamentally socialist, so you're saying repealing it hurt the economy?!

Other than the fact you got the critical detail of Frank voting against Gramm-Leach-Bliley wrong, I completely agree with you.

In respect that job reports have been disappointing, you didn't address what every objective report about the stimulus bill says it created jobs, and those jobs did go to lower and middle class people. There's a disappointment it didn't do more than it ended up doing, but it DID create/save jobs in the short run, that's undeniable. Extension of unemployment benefits helped the poor and middle class. I could go on and on. You're seriously gonna fight this point?! Ridiculous.

Every company Obama visited and showed as a good example folded, huh? Let's see some proof. I want to see everyone of these companies, and what happened to them. You don't get to throw idiotic statements like this out without proof and expect not get called out on it. You're full of crap on that.

Oh, so if the jobs went to people you blanket don't like, it didn't do any good? LOL! Nevermind they're poor and middle class jobs, those very people you said weren't helped. I don't blame you. Those fat cat teachers and other civil servants, robbing the country blind with their gross underpay and what not! BTW, state employees are not all union members. There are in many states laws against state employees unionizing. Minor detail really...

So you're talking about "real Socialist" countries, not the fake ones I described. Are they more left than us? YES! You then mentioned we've gone "too far to the left" and the pendulum swing of a correction is coming to smite us! Are you suggesting the UK, France, and Britain were smited by the wrath of the free market gods for being too socialist? How have they managed to avoid the smite?!

As to the US education system today. First off, I'm glad you agree with me that universal public education system did coincide with the rise of the US as an economic superpower. You do at least seem to understand attacking that point is pretty pointless. But that also means you lost the argument. We had undeniably the world's best education system during that time, and it was a socialistic program in nature. Do we have the best education system now without question? No. What changed? Not the public mandate. Not the fact it's still mostly gov't operated. That's the same. Therefore, it's undeniable that you can have a top notch gov't run public education system.

Need more proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

What do you notice about the countries with the best education systems? Oh wonder of wonders, virtually all of them have gov't operated public education systems! How do so many evil socialist programs work so well?! Hmmm, maybe it's because sometimes, socialist ideas work the best, and maybe you should open your mind a little, look at specific things, look at data objectively, and apply socialist or capitalist solutions, whichever work the best? I know that's apparently revolutionary for you, but it's called "effective problem solving".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.
Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.
Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...
That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.
Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.
I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.
For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.
Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.
Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.
The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.