Progressives, part 3...

Oh, I get it.

The alternative is shrinking government, not removing it completely.

The options are not remove it completely or continue to grow it. I absolutely understand we're not abolishing the government in my lifetime, but I am sure as shit not willing to get on board with growing it until it pops like Mr Creosote in The Meaning of Life.

Sure.. but I realize i live in a world where things actually affect me and people around me. Not in idealistic world. I assume you're a libertarian? I assume this b/c you think the government should shrink and neither Republicans or Democrats do. Republicans say they do but always prove the opposite. But the fact libertarians are not viable candidates seeing as the have virtually no support, I don't pay much attention to ideologies that aren't going to affect my life. Democrats or Republicans will and do. So I can't get with the line of thinking that I hope something that will never happen does. 

posted by kizer permanente

You're not getting it I guess.

All I'm saying is the alternative is just as bad...but you seem to be unwilling to admit that.

Good God; the “alternative” has lifted more people out of poverty and economic slavery than any system in world history.  The “alternative” is infinitely better than BIG government trying to control everything.  Having to even begin to explain that is literally unbelievable.

posted by majorspark

The fix is in.

Democrats trying to rig another election + new technology = Iowa disaster

posted by kizer permanente

You're not getting it I guess.

All I'm saying is the alternative is just as bad...but you seem to be unwilling to admit that.

The imperfect "capitalism" that we have is still vastly better and no more subject to "greed" than any other system yet devised.

I won't deny its merits. It's done better at creating wealth than most other systems. But it's not without it's faults. And it's fault tend to lend to spectacularly falling on its face when the economy is bad. It tends to fall harder than the other systems it outgains when the economy is good. It also performs less well for the bottom anbd more for the top than other systems. Again.. don't get me wrong.. I'm not denying its viability... but I'm not going to hump its leg and pretend it's super awesome without problems.

BTW, Iowa republican caucus results were timely reported, so …………

posted by kizer permanente

I won't deny its merits. It's done better at creating wealth than most other systems. But it's not without it's faults. And it's fault tend to lend to spectacularly falling on its face when the economy is bad. It tends to fall harder than the other systems it outgains when the economy is good. It also performs less well for the bottom anbd more for the top than other systems. Again.. don't get me wrong.. I'm not denying its viability... but I'm not going to hump its leg and pretend it's super awesome without problems.

Absolute bullshit.

posted by kizer permanente

I won't deny its merits. It's done better at creating wealth than most other systems. But it's not without it's faults. And it's fault tend to lend to spectacularly falling on its face when the economy is bad. It tends to fall harder than the other systems it outgains when the economy is good.

Cuba, Venezuela, and China respectfully disagree.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Cuba, Venezuela, and China respectfully disagree.

But nearly all of Western Europe agrees.

posted by kizer permanente

I won't deny its merits. It's done better at creating wealth than most other systems. But it's not without it's faults. And it's fault tend to lend to spectacularly falling on its face when the economy is bad. It tends to fall harder than the other systems it outgains when the economy is good. It also performs less well for the bottom anbd more for the top than other systems. Again.. don't get me wrong.. I'm not denying its viability... but I'm not going to hump its leg and pretend it's super awesome without problems.

I see this argument all the time, and it's simply not true.  Capitalism has done 10000000000000000x more than any system to raise people out of poverty. It's not even an argument. Poor people are fat, they have AC, cable, etc.  Just think about that shit.  You don't even have to look at poor people.  Like at the middle class. We all enjoy the luxuries of being able to afford plane tickets.  That shit was only for the rich prior to regulating the industry.  

Socialist systems would rather bring the rich down closer to the poor than shift the entire socioeconomic system to the right.  

Edit: The free market isn't meant to make people comfortable.  There will be times where it is rough, but if the government allows it to do it's thing, it will come back stronger.  

posted by kizer permanente

But nearly all of Western Europe agrees.

