Socialism is what saved America.

My money oh my god my money!.... I'm gonna get a certain morbid satisfaction watching
The economic crisis evaporate peoples silly ideas of "my money" ...

Go ahead and laugh Indy, you're not safe either...be sure of it, the cause is unabashed capitalism, not socialism.

 

In true communism you don't need to keep track of what you do, it's all for you as much as anyone else, in the end, it all evens out and your brand of greedy matierial goes away.

But that will never happen or work.

 

That's nice if you're satisfied living with just the barest of necessities, which appears to be something even those who promote socialism or communism are not.

 

I fear you've spoken about something you clearly know nothing about. I also fear you don't even know the definitions of the simple terms you're throwing around. You need to separate government intervention, from capitalism. If you really knew anything about the economic crisis, you'd know that it was caused not by evil capitalists, but by bad government policy, many of which, could be considered socialist in nature. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to lower their lending standards because politicians short sightedly decided to act on the very Socialist idea that "everyone deserves to own a home". Speculation was also fueled by the federal reserve forcing interest rates lower than the market equilibrium. I'm not going to go into business cycle theory, and why this is bad policy, but certainly you know that the Federal Reserve, or any central bank, isn't a product of capitalism, but instead a creation of government. Central banking also coincides with socialist ideas, because it involves the centralization of power. The existence of a central bank and it's control of the money supply is exactly what permits our governments to run up the enormous debt that is another key contributor to the economic crises. Which also, has nothing to do with capitalism. Do you even know what capitalism is? Here's a dictionary definition for you: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."

A dose of "unabashed capitalism" would be a pleasant reprieve from our current situation. You're pinning the blame on our only possible solution. And if you support socialism, or any such centrist philosophy, than you're asking for more of exactly what caused the problem. You should be lamenting over our central government. It's the one that got us into this mess, not private firms or individuals.

http://www.libertariantee.com

 

I doubt the banks needed much force.

 

Says you.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm just gonna quote Richard Wolf on this one;( Bold added for emphasis)

 

A society can produce far more than is needed for everyone to have the bare necessities. If it's true communism the whole society reaps the rewards of efficient (Read: not soviet or other large scale communism that has existed) labor.

And if you're indicating that you DON'T think a society can produce enough for the whole society, I can't POSSIBLY agree with NOT redistributing wealth, because that would mean that some of the society has far less than the bare necessities.

Your post implies a desire to make government suit YOU most, simple greed. Which I am sure you will agrue is good because it makes people work, or something.

You simply choose "fair" to be the most leniant with you, and then speak as if all of society could or should be like you.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY"]Capitalism Hits the Fan - Richard Wolff - YouTube

 

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Sticking to the bare necessities, I agree that some, and perhaps even most societies, can and do produce far more than needed. You then move to the redistribution of wealth as providing the means by which those necessities should be provided. Why not instead simply redistribute the real necessities? And what is wrong with requiring those who are able to perform some work in order to receive their needs?

Is it not greedy to want something for nothing? Those you harp on as being greedy at least provide something that others see as worthy of exchanging their money for. Take Facebook stock as an example, around $38 per share priced well over 100 times their acknowledged earning per share, yet a huge number of people decided it worthy of purchase, and now is trading around $20.72 per share.

If all of society was like me their would be no need at all for government run social programs, or huge, inefficient, and costly government bureaucracies.

 

Unfortunately,IMO,most of society has already been convinced to BE like you. The repubs will,I'm sure do away with most if not all social safety nets in due time. That's fine--the sooner it happens,the quicker people will begin to look for a complete change from Ayn Rand-type attitudes to a more humane,equatable system that discards the "I got mine--if you can't get yours-tough shit" way of life ,hopefully. WPA, CCC and other programs were definately a type of socialism and put millions to work when Roosevelt brought them into being. Some say those programs saved the country from completely collapsing into chaos. I have met people that worked those programs and they were damn glad to have them.

This crap happens every 30 to 50 years it seems and it's always the fault of those "on top". Sure as hell wasn't the middle class that brought this or any othe monetary crisis on. Always the same greedy money grubbing bastards for whom there is not enough money in the world,even if they already control most of it.

