The Stereotypical Political OT

[ZIM]

It is true, however, that Hitler and his party the national socialists modelled a lot of their social programs on Roosevelts 'new deal' which involved large scale state spending.

The "New Deal", in turn, was based upon Communism as envisioned by Stalin- or "Uncle Joe" as Roosevelt foldly referred to him. The FDR Admin was rife with Communists.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
The fundamental aim of socialism is to maximise the wealth of the worst off... The fundamental aim of Capitalism , OTOH, is to maximise the wealth of the best off

This is plainly incorrect. You seem to be confusing your personal speculations about capitalism with the aims of capitalists, which is a common but completely unreasonable tactic. Socialism and capitalism share the same goal of distributing wealth and labor in a manner to most benefit the citizens, where they vary is not in this goal, but rather in how they suggest this goal be reached.

The... typical result... of Capitalism , OTOH, is to maximize the wealth of the best off

While maximizing the wealth of the least off as well -- or would you like to argue that the lower class in the leading capitalist economies are worse off than the lower classes elsewhere?

Were it to turn out that an alternative mode of social and economic organisation <than planned economies> is better able to meet this goal then any truly committed socialist would embrace it.

Maybe, and then they'd stop being a socialist. This is certainly what happened to me: I recognized that the free economy is a better tool; yet it would be absurd to call me a socialist. Your error here seems to arise from the above noted mistake of believing socialism and capitalism to have entirely different goals by which they may be distinguished. In absence of this, we need some other way of distinguishing them -- and here it is.

some posit a ‘trickle down benefits to the poor’ argument to try and offset this naked self interest but it is clear that only direct taxation can ensure that this really happens in practice.

No, that's not clear at all. The free market is not put forth, as you suggest, as the method for making the rich richer, but for making everyone richer. Again you confuse your personal speculations about capitalism with what capitalists actually think (again this is unacceptable).

the aims of fascism are difficult to talk

No they're not. Hitler wanted to improve the lifestyle of his countrymen, just like other socialists and capitalists do. It's a vast error to rewrite him into a senseless monster. Just like with the distinction between socialists and capitalists offered above, where Hitler differed was in his methods.

Hitler for example had the specific aim of eliminating jews

No, this was a method. He didn't say "we have to do X to get rid of the Jews", he said "we have to get rid of the Jews to do X."

<Fascism> clearly can be the case whether the economy is centrally planned or not.

Could you give an example when it was not, then? Otherwise, this doesn't seem to be the case.

is America therefore socialist?

I think Merryprankster addressed this a while ago.

[Spark]

While maximizing the wealth of the least off as well -- or would you like to argue that the lower class in the leading capitalist economies are worse off than the lower classes elsewhere?

That is such a load of bunk.
If a capitolist society is so concerned about "maximizing" the wealth of the least off - then why do corporations close shop and go to mexico, burma etc ... so they can pay wages of $1 a day? How is that "maximizing" the wealth of the least off?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Spark
why do corporations close shop and go to mexico, burma etc ... so they can pay wages of $1 a day? How is that "maximizing" the wealth of the least off?

The least off only count if they're Americans?

[Leimeng]

~ Perhaps a better way to state the difference of political policies than to say "Right & Left" or what ever would be to talk about "Statism" v "Libertarianism or Liberty". Facism and Socialism are forms of statism as is modern Amerian Liberalism. That is, they want to use the state to control the people and resources of a given people. In Liberalism the ideal is to set up institutions and regimes which will take from all to provide some sort of benefit to the minority. Thus we can observe why many people feel that GW is a liberal. He wants to strenghten institutions to provide benefits to a certain constituancy. The point in it is that it is a state form of control over private resources. Communism comes out and says that there is no such thing as a private resource.
~ Given that, the question comes down to; how much state control do you want to permit in your life? Do you want the state to tell you what you can or cannot do with your money? Excessive taxation is exactly that.
~ Corporations exist solely to make profit for their owners. In a Corporation the owners are the stock holders. These are people who buy mutual funds that invest in the corporation or people who own common and/or preferred stock. When the cost of operations cuts into profit the corporations try to cut costs so they can provide profit to the owners. Due to the cost of excessive regulation and high wages, many times the company will move outside of the country to do business. A company also will move a facility if there are not enough people with the required skill level to do a job, because of a tax advantage, or because of regulations. Sometimes a company will move a manufacturing facility to another location to cut down on shipping costs. That is why a lot of Japanese cars are made in the USA - $4000 in shipping costs raises the price of a product and makes it less competative.
~ Interestingly, most jobs that 'move overseas' don't go to India, China or Mexico. Instead they go to Europe, or come to the USA. Official statistics published last March in the Survey of Current Business showed an increase of 2.8 million jobs outsourced by American-owned multinational corporations during a quarter of a century ending in 2001. Over that same span of time, there was an increase of 4.7 million jobs outsourced to Americans by foreign-owned multinational corporations.
~ Meanwhile our current unemployment rate -- 5.4 percent -- is one of the lowest in the world and one of the lowest in our own history.
~ Political and economic analysis needs to look at a lot of factors beyond they tripe fed us by the statist media and our edu-cratorial school systems. There are a lot of resources out there for analyzing what is really happening so that you need not be swayed by rhetoric.
~ To be continued....
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Flatulo Ergo Sum --

Is it possible to be totally partial?

(***Insert Personal Wise Assed Comment Here***)

[Merryprankster]

I think Merryprankster addressed this a while ago.

