The great debate

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:14 pm

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Oct 4 2012, 08:02 PM) internationally, i think we see a lot of right-wing extremism gaining ground because it's become so popular in the united states, so foreign politicians following the same ideologies can go "look the united states is doing it and they're free and they're $#@!ing rich so we need to do this bat@#(! crazy @#(! so we can be free and $#@!ing rich too!"

You're not wrong

Our version of "young republicans" sent a huge delegation to Tampa, and really enjoyed being guests there. The youth movement of the party are 400% more annoying than the adults. They are really into Ayn Rand and totally want to be like your republicans. The actual adult politicians actually tend to want to maintain the wellfare state, and just tweak it a little (at least they don't dare say anything else in public). So... the center right party (which would probably be close to your Democrats) has a junior wing that would be hard core young republicans and want people to sign the "no taxes" pledge.

Oh, and on the subject of taxes, there's been a lot of polls on that here, and 70 - 80% of the people say they will rather pay more taxes than have the government services cut.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:42 am

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Oct 4 2012, 06:41 AM) I wonder if this thread would be a good place to talk about the rather polarised rhetoric heard from the US republicans and right wing parties all over the world. The classic claim is that right wing parties promote "freedom" and "capitalism" and left wing parties will choke the life out of the economy, and punish business owners. Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland are sometimes used as examples of European big government nanny-state hellholes.

It's quite interesting to see what the highly esteemed Economic Freedom indexhas to say on the matter. The most recent, fully finished and released survey is from 2010.

Add that to the survey that put Finland as the least likely country to experience political instability, and I would really like to feed this stack of paper to our own conservative party, who keeps preaching how we should be more like the USA where free enterprise is so much easier.

Free markets != Capitalism. I cannot think of a single first world country that has Capitalism. Capitalism needs to be able to regulate its own lifebood (interest rates) in order to function. Without that it is simply a mixed economy.

However, this seems to be a concept lost on most everyone.

NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Oct 4 2012, 07:02 AM) the republican party is religious-based ideologies (anti-gays, anti-abortion, etc) plus "our campaigns are paid for by financial institutions so we have to pander to them"

the democrat party is "our campaigns are paid for by financial institutions so we have to pander to them"

internationally, i think we see a lot of right-wing extremism gaining ground because it's become so popular in the united states, so foreign politicians following the same ideologies can go "look the united states is doing it and they're free and they're $#@!ing rich so we need to do this bat@#(! crazy @#(! so we can be free and $#@!ing rich too!"

Yup. Nailed it on the head.

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Oct 4 2012, 10:14 AM) You're not wrong

Our version of "young republicans" sent a huge delegation to Tampa, and really enjoyed being guests there. The youth movement of the party are 400% more annoying than the adults. They are really into Ayn Rand and totally want to be like your republicans. The actual adult politicians actually tend to want to maintain the wellfare state, and just tweak it a little (at least they don't dare say anything else in public). So... the center right party (which would probably be close to your Democrats) has a junior wing that would be hard core young republicans and want people to sign the "no taxes" pledge.

Oh, and on the subject of taxes, there's been a lot of polls on that here, and 70 - 80% of the people say they will rather pay more taxes than have the government services cut.

Ayn Rand was much more Libertarian-esque (she was vehemently against being labeled a Libertarian and didn't like the Libertarians in America). Republican's take some aspects of Rand, but not enough to really say they are like her.

There is no problem with not increasing taxes so long as people are willing to cut services, and/or reform existing services so they are less costly.

But Adept, don't forget that Americans are, much moreso than other first world nations, distrustful of government and have a much harder time believing that government can do something better.

Unlike Europe, America was born as a relatively free country not under the oppression of a King or Emperor.

CronoDroid · Post by **CronoDroid** » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:29 am

I'll leave these here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/d...he-economy.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...nts-top-republ/
http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-va...e-tax-liability
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-0...axes-red-states
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html
http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?ref=us <-- check out the education and income maps.

The comments in the Bloomberg article are hilarious. I don't know for sure whether a Democratic President IS better for the economy, but the numbers are in the article so you can draw your own conclusion if you really want. The other numbers are there too. Let's just say that I find it hilariously cruel that Red states actively vote for the party that is contrary to their interests because they apparently care about social, moral and religious issue - but historically, voters actually do care most about economic issues. They just think that their party cares about them in that way when it does clearly does not.

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 4 2012, 06:42 PM) Free markets != Capitalism. I cannot think of a single first world country that has Capitalism. Capitalism needs to be able to regulate its own lifebood (interest rates) in order to function. Without that it is simply a mixed economy.

However, this seems to be a concept lost on most everyone.

Uh, you are confusing the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is quite simply private entities controlling the means of production for the sake of profit. In much the same way socialism is state control of the means of production. You have this habit of assigning arbitrary and extraneous meanings to words used to describe these different systems instead of actually addressing the individual components separately. The US is capitalist. China is capitalist (to an extent). North Korea is not capitalist. Every single developed country is capitalist to some degree, and it would be factually inaccurate to say the US is not capitalist. It would be like looking at the postal service and AmTrak and calling the US a socialist state - it's wrong.

