Liberal Forum

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 9:27 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:27 pm

No capitalism doesn't suck.  It is the best system by far at providing for the well being of its citizens.  Corruption sucks!!!!  Bribery of Bureaucrats entrusted to uphold the Constitution and the interests of the consumer sucks!!!!  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bureaucrats don't swear an oath to the Constitution. Elected and appointed officials do. Bureaucrats are quasi-governmental. They have government AUTHORITIES - but hold no position of public trust. They work for the corporatocracy. And Reagan hired more of them than any president in history - after Carter got rid of more than any president in history. 

Makes ya scratch yer head, huh.

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:17 pm

so.. beaurocracy sucks whether it's from the DMV or the private sector
thats what we been trying to tell u

I will say this about bureaucracy. You show me a powerful, robust government, and I will show you a powrful and robust bureaucracy. 

Bureaucracy serves a purpose. Just not always a good one...

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 9:19 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:19 pm

What if it WERE the design of capitalism? Would you cease to support capitalism?

Allow me to give you an example of capitalism REQUIRING government sponsorship for its existence. Let us take Mother Russia, from circa 1917 to circa 1992. In all of those years, capitalism DID not, COULD not exist in the USSR. 

Free enterprise did. People still traded - legally, illegally, free enterprise continued on. But CAPITALISM did not, could not exist. Because the government did not SPONSOR it. And capitalism cannot exist without government sponsorship.

Even if it has to express itself in a black market, free enterprise is impossible to extinguish. But all a government has to do to end capitalism is cease to support it. 

So there is CLEARLY a difference between capitalism and free enterprise. Clearly.

I only support one of them. You BELIEVE that you support both - and I believe that you are incorrect. They are at odds. Support for one is antipathy to the other

Well capitalism did exist in a small way even in Russia.  Beyond the black market (which I was already well aware).  And it was illegal so capitalism too had to be "underground".  It was considered organized crime by the Soviets and therefore no actual stock was issued.  It was based on trust.  I don't make the huge distinction you do between capitalism and free enterprise.  Even what you consider free enterprise is in many cases capitalism.  If I have a table saw and a neighbor pays me to let him use it to make a table for his kitchen this is capitalism as I am receiving profit from the use of my capital.  And regardless of whether that table saw is fully owned by me or my entire family or even the residents of my block I don't find it in any way more objectionable.  Capitalism and Free Enterprise is a subjective matter of where you draw the line.  A socialist might claim anything not directly produced with your labor but rather the use of your capital property is wrong.  I don't see it as any different since the capital property too at some point was produced with the proceeds from my labor (or I might have even built the table saw myself by hand).
 

We agree to a large extent. I just don't group all the corruption in with capitalism. Capitalism just plain works as the battle for Ideas in the 20th century proved. Corruption and unwelcome government interference we do agree on. So it's a start.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 9:40 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:40 pm

We agree to a large extent. I just don't group all the corruption in with capitalism. Capitalism just plain works as the battle for Ideas in the 20th century proved. Corruption and unwelcome government interference we do agree on. So it's a start.

Your staunch opposition to any and all expressions of socialism are at odds with some of the highest standards of living in the world .. aka Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland and the U K

The countries with heavy elements of sociiasm COMBINED WITH racial homogeneity have the greatest happiness index on the planet

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm

Well capitalism did exist in a small way even in Russia.  Beyond the black market (which I was already well aware).  And it was illegal so capitalism too had to be "underground".  It was considered organized crime by the Soviets and therefore no actual stock was issued.  It was based on trust.

I find it quite interesting that you unwittingly describe mafia activity as capitalism. It is simply not possible that these "capitalists" were serving lawful markets. You're talking about mafiosos.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm

I don't make the huge distinction you do between capitalism and free enterprise.

I know. That is the very crux of the issue.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:37 pm

Even what you consider free enterprise is in many cases capitalism.  If I have a table saw and a neighbor pays me to let him use it to make a table for his kitchen this is capitalism as I am receiving profit from the use of my capital.

Okay. Let us grant you this argument. I don't - but for the sake of argument, let us.

My issue is with WALL STREET capitalism. So let us not argue over what we agree about, shall we? Let us argue WALL STREET capitalism - that capitalism which conforms to the definition about which my complaints are made.

If you want to defend THAT capitalism - the I lent my neighbor a saw capitalism, - you will get no argument from me. But if you wish to defend WALL STREET capitalism - the capitalism that is birthed, born, regulated, bailed out and sustained by the government gun, - then perhaps you might begin by explaining why I'm being bullied to surrender my very bodily autonomy to a wall street experiment under threat of the government gun?
 
 

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:33 pm

I will say this about bureaucracy. You show me a powerful, robust government, and I will show you a powrful and robust bureaucracy. 