Huh? When? Not challenging, just curious - as I certainly do not believe that I did it anywhere in this thread on purpose!

I've got to go with Chris M on all the capitalism vs. socialism stuff. With respect to capitalism, I would like to make a distinction, please - "Trickle down effect," is a term commonly used here in the States to refer to the economic benefit derived from cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The theory is that these are your primary investors and giving them more money to play with means economic growth as money required to establish new businesses or recapitalize existing ones becomes easier to obtain. I happen to disagree fundamentally with this approach, and most economists - although there are some who support it - tend to believe that this is, in fact "voodoo economics."

Capitalism's goal is to maximize total economic size. While it is true that the wealthy tend to get wealthier, the poor, contrary to some opinions, do not continue to get poorer. In general, they tend to get richer as well and their real purchasing power increases. What DOES happen is, as the economy evolves and changes, different skill sets are required - manufacturing jobs do go overseas, but new ones are created in other sectors. In the AGGREGATE over time, the economy grows, it's just that some sectors lose while others gain. I realize that this causes consternation in the rust belt or in the textile factories, but protecting these and other economic sectors in favor of some sort of autarchy is inadvisable because specialization and economies of scale makes for a more efficient, profitable and ultimately bigger economy. There is no more efficient method of creating wealth for the simple reason that a private economy multiplies the money supply as the currency changes hands over and over again. When a government agency or government owned business gets hold of it, it's static. It doesn't get spent as many times and contributes less to overall growth. There is a real opportunity cost incurred for every dollar that goes to the gubmint.

This should not be taken as a wholesale endorsement of an unregulated business environment. Transparency in the economy is key to a fair, competitive market. Consequently, you need a stable, corruption free government IN THE MAIN, which will actively policing businesses for ethical and legal violations. Otherwise, you devolve into a kleptocratic environment driven by bribes, kickbacks or other considerations - a death blow to economic growth.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
When?

With your "The argument about the role of government ended a while ago gentlemen and those who believe to make it all things to all people won." I was being a little <more> facetious <than usual even> though, as I think it's a silly question.

I would like to make a distinction, please - "Trickle down effect," is a term commonly used here...

Right, you don't have to be a supply-sider to be a capitalist. (Bringing it back to the former topic -- just like you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist.)

[Merryprankster]

Right, you don't have to be a supply-sider to be a capitalist.

Thank god...

[MonkeySlap Too]

Thank you MP. What he said.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Bigg Jus

[ZIM]

Celsius 41.11

[Radhnoti]

Count, I took my "where they stand on key issues" info from the site I referrenced.
You made quite a few responses there. Just to refute the one that's in direct conflict with the site I mentioned.

You said, "Education: Lip service unless you actually fund it."

Federal spending on Education has jumped nearly 50% with Bush in office. What the democrats seem to have a problem with is that he asked teachers and schools to show what kind of return that funding is bringing.

Everything else you said I also disagree with for various reasons...most of which was covered earlier in this thread.

Edit: Actually, I meant to agree with you that the Death Penalty should be a State issue. I didn't choose the "key issues" though, just took what MSNBC had thrown together. I wouldn't have put down their religious views as "key" either.

Take care,

Radh

[count]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Count, I took my "where they stand on key issues" info from the site I referrenced.
You made quite a few responses there. Just to refute the one that's in direct conflict with the site I mentioned.

You said, "Education: Lip service unless you actually fund it."

Federal spending on Education has jumped nearly 50% with Bush in office. What the democrats seem to have a problem with is that he asked teachers and schools to show what kind of return that funding is bringing.

Everything else you said I also disagree with for various reasons...most of which was covered earlier in this thread.

Radh

Well go right ahead and vote for your man. I have no problem with that. Except Bush still is around 27 billion short so far on what he promised for his education program and the data is still out on how effective his call for accountability will be. He still plans to cut afterschool funding by 40 percent in 2004, but hey, what can you do with a half a trillion dollar deficit? But if that doesn't bug ya, by all means feel free to disagree with everything I said.

You take care too.

[Merryprankster]

There is a real opportunity cost incurred for every dollar that goes to the gubmint.

As an aside, I would also like to point out that this opportunity cost is overplayed by many people when it comes to the United States. For instance, we spend about 4% of our GDP on defense - reducing or increasing that spending by even, say, half would have little effect on our economy one way or another.

Similarly, increasing or decreasing the income tax 1% on the wealthiest 20% of Americans would have little effect on our economy.

The reason is the sheer size of our GDP. These changes (which have significant impact in the size of the United States' government budget/revenues) are like ant bites to an elephant.

I would also like to point out that my comment regarding the government being all things to all people is NOT a comment about government size (the U.S. government is relatively tiny and uninvolved compared to other powers in this world) - it's a comment about priority setting. Resources are finite, but the tasking for government from the people can be infinite. Our process, in theory, should create a set of priorities which can be used to pare down that tasking to meet resource constraints. This has not happened because it is politically expedient to tell the executive branch to meet all those tasks, then underfund them, while borrowing to fund the real priorities, all the while claiming you "supported" these programs in the first place.

Which brings me to my next point - Radhnoti, increasing the funding by 50% (we can quibble about that number as well, of course) hasn't come close to meeting the costs incurred by the new testing program and education systems are having to absorb that cost out of hide. Pumping 50% more money in doesn't help much if instituting and processing a mandate, while trying to do all the other things they were doing (which were already underfunded), meets or exceeds the funds available.

So it sounds cool, but it's not that great.

[rogue]

EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.