Ha Ha ! STUPID AMERICANS !!!

[JimC]

The funny thing is, Seth takes any criticism of the problems of unrestricted capitalism as proof positive that one is an evil socialist who wants everything controlled by the dead hand of government...

A majority position in most successful western democracies is that a carefully managed mixed economy is the best recipe for success. It is vital to have a healthy spirit of competitive free enterprise, because self-interest seems to be the best motivator for innovation and progress. Most industries should never be state owned - it simply does not work...

On the other hand, without restrictions or opposing forces, this will lead to a "robber baron" mentality, and a society where a festering underclass will always be a source of chaos. Carefully chosen government regulation, a free, cynical press and an effective union movement provide elements of the necessary balance. The exact equilibrium position for a given society should be a matter for argument, negotiation, and ultimately democratic decisions by an informed public.

Seth is fighting the straw man of a vanished, monolithic marxism whose day in the sun has long passed...

[pErvinalia]

Of course you would say that, Jim... you're a Marxist.

[Hermit]

Of course you would say that, Jim... you're a Marxist useful idiot for communism.

[MrJonno]

The funny thing is, Seth takes any criticism of the problems of unrestricted capitalism as proof positive that one is an evil socialist who wants everything controlled by the dead hand of government...

There is another word for unrestricted capitalism its called communism which can be its the only result when you have no safety nets or controls on the market

Intelligent capitalists released this a long time ago and its Marx's only real success forcing capitalism to adapt to allow it to survive

[laklak]

Marx gave generations of college sophomores something to do other than pack phone booths and learn the Charleston.

[Seth]

If a person inherits wealth, it is very easy for him/her to grow that wealth, since he/she has all kinds of expertise working to achieve that.

So what?

A poor person doesn't have that opportunity! Welcome to the debate...

No, a poor person has exactly the same opportunity as anyone else, he just doesn't have the same starting resources as everyone else. Just because it is harder for a poor person to move to the upper crust socially and economically doesn't mean he does not have an equal opportunity to do so. He does.

Again you argue for equality of outcomes, or in this case equality of starting position. The problem with this theory is that in order to make the playing field "level" for every poor person on the planet, everyone else must be first hammered down into poverty too, which as the Soviet Union proved, doesn't work and kills tens of millions of people, mostly the poor ones.

[Seth]

Seth, equality of opportunity also means equal access to markets. You are an idiot if you think a poor person has the same level of access to markets as a rich person does.

Wrong. Equal opportunity does NOT mean equal access to anything. "Equal access" is Marxist doublespeak for "equality of outcomes" and is used to rationalize wealth redistribution by force. Equal opportunity is a lack of artificial barriers to social and economic mobility, not market forces,

Market forces ARE an artificial barrier! Stop the fucking charade..

No, market forces are common obstacles for all entrants, they are not barriers to entry to the market created by government or society that prohibits (either effectively or legally) a poor person from entering the markets and competing with others for economic advancement.

Inequality of opportunity is not caused by inequality of starting position or capitalization, it's caused by deliberately erected class-based rules or practices that prevent an entire class of people, such as blacks, or hispanics, or Jews or Muslims from entering into competition. We see class-based inequality of opportunity in Muslim countries where non-Muslims are prohibited from engaging in particular trades or are taxed different from Muslims in the same trade as a means of keeping the disfavored class from competing with the favored class.

I know you aren't an idiot, and it leads me to the same conclusion that I am always led to with these economic debates with you: that is, you are clearly arguing from a position of selfishness.

Or I'm arguing from a position of philosophical understanding and intellectual strength that permits me to look at things objectively and tear your silly arguments to shreds with the greatest of ease.

Bollocks. Your arguments have continually been taken apart and shown to be hollow.

No they haven't, you'd just like to think so in your delusional state of mind.

It's always the same progression. Start out with some specious libertarian ideology and then end with a bunch of "so what's" and "adapt or die's". It's fucking idiotic. And you know it.

What's fucking idiotic is your reason-free personal attacks and bloviating unsupported by anything other than bald and entirely false assertions.

Everyone can see where you are arguing from.

You can huh?

Of course I can. And so can everyone else. You promote a selfish ideology as that is what currently suits you the best. It's fucking blatantly obvious!

No, that the Marxist agenda, not mine.

[Seth]

The funny thing is, Seth takes any criticism of the problems of unrestricted capitalism as proof positive that one is an evil socialist who wants everything controlled by the dead hand of government...

No, not "any" criticism, just Marxist propaganda.

A majority position in most successful western democracies is that a carefully managed mixed economy is the best recipe for success. It is vital to have a healthy spirit of competitive free enterprise, because self-interest seems to be the best motivator for innovation and progress.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a "carefully managed mixed economy" that includes socialism in the mix. This is because socialism is inherently and irredeemably opposed to any capitalistic success story. That's seen here every day with the constant pissing and moaning about "evul corporations" and how anybody who has a substantial sum of money must have gotten it by whipping slaves and raping their children. It's propagandistic nonsense, but that's the core of the Marxist dialectic.