Interest rates aren't the lifeblood of capitalism although they are obviously an important element. I think you'll find most economists would agree that the LIFEBLOOD of capitalism (or its most important element) is private enterprise. Either that or the pursuit of profit or the free market. I know where you're going with this so I'll say again; central banking is not incompatible with capitalism, contrary to what Ron Paul thinks.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:35 am

You know what pisses me off is that for change to occur in this nation, the only viable resource we have is the extremist idea of a coup de etat, force those who damage this nation through corporatism out of office. Brb hiding from CIA and FBI because I will probably will be taken into a prison camp for saying that.

Also Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9xx6bjyawg...layer_embedded#! (thanks Metz)

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:44 am

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Oct 4 2012, 10:29 PM) Uh, you are confusing the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is quite simply private entities controlling the means of production for the sake of profit. In much the same way socialism is state control of the means of production. You have this habit of assigning arbitrary and extraneous meanings to words used to describe these different systems instead of actually addressing the individual components separately. The US is capitalist. China is capitalist (to an extent). North Korea is not capitalist. Every single developed country is capitalist to some degree, and it would be factually inaccurate to say the US is not capitalist. It would be like looking at the postal service and AmTrak and calling the US a socialist state - it's wrong.

Interest rates aren't the lifeblood of capitalism although they are obviously an important element. I think you'll find most economists would agree that the LIFEBLOOD of capitalism (or its most important element) is private enterprise. Either that or the pursuit of profit or the free market. I know where you're going with this so I'll say again; central banking is not incompatible with capitalism, contrary to what Ron Paul thinks.

Yes yes, you are right.

But Capitalism cannot properly function without being able to regulate itself.

Children and bucket-loads of candy are not incompatible, but they are a terrible mix.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:47 am

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 5 2012, 06:44 PM) Yes yes, you are right.

But Capitalism cannot properly function without being able to regulate itself.

Children and bucket-loads of candy are not incompatible, but they are a terrible mix.

Corporatism and Capitalism are two very different ideas

Edit: Forbes article on capitalism and corporatism

"In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim. Capitalism is the political system which ensures that innocent “economic power” (i.e., the power to produce) isn’t mixed with force to become invalid political power (i.e., the power to loot); it’s the system that separates business and state, for the same good reason that it also makes sure to separate church and state. Neither of the two recent political movements – “Occupy Wall Street” or the “Tea Party” – seem to fully grasp this."

"In the world today (and for most of the past century) we haven’t had capitalism per se but instead the welfare state and corporatism; we’ve had what are commonly called “mixed economies,” those with some remaining vestiges of capitalist freedom but also many (and fast-proliferating) controls and taxes. Obfuscations about capitalism’s real nature and the blurring of distinctions between the terms capitalism and corporatism make it difficult for most people to discern cause and effect whenever some disaster or corruption arises, and thus it’s difficult to assign proper blame or achieve a lasting remedy. Yet people should always remind themselves that freedom breeds peace, justice, and prosperity, while coercion breeds violence, exploitation and poverty. When a mixed economy fails, it’s not its capitalist aspect that fails – unless you believe freedom itself fails."

-Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman...-or-cronyism/2/

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:52 am

SgtMajor wrote:QUOTE (SgtMajor @ Oct 5 2012, 02:47 PM) Corporatism and Capitalism are two very different ideas

That is true, but what are you making that in reference to???

Oh, I see you mentioned it in your above post.

Uh... a strongly pro-union President could break that cycle as well... but the Republicans have done a damn good job of convincing everyone that Unions are the scum of the Earth.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:57 am

Unions will not break the backdoor deals that occur on a daily basis, in where the poor get more poor, the dollar gets more inflated and reprinted, the dollar loses value, corporation outsource causes governmental support, bailouts.

Everything that is doomed to fail is regulatory America

Quick edit: What I mean to say is that, the government is beginning to press support on the corporation instead of the individual, now I understand libertarians do not believe in the social net per say, but they do believe in equal opportunity

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:25 am

SgtMajor wrote:QUOTE (SgtMajor @ Oct 5 2012, 03:57 PM) Unions will not break the backdoor deals that occur on a daily basis, in where the poor get more poor, the dollar gets more inflated and reprinted, the dollar loses value, corporation outsource causes governmental support, bailouts.

Everything that is doomed to fail is regulatory America

Quick edit: What I mean to say is that, the government is beginning to press support on the corporation instead of the individual, now I understand libertarians do not believe in the social net per say, but they do believe in equal opportunity

Don't forget that Unions tend to be protectionist. While not great for inflation, it would help to raise salaries (and revenue) for the government, a dollar may not go as far... but... there may be slightly more employment here with stronger tariffs against certain nations.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:34 am

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 5 2012, 07:25 PM) Don't forget that Unions tend to be protectionist. While not great for inflation, it would help to raise salaries (and revenue) for the government, a dollar may not go as far... but... there may be slightly more employment here with stronger tariffs against certain nations.

Stronger tariffs against certain nations? Are you kidding me? Our current economy of outsourcing has an economy based OUTSIDE of the United States, do you have any idea what strong foreign taxes in an unfair nationalist economy will do?

Destroy our own economy in the process, MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION is not the answer