Bureaucracy serves a purpose. Just not always a good one...

I gotta give you that one.  Begrudgingly cuz it Flys in the face of my libertarian leanings

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:09 pm

I gotta give you that one.  Begrudgingly cuz it Flys in the face of my libertarian leanings

Yup. Mine, too. But there it is. The European domination of the planet was predicated far more on its bureaucracies than on its militaries, it appears to me. Hell, respect for British bureaucracy was why the Indians allowed them to stay so long. 

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm

Your staunch opposition to any and all expressions of socialism are at odds with some of the highest standards of living in the world .. aka Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Holland and the U K

The countries with heavy elements of sociiasm COMBINED WITH racial homogeneity have the greatest happiness index on the planet

Sweden, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands are not socialist countries for the most part.  They could well be described as Democratic Socialism but even then they are far less socialist than the US.  They are also small countries without many of the issues characteristic of a superpower like the US.  You won't find the Netherlands defending the shipping lanes in the South China Sea.  And they don't have the demographic issues the US does.  The US is the #1 preference for the world's immigrants.  We can't keep them out.  Truly amazing the hardships people will go through to immigrate here.  And I get it.  I've lived throughout the world.  Even in Marxist/Leninist nations during the height of the battle for ideas of the 20th century.  You really have to have experienced it first-hand to appreciate all the failures of socialism.  And to fully see how capitalism and free enterprise get it right.  Still corruption and we aren't as capitalist as we once were.  We have entered the realm of Democratic Socialism and its failures have begun the process of creating cracks in the system.  It's important to understand that initially DS appears to have good qualities while it is feeding off the capitalist sector.  Much like your neighbor taking out $100,000 loans every year.  Everyone in the neighborhood sees him going out partying, tipping the waitress who tolerate his digressions, buying nice new cars, and a huge house.  Initially everyone seeks to emulate him and believe he has found the answer.  Until it all comes crashing down.

And this doesn't address all the other craziness. Political correctness. Wokism. But Americans are a different and special bread. They are truly unique and superior in many ways. Even those who immigrate eventually absorb what it means to be American.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 6:06 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 6:06 pm

Oppressed is your term.  I prefer discouraged and ignored.  If reasoning with their better sensibilities doesn't suffice then at some point the discouragement is still not best described by the term "oppression", rather it would more aptly be described as a bullet to the head.  My constitutional rights are inalienable.  Americans are quite tolerant and we "live and let live".  But when it comes to extremes and attempts are made to violate our Constitution or undermine our Republic all bets are off.  Everyone is free to operate within the confines of the Constitution, "but not one inch further".

That only works in libertarian fantasy land. The moment some force (whether private or public) seizes power they will weaponize as many institutions as possible for their own benefit...likely against you.

I can assure you I would prefer a system similar to the early 1800s America when neither public nor private power were greatly concentrated (minus the slavery of course). Because that "up for grabs, everyone has a chance" scenario no longer exists your 2nd best option is to control the levers of power yourself. It is an unfortunate fact that you must acknowledge that people will not play by your principled rules of warfare.

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm

I find it quite interesting that you unwittingly describe mafia activity as capitalism. It is simply not possible that these "capitalists" were serving lawful markets. Your talking about mafiosos.

I know. That is the very crux of the issue.

Okay. Let us grant you this argument. I don't - but for the sake of argument, let us.

My issue is with WALL STREET capitalism. So let us not argue over what we agree about, shall we? Let us argue WALL STREET capitalism - that capitalism which conforms to the definition about which my complaints are made.

If you want to defend THAT capitalism - the I lent my neighbor a saw capitalism, - you will get no argument from me. But if you wish to defend WALL STREET capitalism - the capitalism that is birthed, born, regulated, bailed out and sustained by the government gun, - then perhaps you might begin by explaining why I'm being bullied to surrender my very bodily autonomy to a wall street experiment under threat of the government gun?

We agree there too.  I believe the Wall Street bailouts are criminal and don't abide by our Constitutional foundings.  Many Americans did.  Which is I'm sure what you noticed and caused you to incorrectly attribute it to Wall Street or whatever.  It is just plain corruption plain and simple.  And I vehemently opposed and still do oppose ANY FORM of Wall Street or Corporate bailouts.  If a local restaurant owner goes out of business no government officials come to his rescue.  But let some wealthy corporate fat cats make a misstep and lose Trillions and what happens?  They go crying to the Treasury to bail them out.  After all, they shouldn't have to cancel their vacations in the Bahamas.  So I get you.  Unfortunately many in our nation aren't able to identify and vote out the culprits.  For instance I bet you blame W Bush for the bailouts?  Am I right?