Socialism and capitalism are inherently incompatible because socialism is a mixed mess of a system of both social programming and economic controls, whereas capitalism is quite simply and only an economic model. The core misunderstanding of socialists is thinking that capitalism is a political or social system. It's not. It's an economic model that can be used by any political or social system (as mixed economies prove), but which only works effectively when combined with a sociopolitical system that values individual liberty and that protects the right to private property and profit.

The reason that there are no "carefully managed mixed economies" is because the fundamental beliefs upon which the political/social component of socialism are based inherently damages and largely destroys the economic forces that make capitalism the only rational economic system in existence. This is in large part because socialism uses economic meddling in the free markets as a method of social and political control of the populace, which wipes out the market forces that makes capitalism work.

Most industries should never be state owned - it simply does not work...

No industry should be state owned. Some sectors need to be state-controlled, but never owned.

On the other hand, without restrictions or opposing forces, this will lead to a "robber baron" mentality, and a society where a festering underclass will always be a source of chaos.

Strawman argument. Nobody but you is arguing for an unrestrained or unrestricted capitalist marketplace. The pertinent question to be asked of any government regulation of the free markets is this: "What is the actual intent of the regulation, is it an exercise of police power by the state to prevent fraud and promote honest trading, or is it manipulation of the market with the intent and purpose of driving some social or political agenda that the state deems desirable?"

The former is perfectly legitimate state action even in Libertarian philosophy, the latter is socialist control of the political and social activities of the proletariat with the intent of reinforcing socialist ideals and policies, which are usually intended to suppress the general population and enrich the ruling elite.

Carefully chosen government regulation, a free, cynical press and an effective union movement provide elements of the necessary balance.

Here we agree, so long as the purpose of the regulation is to promote honest trading (not "fair" trading, just deterring fraudulent activity). As to unions, I have no quibble with unions so long as they a) do not involve public employees...ever; b) cannot form "closed shops"; c) cannot assess "agency fees" against non-union workers; d) submit to secret ballots for all membership votes (no "card check"); e) are strictly prohibited from spending membership dues on ANY political advocacy whatsoever (all dues must be used solely in the process of labor negotiating and nothing else, including salaries of officials); f) no preference or support is provided for unions by any government agency (abolish the NLRB).

The exact equilibrium position for a given society should be a matter for argument, negotiation, and ultimately democratic decisions by an informed public.

...with due respect for superior constitutional rights, specifically including private property rights and the right to profit.

Seth is fighting the straw man of a vanished, monolithic marxism whose day in the sun has long passed...

No, I'm fighting the insidious, evil creeping cancerous infection of zombie Marxism that keeps trying to re-emerge from the cesspool from which it originally emanated. It's a constant struggle to find each and every polluting cancerous manifestation of Marxism and stamp it out before it metastasizes into something that will kill everyone.

There is no such thing as an acceptable amount of Marxism. Even one single Marxist cell is a catastrophe waiting to happen, as Venezuela is currently proving and which the Soviet Union and Communist China proved, to the detriment of a hundred million people.

The world will not be safe until every last infectious bacteria of Marxism is eradicated from the universe.

It's a dirty, thankless, endless job, but somebody's got to do it. Might as well be me.

[pErvinalia]

[JimC]

Marxist microbes of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your plasmids!

[macdoc]

Seth preached

The problem is that there is no such thing as a "carefully managed mixed economy" that includes socialism in the mix. This is because socialism is inherently and irredeemably opposed to any capitalistic success story

Tell that to Sweden or Norway - you are sooooo parochial......and wrong.

[Seth]

Seth preached

The problem is that there is no such thing as a "carefully managed mixed economy" that includes socialism in the mix. This is because socialism is inherently and irredeemably opposed to any capitalistic success story

Tell that to Sweden or Norway - you are sooooo parochial......and wrong.

You mean this Sweden?

As I've mentioned before, socialism works (in the sense that people don't starve) right up until the OPM runs out. Sweden and Norway both have abundant natural resources with which to fund a mixed economy, but when those resources run out, socialism in both places will fail just like it does everywhere else. Perhaps before then. Viz: Venezuela. One of the most resource-wealthy nations in the Western Hemisphere, Venezuelans are lining up for food and are wiping their asses with the bones of martyrs, all thanks to socialism.

Wait for it you silly little man...

[MrJonno]

When resources run out I don't think your economic system is really going to matter

[Seth]

When resources run out I don't think your economic system is really going to matter

One of the dangers is what Venezuela is facing today: Marxist zealots driving the country to wrack and ruin despite there being abundant natural resources... because they are Marxist zealots.

Nothing stopping that from happening in Sweden.

[JimC]

When resources run out I don't think your economic system is really going to matter

One of the dangers is what Venezuela is facing today: Marxist zealots driving the country to wrack and ruin despite there being abundant natural resources... because they are Marxist zealots.

Nothing stopping that from happening in Sweden.

Lenin would spit on the current Venezuelan leadership. They are populist demagogues using left-wing rhetoric to mask their true nature.

Anyway, the successful mixed economies don't really have much of a truly socialist component anymore. They are simply democracies, whose various governments are in the business of carefully managing a basically capitalist economy, while ensuring an appropriate level of health and welfare for their citizens. You will find no calls there for "state ownership of the means of production", which is the essence of true socialism.