Liberals have it made in the 2016 election

[Quetzal]

The next POTUS will be a Democrat, even if it's Trump. There's nothing in the man's history that convinces me otherwise.

I hope so!

 

[Ktoyou]

Town Heretic,

It depends on what you mean by "Darwinistic principle"?

From strictly an economic stance, Bill was not so bad, although Hillary has more 'ideas'

What people disliked about Bill is his lack of moral compass. I think many have the same reservations about Hillary, as well Trump.

I have not slept since noon yesterday, and my thoughts are fuzzy. Maybe I ill be able to address more of this later?

 

[rexlunae]

Capitalism is a philosophy of the individual; social Darwinism is the state impinging on the will of democracy. the will of the people. They are not the same. Capitalism is a means to liberty, more than a philosophy, as it is rooted in pragmatism.

There's little pragmatism in how capitalism is being practiced right now. It's practically elevated markets to a state of infallibility, and lost sight of the fact that the purpose of an economy is to distribute goods and services, and the way that our economy is functioning right now is to transfer all of the wealth to the already wealthy. Capitalism is headed either for a major reform in the short-term or a collapse in the long-term. If things work out, Bernie might just save capitalism from its most pathological form.

 

[Ktoyou]

Why do you think the market is down now? Who is selling? Who is buying? When it rebounds, which it will, and more shares are concentrated, do you blame the buyers?

 

[Town Heretic]

Town Heretic,

It depends on what you mean by "Darwinistic principle"?

From strictly an economic stance, Bill was not so bad, although Hillary has more 'ideas'

What people disliked about Bill is his lack of moral compass.

I think it's rarer to find a president who isn't a scoundrel. Last I can think of would be Ford or Carter and neither of them were particularly effective leaders at the national level.

Bill had the same failings as his hero, JFK. But I suspect much of the Republican leadership was outraged because they'd ridden Reagan's coattails into power, seen Bush Sr. squander their start and the economy and then had to watch a Democrat pull us into another cycle of prosperity. Horrible turn for a party only just enjoying a rebound from the Nixon scandal. A few of the loudest voices ended up in scandals of their own.

I have not slept since noon yesterday, and my thoughts are fuzzy. Maybe I ill be able to address more of this later?

A pleasure to differ amicably with you at any point. :cheers:

 

[patrick jane]

There's little pragmatism in how capitalism is being practiced right now. It's practically elevated markets to a state of infallibility, and lost sight of the fact that the purpose of an economy is to distribute goods and services, and the way that our economy is functioning right now is to transfer all of the wealth to the already wealthy. Capitalism is headed either for a major reform in the short-term or a collapse in the long-term. If things work out, Bernie might just save capitalism from its most pathological form.

Are you feeling the Bern ?

 

[rexlunae]

Are you feeling the Bern ?

Oh, always.

 

[Traditio]

I can't see myself voting for him, but he'd never be allowed to wreck the system.

The people are demanding it. We want Sanders to wreck the system. It's a broken system. It needs to be demolished.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There's little pragmatism in how capitalism is being practiced right now. It's practically elevated markets to a state of infallibility, and lost sight of the fact that the purpose of an economy is to distribute goods and services, and the way that our economy is functioning right now is to transfer all of the wealth to the already wealthy. Capitalism is headed either for a major reform in the short-term or a collapse in the long-term. If things work out, Bernie might just save capitalism from its most pathological form.

I love how you actually think markets are free right now. LOL!

 

[rexlunae]

I love how you actually think markets are free right now. LOL!

That's a pretty common excuse by libertarians. But it's hard for me to see how a market that already does what it wants, and often flaunts the law openly would be less horrible if only we took away what restraints remains. You're going to have to do better than vague hand-waving.

It's like saying "Oh, you have diabetes? The problem is that you don't eat enough candy!"

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's a pretty common excuse by libertarians. But it's hard for me to see how a market that already does what it wants, and often flaunts the law openly would be less horrible if only we took away what restraints remains. You're going to have to do better than vague hand-waving.

It's like saying "Oh, you have diabetes? The problem is that you don't eat enough candy!"

I'm not a libertarian, but there's a huge problem in this country with government using its power to stuff small businesses and letting bigger ones get away with real crime... not to mention going bankrupt and not paying the consequences, etc. We also have way too many irrelevant laws.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'd say its less the analogy you gave and more like "hey, society sucks because there's too much poison in it, let's take out the poison instad of adding a different type of poison and thinking that will help."

Our government currently is corporatist pure and simple.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm not a libertarian,...

I don't really keep track of what you call yourself on any given day, but it's an argument made by a lot of libertarians.

... but there's a huge problem in this country with government using its power to stuff small businesses and letting bigger ones get away with real crime...

I agree. But the reason for it, it seems to me, is that we've allowed big business too much freedom to manipulate the system in their favor, not too little.

... not to mention going bankrupt and not paying the consequences, etc. We also have way too many irrelevant laws.

I'm a lot more worried about the too-big-to-fail for-profit businesses. They essentially have a free hand to place extremely risky bets, knowing that if it doesn't work out, the taxpayer is going to have to bail them out or risk a major economic crisis. At least bankruptcy is a regularized system. At least it's open to anyone who qualifies. At least we aren't wasting a bunch of tax money on it, usually.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. But the reason for it, it seems to me, is that we've allowed big business too much freedom to manipulate the system in their favor, not too little.