You mean the homogeneous countries that actually embrace free market capitalism (some more so than the states), but have a nice social set, because their defense is subsidized by the US? Yeah, I can see that.  Talk to me when their defense isn't subsidized by the US.  The US is the most charitable country in the world (donates around $400B a year to charitable causes).  If we had a true free market system without being taxed to death then no doubt that number would rise.  

posted by kizer permanente

But the alternative isn't any better. The greed of capitalism is just as much of a problem. So what do you do?

Capitalism at least rewards actual talent and ability.  Every other system rewards politicians for nothing more than their ability to get elected.

posted by kizer permanente

...capitalistic system that's already ruined an economy twice in our lifetime...

1) that's hyperbole

2) you're ignoring the massive role GOVERNMENT (and the federal reserve) played in the housing crisis

posted by gut

1) that's hyperbole

2) you're ignoring the massive role GOVERNMENT (and the federal reserve) played in the housing crisis

 

You're right... the government forcing loans helped too.

I really don't have a problem with our capitalism on a whole. I do disagree that healthcare should be for profit. I guess that's where I defer.

posted by like_that

I see this argument all the time, and it's simply not true.  Capitalism has done 10000000000000000x more than any system to raise people out of poverty. It's not even an argument. Poor people are fat, they have AC, cable, etc.  Just think about that shit.  You don't even have to look at poor people.  Like at the middle class. We all enjoy the luxuries of being able to afford plane tickets.  That shit was only for the rich prior to regulating the industry.  

Socialist systems would rather bring the rich down closer to the poor than shift the entire socioeconomic system to the right.  

 

Edit: The free market isn't meant to make people comfortable.  There will be times where it is rough, but if the government allows it to do it's thing, it will come back stronger.  

posted by kizer permanente

But nearly all of Western Europe agrees.

You mean the homogeneous countries that actually embrace free market capitalism (some more so than the states), but have a nice social set, because their defense is subsidized by the US? Yeah, I can see that.  Talk to me when their defense isn't subsidized by the US.  The US is the most charitable country in the world (donates around $400B a year to charitable causes).  If we had a true free market system without being taxed to death then no doubt that number would rise.  

 

When I say it does more for the top than the bottom, I mean there's exponentially more wealth growth at the top than bottom. The income disparity here is pretty noticeable.

posted by gut

Capitalism at least rewards actual talent and ability.  Every other system rewards politicians for nothing more than their ability to get elected.

Yes.. but we do an excellent job of rewarding politicians for their electability here. Probably more so than other countries. 

posted by kizer permanente

I won't deny its merits. It's done better at creating wealth than most other systems. But it's not without it's faults. And it's fault tend to lend to spectacularly falling on its face when the economy is bad. It tends to fall harder than the other systems it outgains when the economy is good. It also performs less well for the bottom anbd more for the top than other systems. Again.. don't get me wrong.. I'm not denying its viability... but I'm not going to hump its leg and pretend it's super awesome without problems.

Eh, I wouldn't say it performs less well for the bottom than ALL other systems.  Capitalist countries with large welfare programs, while not able to create wealth as well overall, do tend to have equal or better situations for the lower end of the economic spectrum, but they're still technically capitalism-based (if to a lesser degree than places like the US, the UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, Monoco, etc.), and truthfully, it'd be interesting to see how they'd fare without foreign aid from the US, as a good chunk of them do receive some.

As such, I'd actually say it's the best "bones" for an economy, even for the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder.

 

posted by like_that

 

You mean the homogeneous countries that actually embrace free market capitalism (some more so than the states), but have a nice social set, because their defense is subsidized by the US? Yeah, I can see that.  Talk to me when their defense isn't subsidized by the US.  The US is the most charitable country in the world (donates around $400B a year to charitable causes).  If we had a true free market system without being taxed to death then no doubt that number would rise.  

 

I'm also not of the belief that we need to spend nearly the amount on defense that we do. Seems a lot of spending IS based on crony-capitalism. 

posted by kizer permanente

I'm also not of the belief that we need to spend nearly the amount on defense that we do. Seems a lot of spending IS based on crony-capitalism.