Road to the White House 2016

[Barothmuk]

But where does this anti-Capitalism come from? Are you originally from Oz..what is your fundamental reason for this dislike of Capitalism..I am genuinely interested?

It's not like there's some dramatic backstory.

 

I come from poverty stricken white trash and I read a lot.

[Meshugger]

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

 

 

I should make a seperate thread about it some day.

[Barothmuk]

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

That seems detrimental to freedom. Or is that not a goal?

[BruceVC]

 

But where does this anti-Capitalism come from? Are you originally from Oz..what is your fundamental reason for this dislike of Capitalism..I am genuinely interested?

It's not like there's some dramatic backstory.

 

I come from poverty stricken white trash and I read a lot.

 

Okay thanks for sharing, I wasn't necessarily expecting a complicated story but if for example you said to me " I am from Serbia " then ultimately our views of the West would be very different. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get on of course 

 

So what you need to know about why I support the West and free markets is because I live and work in a continent that has the greatest levels of poverty in the world...and this poverty exists for several reasons but one of the main reasons is because of the lack of  economic opportunities caused by the failure to implement free markets and lack of good governance 

 

So I see on a daily basis what happens in world without Capitalism ..its not pretty  

[Meshugger]

 

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

That seems detrimental to freedom. Or is that not a goal?

 

 

I'll just leave it here and throw some seeds with the video below, i have derailed long enough. 

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

That seems detrimental to freedom. Or is that not a goal?

 

 

I'll just leave it here and throw some seeds with the video below, i have derailed long enough. 

 

 

Whats your definition of " Traditionalism " ...please go into detail but in the context of Finland and what you would change and why ?

[Orogun01]

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

 

BTW, what traditions are we going to follow? Cuz I'm trying to praise the sun but it's cloudy outside.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism

 

More spooks aren't the answer.

 

Edited August 21, 2015 by KaineParker

[Namutree]

 

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, 

 

Those "safe guards" will not prevent monopolies. They will be used to create and protect monopolies. 

 

 

 

I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions

Good business' do that on their own and the few buffoons who don't (when the option to do so is present) wont last long.

 

 

Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional  but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat 

Saying that the public sector is dysfunctional and the private sector is keeping the economy afloat is like saying that people in your country breathe oxygen.

[BruceVC]

 

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

 

BTW, what traditions are we going to follow? Cuz I'm trying to praise the sun but it's cloudy outside.

 

Oh Orog I was watching the opening of the American embassy in Cuba and they had this festival and these Cuban dancing girls ...and oh my hat these girls were smoking hot ,,,dude Cuban girls are nice, you should never have   left 

Edited August 21, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

I don't believe that economies should be planned, but I do think there need to be safeguards in place to protect workers and prevent monopolies, 

 

Those "safe guards" will not prevent monopolies. They will be used to create and protect monopolies. 

 

 

 

I also agree that there needs to be a balance between profitability and working conditions

Good business' do that on their own and the few buffoons who don't (when the option to do so is present) wont last long.

 

 

Our public sector is under huge pressure and many parastatals are dysfunctional  but the private sector where I work is profitable and is actually what is keeping the country economically afloat 

Saying that the public sector is dysfunctional and the private sector is keeping the economy afloat is like saying that people in your country breathe oxygen.

 

I'm not with you ? Are you saying its obvious that about South Africa ?

[Namutree]

 

 

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

 

BTW, what traditions are we going to follow? Cuz I'm trying to praise the sun but it's cloudy outside.

 

Oh Orog I was watching the opening of the American embassy in Cuba and they had this festival and these Cuban dancing girls ...and oh my hat these girls were smoking hot ,,,dude Cuban girls are nice, you should never have   left 

 

Escaping the Castro regime was worth it I'd imagine.

[Wrath of Dagon]

But Venezuela is a really bad example of a socialist experiment gone wrong...no one in the USA would follow such an extreme system of government

Venezuela is an excellent example of what would happen here if Sanders and his ilk ever took over. Remember, Venezuelan government was also elected, perhaps with some fraud, but we have lots of fraud here as well. And Obola is already completely ignoring the rule of law.

 

 

 

No its not suppose to be, its about the private sector

The existence of a private sector requires repression and authoritarianism.

 

Edit: Where's my avatar?

 

In what way are you being repressed?

 

 

 

 

From your link: "Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes."If you honestly think that Bernie Sanders is going to bring back the gulag and inflict Holodomor 2.0 on the South, then I have no idea what Bernie Sanders you've been hearing about but it isn't the guy running for president.

OK, so using the alternative definition social democrat = socialist so your making a distinction earlier is redundant. No one argues he wants a violent overthrow of the government or Stalinist repression. But government is always coercive, so once he establishes a confiscatory level of taxation whoever refuses to pay will still go to prison, just like the guy in my quote (of course he'd need a like minded Congress and I don't see that happening soon, but that seems like a poor argument for electing someone President).