 

If only that is true, then progress is being made assuring some measure of prosperity for future generations. Our two party system of government has become a single source of power from which the ills of society are created, primarily our debt which is nothing more than a tax upon all the members of society, both living and yet unborn.
The Federal government should never have been allowed to become the provider of social safety nets. Except in extreme cases, such as war and natural disasters, the people of the individual societies should be the providers of such assistance to one another, which is the only way in which strong societies are created and grow. Government, especially at the Federal level, has become the greatest source of division, dividing citizens on so many issues that enhances the ability of politicians to acquire and retain power simply by the votes obtainable on an issue by issue basis and pitting voters against one another on an issue basis. Basically voters are led to vote based on two things, on issues by which they will profit in some way, and against those who support issues or people which they have no effect at all on them, but they have been led to belligerently disagree with, such as Ayn Rand.
It's difficult to communicate when words such as "humane" and "equitable" are misused only as a means of promoting an agenda.
I promoted the use of government created social work programs in an earlier post as a means of providing welfare and unemployment assistance and was chastised by Balbus, who claims such to be a form of slavery, forcing persons to perform work to acquire their needs.
If the problem is always the fault of those on top, why are you intent on increasing their power above that of the people to create these problems in the future? I'm afraid I look at those "money grubbing bastards" as a source, if not the best source of acquiring my own needs and wants. You surely won't earn your keep working for or trying to sell to those who are penniless.

 

Most socialists, I've found, are simply people that are looking for a hand out. They want something for free. They are looking for equality in results, and not in opportunity. It's a simplistic, rather moraless view on how society should be arranged. In a free market, money is allocated to people and industries according to its value to the general public, or consumers. So, if someone has gotten rich, in a free market, it's because consumers have found value in whatever that person or firm is producing. So people on the bottom, who have contributed little or nothing, look at the wealthy who are better off and scream injustice. It just makes sense that if only there were somebody (in this case government), who would confiscate the riches wealth and redistribute it all to the needy, the world would be a better place! Right? The problem with a system like this, is when it's implemented, the high producing people at the top, who get all their wealth confiscated, lose the incentive to be those high producing people, and so stop. Ayn Rand had it absolutely right in this respect, and history agrees with her. Ever heard of the Berlin Wall? ever heard of the USSR? All experiments with socialism fail miserably. It takes away people's incentives to produce. Look at France. It's socialist president has proposed a 75% tax on the highest earners, and the few wealthy remaining are fleeing the country in droves. If you weren't such lazy, useless bums, you'd be advocating for equal opportunity, and not equal results. An environment where people are rewarded according to their usefulness to society. It is a system geared towards this end that has given us the highest standard of living per capita. The only obstacles we have to such a system, is government, and people like you who want to wield government to steal from one group, and give to another. In the case of the "social net", it's actually doesn't benefit the poor at all, but simply keeps them that way. Let's look at the facts:
http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html
As you can see, the poverty rate was actually plummeting before social net spending really took off, and after it did, the poverty rate has been completely stagnet ever since. Contrary to what you believe, before our "safety net", there weren't people starving and dying in the streets, there have always been charities, churches, and organizations who take care of, and assist the poor. And according to the data, those organizations did a MUCH better job at getting people out of poverty than your beloved "safety net"

http://www.libertariantee.com

 

Also, in the case of economic "downtowns", as that hack u quoted called them, name me ONE throughout history, that was caused by free market capitalism, and not by some sort of government intervention, and I will concede that capitalism is an abject failure. Name ONE

 

"No one is so stubborn and dangerous as the beneficiaries of a fallen idea - they defend not the idea, but their bare life and the loot." - Márai Sándor

 

pretty much any ghost town

 

A "ghost town" could result because any number of reasons. We're referring to depressions, or recessions, which is an across the board decline in economic activity and/or standards of living. Not just in a single town.

Oh, and one more thing.. Someone up there said Obama was funded only by individuals and a grass roots movement, get real. A simple google search will tell you otherwise:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638