You're framing this issue differently than I would. You're looking at it from a "how great of an extent should the big businesses get to play by different and more favorable rules than everyone else." And the answer to that is "to no extent whatsoever." But the solution to that isn't more government intervention. Its less. Specifically less help to corporations.

You want to solve the problem not by doing away with corporatism, but by having government take more than it already does. When frankly the government is taking far more than it ever should, from everyone. That I have a problem with.

I'm a lot more worried about the too-big-to-fail for-profit businesses. They essentially have a free hand to place extremely risky bets, knowing that if it doesn't work out, the taxpayer is going to have to bail them out or risk a major economic crisis. At least bankruptcy is a regularized system. At least it's open to anyone who qualifies. At least we aren't wasting a bunch of tax money on it, usually

.

If we actually let them go bankrupt... which we should.

 

[PureX]

I'd say its less the analogy you gave and more like "hey, society sucks because there's too much poison in it, let's take out the poison instad of adding a different type of poison and thinking that will help."

Our government currently is corporatist pure and simple.

The problem is that so many citizens want to blame only the government for this, and completely ignore the oligarchs that are controlling nearly every decision the government makes. At this point the government is nothing more than a collection of middle-managers working for a very wealthy and powerful elite investor class. A class made up of only a few hundred people, none of whom have ever been elected, and none of whom have the best interests of the American people as their agenda.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The problem is that so many citizens want to blame only the government for this, and completely ignore the oligarchs that are controlling nearly every decision the government makes. At this point the government is nothing more than a collection of middle-managers working for a very wealthy and powerful elite investor class. A class made up of only a few hundred people, none of whom have ever been elected.

I'm not as familiar with the details on this, but I've no doubt that this is true. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. And I bet a lot of libertarians (of which I do not consider myself one... I'm way too theocratic at this point) would agree with you too.

The problem comes in when some liberals start blaming "the rich" as a group, many of whom earned their money quite legitimately through providing goods and services that people want, rather than blaming the unjust use of political power. That's my point, The issue is political power, not money in and of itself.

 

[PureX]

I'm not as familiar with the details on this, but I've no doubt that this is true. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. And I bet a lot of libertarians (of which I do not consider myself one... I'm way too theocratic at this point) would agree with you too.

The problem comes in when some liberals start blaming "the rich" as a group, many of whom earned their money quite legitimately through providing goods and services that people want, rather than blaming the unjust use of political power. That's my point, The issue is political power, not money in and of itself.

This is absurdly vague criticism. Who is "the rich"?

I am referring to a handful of multi-billionaires, a few hundred multi-multi-millionaires and their very wealthy corporations, that use their wealth to control the legislators of both the state and federal government. NONE of these people "earned" that much money, because no human on Earth could possibly contribute to the well being of humanity to the degree to which these few men have been paid. Many of them, like the members of the Walmart clan, inherited billions of dollars simply because of their name, and yet are still so insanely greedy that instead of paying their employees a living wage, which they could very easily afford to do, they spend millions bribing legislators to rig the system so that they can make the taxpayers support their employees needs, instead of doing it, themselves. These are the "innocent rich people" that you think are being so victimized by liberals and democrats who dare to suggest that we make them pay their share of taxes, and use that money to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process.

 

[ok doser]

Many of them, like the members of the Walmart clan, inherited billions of dollars simply because of their name ....

i believe they inherited their money because their father worked his tail off building up a successful business that people flocked to, and in his will he stated that he wanted his wealth to go to his children

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is absurdly vague criticism. Who is "the rich"?

Fair point. I guess what fundamentally the issue is for me is how much money people would earn without any special government help (everyone gets defense of person and property of course, but I mean beyond that) vs how much people make only because government intervened specifically on their behalf. Making licensing requirements difficult to get (and thus limiting competition) would be one example. Subsidies would be another. I could go on.

I am referring to a handful of multi-billionaires, a few hundred multi-multi-millionaires and their very wealthy corporations, that use their wealth to control the legislators of both the state and federal government. NONE of these people "earned" that much money, because no human on Earth could possibly contribute to the well being of humanity to the degree to which these few men have been paid. Many of them, like the members of the Walmart clan, inherited billions of dollars simply because of their name, and yet are still so insanely greedy that instead of paying their employees a living wage, which they could very easily afford to do, they spend millions bribing legislators to rig the system so that they can make the taxpayers support their employees needs, instead of doing it, themselves. These are the "innocent rich people" that you think are being so victimized by liberals and democrats who dare to suggest that we make them pay their share of taxes, and use that money to rebuild a crumbling infrastructure and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process.

Government should not mandate wage standards, which are determined by market forces. It is absurd to suggest that someone "deserves" a living wage if nobody is willing to pay them that much for their labor. ANd if someone was, they would surely take it. Taxpayers, furthermore, should not be expected to pay welfare, which is a form of theft.

But the modern conception of the limited liability corporation needs to be done away with, as do all government regulations on the economy save the across the board enforcement of the fourth commandment only.

 

[Traditio]

i believe they inherited their money because their father worked his tail off building up a successful business that people flocked to, and in his will he stated that he wanted his wealth to go to his children

All by himself, solely through his own efforts, I am sure, with no employees whatsoever, and with absolutely no reliance on social resources for which he was not responsible. Right?