 

You already go to prison if you don't pay taxes in the US. See Wesley Snipes.

 

But we don't have confiscatory levels of taxation yet.

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

 

Edit: in any case - I'd love to see an America with much more power given back to the individual states.. Your strength is your pluralism, centralization doesn't seem to fit you as well as us of a more Germanic mindset.. Perhaps its some of that Italian ancestry, they never could handle it either..

 

Your second paragraph is spot on. Scandinavian societies are small, homogeneous, and have a completely different culture from US. Also you don't have actual Socialism, just a smaller private sector supporting a larger public sector through high taxes which you apparently don't mind paying.

[Rosbjerg]

We call that culture 'Stateist individualism'.. And without it I would never advocate the Nordic model, otherwise you get Venezuela.. No matter how small or big the country.

 

So it wasn't to say its inherently superior just that socialiam or a socialist mindset doesn't always equal opression.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

Pleh, all these modern views of society is so faux-intellectual when the answer is right before your eyes: Traditionalism.

 

BTW, what traditions are we going to follow? Cuz I'm trying to praise the sun but it's cloudy outside.

 

Oh Orog I was watching the opening of the American embassy in Cuba and they had this festival and these Cuban dancing girls ...and oh my hat these girls were smoking hot ,,,dude Cuban girls are nice, you should never have   left 

 

Escaping the Castro regime was worth it I'd imagine.

 

Plus, we have a lot of Cubans in South Florida.

[Namutree]

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

 

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

 

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

[BruceVC]

 

Venezuela is an excellent example of what would happen here if Sanders and his ilk ever took over. Remember, Venezuelan government was also elected, perhaps with some fraud, but we have lots of fraud here as well. And Obola is already completely ignoring the rule of law.

 

 

 

WOD we actually share many similar views  on topics like the  relevance of Capitalism and free markets 

 

So you mustn't think we differ in everything 

 

Venezuela was an experiment that went horribly wrong, it only was able to sustain itself under Chavez and that was due to his personality and ideological influence 

 

He believed he could create a new form of government that was vociferously anti-Western, socialist and had advantages that " no Western " country had ...like the almost free oil

 

But he made the same mistake Russia made, he was dependent on Oil and never considered what would happen if the oil price crashed. He also  brutally controlled or suppressed any political dissension...this was not sustainable and when he died the underlying problems became very noticeable and impacted Venezuela immediately 

 

But Venezuela was a unique socialist experiment,very few leaders  would be so impudent around governance 

[Rosbjerg]

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

 

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

Yes and no. There are very complex laws and regulations as well as chinese level government oversight (they come by often for inspiration actually)... The difference is, the government here is actually somewhat competent and widely trusted to carry out its job - in large part due to citizen participation and cooperation.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

 

You see that's the salient point, you can have  forms of socialism like the Scandinavian countries and it works and they have free markets and successful Capitalist industries

 

But it would never work in the USA  because in order for it work you would have to have  the federal government get much more involved in your states  and it  seems many Americans don't like this idea 

Edited August 21, 2015 by BruceVC

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

 

I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses. 

[Namutree]

 

You see that's the salient point, you can have  forms of socialism like the Scandinavian countries and it works and they have free markets and successful Capitalist industries

 

They're not forms of socialism. They're capitalist whether or not they're eager to admit it. Obviously, there's some socialism there just like everywhere, but far less than normal.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

 

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses.

But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

[Namutree]

 

But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

You mean "private property" right? Can't really even have a market without at least personal property. As for intellectual property: The whole idea's hogwash. It's a concept that should be disposed of and not practiced.

[BruceVC]

 

 

You see that's the salient point, you can have  forms of socialism like the Scandinavian countries and it works and they have free markets and successful Capitalist industries

 

They're not forms of socialism. They're capitalist whether or not they're eager to admit it. Obviously, there's some socialism there just like everywhere, but far less than normal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporatocracy and repressive monopolies are possible today because of a large government and its oversized jungle of rules and regulation, not in spite of it.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...

Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen.

How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?

I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses.

But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

 

 Some  examples of the differences between the Scandinavian countries and the USA would be

 

• Very high taxes in the Scandinavian countries  but excellent and working institutions like education and healthcare. This is very important ..its a bizarre thought for people that live outside the USA to think that there are people in the USA who suffer medically just because they have limited healthcare
• There are not many billionaires or super rich people in the Scandinavian countries compared to the USA ..of course there are rich people but there society is more equal
•  The Scandanvians believe in the role of there goverment in most cases, they don't see it like  many Americans do where you feel the federal goverment is interferring in the affairs of some states. For example when the US Supreme Court passed the gay marriage law many people outside the USA thought "about time ...welcome to the rest of the West " not realizing that many Americans felt the Federal government has gone to far

Our friends who live there can disagree with me but those are some of the differences