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm

We agree there too.  I believe the Wall Street bailouts are criminal and don't abide by our Constitutional foundings.  Many Americans did.  Which is I'm sure what you noticed and caused you to incorrectly attribute it to Wall Street or whatever.  It is just plain corruption plain and simple.  And I vehemently opposed and still do oppose ANY FORM of Wall Street or Corporate bailouts.  If a local restaurant owner goes out of business no government officials come to his rescue.  But let some wealthy corporate fat cats make a misstep and lose Trillions and what happens?  They go crying to the Treasury to bail them out.  After all, they shouldn't have to cancel their vacations in the Bahamas.  So I get you.  Unfortunately many in our nation aren't able to identify and vote out the culprits.  For instance I bet you blame W Bush for the bailouts?  Am I right?

I will give you some credit for being consistent.  Cuz the bailouts are the EPITOME of ugly socialism

Polar1ty » 29 Dec 2021, 10:22 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:22 pm

That only works in libertarian fantasy land. The moment some force (whether private or public) seizes power they will weaponize as many institutions as possible for their own benefit...likely against you.

I can assure you I would prefer a system similar to the early 1800s America when neither public nor private power were greatly concentrated (minus the slavery of course). Because that "up for grabs, everyone has a chance" scenario no longer exists your 2nd best option is to control the levers of power yourself. It is an unfortunate fact that you must acknowledge that people will not play by your principled rules of warfare.

We got it.  No need to worry.  There are some issues but never count America out.  I'm more concerned about what happens to the rest of the world when we have to focus on a little house cleaning and leave them to their own devices.  And there are attempts to undermine the American Idea.  We are well aware of external forces at work.  They have no idea who they are tangling with.  There are tools in our saddle bags which have never seen the light of day.  Not even in cyberspace.  It's like they appeared out of magic.

We'll make it quick and get back to the business of securing the welfare of others in short order.

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 10:30 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:30 pm

I will give you some credit for being consistent.  Cuz the bailouts are the EPITOME of ugly socialism

So true.

It was the Paulson Plan and I believe it was the Geithner Plan which were enacted under Obama which were truly unconstitutional and corrupt.  W Bush pretty much just called in Wall Street and told them it was up to them to fix the problem and work in their own best interests to fix the problem.  The crisis occurred very late in his administration and there was NO WAY it could be undone before the next administration.  The Bush loans were designed to buy time until the new leadership could be decided upon and allow an opportunity to decide what to do.  All of the Bush Loans were paid back in short order with interest.  Even so, the Bush loans were highly questionable and really pushed the boundary.  The Paulson and Geithner Plans which came out of the Obama administration were just plain morally bankrupt.  Those were so far beyond the pail and likely the largest fraud every perpetrated on a nations citizens since Caligula named his horse president of the Senate and claimed he could interpret his vote by proxy.
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm

We agree there too.  I believe the Wall Street bailouts are criminal and don't abide by our Constitutional foundings.  Many Americans did.  Which is I'm sure what you noticed and caused you to incorrectly attribute it to Wall Street or whatever.  It is just plain corruption plain and simple.  And I vehemently opposed and still do oppose ANY FORM of Wall Street or Corporate bailouts.  If a local restaurant owner goes out of business no government officials come to his rescue. 

Yeah - no foolin. Wall Street raids Main Street - because wall street capitalism runs the **** show.

Main Streeters can go fish. THAT'S the game. And you need to stop defending it by pretending it's an anomoly and not the game rules.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:23 pm

But let some wealthy corporate fat cats make a misstep and lose Trillions and what happens?  They go crying to the Treasury to bail them out.  After all, they shouldn't have to cancel their vacations in the Bahamas.  So I get you.  Unfortunately many in our nation aren't able to identify and vote out the culprits.  For instance I bet you blame W Bush for the bailouts?  Am I right?

Well I don't blame George Wallace.

Who did YOU think started the first round of bailouts? Ron Reagan?

I don't only blame W for the bailouts - I blame him and his socialist party for the crash in the first place. After all, it was the American Dream Down Payment Act which broke the game - though the house of cards was destined to fall eventually, notwithstanding.

I will let the criminal who gave people with no job, no money and no credit free houses on the public teat explain the crime to you in his own words, so that you need not take MY word for anything:

​​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&t=144s

Cannonpointer » 29 Dec 2021, 10:45 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:45 pm

Yeah - no foolin. Wall Street raids Main Street - because wall street capitalism runs the **** show.

Main Streeters can go fish. THAT'S the game. And you need to stop defending it by pretending it's an anomoly and not the game rules.

Well I don't blame George Wallace.

Who did YOU think started the first round of bailouts? Ron Reagan?

I don't only blame W for the bailouts - I blame him and his socialist party for the crash in the first place. After all, it was the American Dream Down Payment Act which broke the game - though the house of cards was destined to fall eventually, notwithstanding.

I will let the criminal who gave people with no job, no money and no credit free houses on the public teat explain the crime to you in his own words, so that you need not take MY word for anything:

​​​​​​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ&t=144s

Bush merely provided Treasury backed loans to be paid back with interest.  They were paid back within a year.  I also believe the timing of the crisis right at the end of the election was not a coincidence.  It was coming at some point but the election certainly affected the timing.  It is well understood Capital Hill is much hastier to comply during an election year.  But the Paulson Plan and Geithner plans were anything but loans.  While the interest offered by Bush and the Treasury were at rates only the US Treasury could obtain during a time when the clowns who lost their *** couldn't get a loan for a decent blow job, I'm not sure Bush had a better option.  We needed time and it isn't like the US can afford to just take a respite from Geopolitics while we sort out Bozo the Clowns Wall Street version of financial seppuku.  but Paulson and Geithner?  No way under any analysis this can be reconciled with free market capitalism.

SJConspirator » 29 Dec 2021, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 5:28 pm

Playing basketball is not work.. its play.  Hence the phrase "play basketball"

Sports is a form of entertainment.  Pro Athletes are like actors and musicians in a sense.. they are paid to entertain.

That is not work.  Working is providing goods or services, creating commodities

And you've obviously never witnessed a Bull's practice (especially when Michael Jordan was dictating the pace).  And I'm sure at some point in his career the tiresome practices outweighed any further gains MJ might have valued.  At some point further wages no longer matter at any level and don't carry the same perceived value.  At some point you get tired of the exhausting practices and just want to enjoy the fortune you have amassed.  I'm sure this is when he decided to retire.

Value is perceived and we all have a different assessment of what something is worth to us based on our situation.  Even Johns will increase the price they are willing to pay after months of neglect at home.  And crack ho's too will drop their demand for increased wages the further they get from their previous fix.  Sometimes a virtual fire sale.
 
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:55 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:55 pm

Bush merely provided Treasury backed loans to be paid back with interest.  They were paid back within a year.

Apologist narrative and **** - pure ****.

I gave you actual video of him approving a half billion to be GIVEN to individual borrowers who had zero money, zero credit and no verified means of income. Your playbook crap is contradicted by the video you apparently did not bother to watch. Whatever "loans" you are referring to have nothing to do with the evidence I showed you.

It's four **** minutes. He was president. It was a critical (and unConstitutional) piece of spending. Take the time. And really THINK about each line item he outlines for the spending - and what the ramifications of those line items are.

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 10:55 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 10:55 pm

I also believe the timing of the crisis right at the end of the election was not a coincidence.  It was coming at some point but the election certainly affected the timing.  It is well understood Capital Hill is much hastier to comply during an election year.  But the Paulson Plan and Geithner plans were anything but loans.  While the interest offered by Bush and the Treasury were at rates only the US Treasury could obtain during a time when the clowns who lost their *** couldn't get a loan for a decent blow job, I'm not sure Bush had a better option.  We needed time and it isn't like the US can afford to just take a respite from Geopolitics while we sort out Bozo the Clowns Wall Street version of financial seppuku.  but Paulson and Geithner?  No way under any analysis this can be reconciled with free market capitalism.

The "available options" in an "emergency" always cost the "public" their "freedoms" and their "asses."

Bush was at CAUSE, not at EFFECT. He had the options he WANTED - well, the options his handlers wanted.

You might want to recall that he backed hillary over trump. That SHOULD tell you something about what team he is on.

The dems and repukes are false opposition answering to the same wall street masters and serving the same globalist ends. Never forget it was HW who coined the term New World Order - and it was bush who signed the patriot act.

You need a broader reading list, IMO.
 
 

LibDave » 29 Dec 2021, 11:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2021, 11:09 pm

And you've obviously never witnessed a Bull's practice (especially when Michael Jordan was dictating the pace).  And I'm sure at some point in his career the tiresome practices outweighed any further gains MJ might have valued.  At some point further wages no longer matter at any level and don't carry the same perceived value.  At some point you get tired of the exhausting practices and just want to enjoy the fortune you have amassed.  I'm sure this is when he decided to retire.

Value is perceived and we all have a different assessment of what something is worth to us based on our situation.  Even Johns will increase the price they are willing to pay after months of neglect at home.  And crack ho's too will drop their demand for increased wages the further they get from their previous fix.  Sometimes a virtual fire sale.

what your struggling mightily to describe is "diminishing returns" .. the point at which further effort exerted is no longer worth perceived return.