Bailout - Let's make a deal - another pork barrel

[philbytx]

 

 

A well armed militia ??

And we do have the right to change our form of government you know! Am I right in assuming that you believe voting the buggers out is the only way to change it

[Mike]

If you don't have change from above you will have revolt from below. It may not happen in our lifetime but something tells me this country is headed for a revolt that will turn us into a totalitarian state.

 

That's a sobering thought, but one that has occurred to me. The great events in human history are, ultimately, impossible to predict, but it has long concerned me that we have compromised many ideals and freedoms too readily, thus readying the stage for totalitarianism. And it has sometimes occurred with shocking speed.

 

A fellow I know from my Air Force days raised the possibility several years ago in this paper. It's an interesting read, exploring just one potential scenario.

 

Really, though I think much differently than Ken, I think he's very correct on one point: this is the time to reexamine some of our society's big assumptions and determine if the status quo is a sustainable plan for our country.

 

All things considered, though, I'm not as distraught as many of you appear to be. It seems to me that our society goes through a major upheaval, social or economic, on a regular basis.

 

In my lifetime alone, some of these challenges that I can recall include: the omnipresent chance of global annihilation through the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, at least two hugely unpopular wars, one of which cost over 50,000 American lives, the resignation of a President under threat of impeachment, the unsuccessful impeachment of another President, the civil rights movement and widespread "race riots," the women's equality movement, numerous ecological Donnybrooks, the demise and creation of huge segments of the economy, and a decades-long struggle with terrorism, including the attacks of 9/11/01. Our response have not always been perfect, but to date, we seem to have figured out ways to reinvent our society in ways that have sustained us. Amazingly, we ultimately seem to figure out a way to make our lives a little better than those who preceded us.

 

Frankly, I think we should all ask ourselves a very serious question: Are you content to sit at your computer and piss and moan about the current state of things, or are you serious enough about your concerns to try to do something?

[philbytx]

quote

 

Frankly, I think we should all ask ourselves a very serious question: Are you content to sit at your computer and piss and moan about the current state of things, or are you serious enough about your concerns to try to do something?

unquote

 

quote

 

See my previous post !!

[Lawman]

quote

 

Frankly, I think we should all ask ourselves a very serious question: Are you content to sit at your computer and piss and moan about the current state of things, or are you serious enough about your concerns to try to do something?

unquote

 

quote

 

See my previous post !!

 

 

I've been doing something for years...I keep my AR-15 and 12 ga. in the truck, the AK-47 at the front door, and my sidearm in my holster most always within reach. The rest I keep readied in my gunsafe...

 

[azkaisr]

quote

 

Frankly, I think we should all ask ourselves a very serious question: Are you content to sit at your computer and piss and moan about the current state of things, or are you serious enough about your concerns to try to do something?

unquote

 

quote

 

 

 

See my previous post !!

 

 

I've been doing something for years...I keep my AR-15 and 12 ga. in the truck, the AK-47 at the front door, and my sidearm in my holster most always within reach. The rest I keep readied in my gunsafe...

Billy, you will get advance word from me about the revolution I promise.

 

Many in here amaze me with silly talk of our way of life coming to an end which I frankly find well out of touch with the America I know. This has nothing to do with evil policy set in DC or even Wall St. (though some people did things that were truly vile) clamoring for money. This is simply nobody really knows what to do in the short term and thus are trying several things. Our society expects things to get better right away or that if you ignore it, things will go back to the way they were. Both points are wrong. This is going to take some time to get out of. Many mistakes will be made in the coming months before we get it right but we will because we are not a defeatist nation. If the government can help create jobs and I need to pay more taxes, then I am ok with that because in the end that helps us all. Now is the time where we have to help each other.

 

We are going to evolve and make changes which will work in the long run because that is the hallmark of this country. Again, mistakes will be made. You all making it sound so horrible should not lose sight of the fact that the last guy I heard about who never made a mistake has been dead for about 2008 years now. These people are just humans like us. There will be some that take advantage as well and I believe the climate exists to hold them accountable.

 

Nobody would have believed $2.00 gas would be here again back in July, yet many of you in here can see the future demise of our country so clearly. Maybe it is a product of age that we are all pessemistic, but this country will find the right path forward without loosing site of the central belief of our constitution.

 

Now Billy go watch "Red Dawn" to get it out of your system. Or come out to the desert next month and we can go over the manifesto one more time with the Moo.

[steve.foote]

Nobody would have believed $2.00 gas would be here again back in July...

 

I'm your Huckleberry.

[Lawman]

 

The more I'm around The Moo the more I think he really doesn't care about the revolution at all and is simply humoring us..

[Whip]

 

The more I'm around The Moo the more I think he really doesn't care about the revolution at all and is simply humoring us..

 

He looks ready to me.....

 

[philbytx]

AZKaisr,

 

The American "way of life" is not coming to an end, it just needs to change. What's really needed is a "back to basics" or more common sense approach to both our lives and the running of this country. We need this from both our representatives and the people who elected them. They were not elected to RUN the country (contrary to what they and a lot of sadly uninformed people believe), they were elected to represent the people and the wishes of the people.

 

Sadly, at this juncture, the U.S. does not need politicians, it needs STATESMEN!

 

 

 

 

[SeanC]

I DO have a progressive view. What form of social economic society do we (humanity) progress to next that is better than this one? Because there is always a “better.” In anything.

So how do we make freedom "better"? How do we improve liberty? Does the progressive view take this into account -- i.e., the freedom and liberty necessary to pursue happiness -- or is it only concerned with social economics and societal issues to which the "mainstream hasn't yet woken up"?

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the experiment in how to construct one that became the USA was the end-all, be-all. It was/is just another step in our evolution.

Okay, well here's the key element of evolution: it isn't centrally planned or mandated. It follows a natural course. It requires a natural course. Evolving organisms and ideas are free to succeed or fail. What you're really talking about is husbandry, domestication, which of course yields sheep, cows, ample supplies of gluten, etc. Useful and tasty though they may be, they didn't evolve and have neither the freedom nor the capacity to pursue happiness. They exist solely for the benefit of us (humanity), to be harvested, processed and consumed.

 

Yum-yum, eh?

[Ken H.]

We have a better chance of colonizing saturn.

 

I think I've already made it clear that we should not be propping up the automotive industry.

Hee, hee! Had to think about that one for a second...

[yabadabapal]

Read all the posts. Wish I had something intelligent to say.

I can talk but at this point I still have the same question. What can we do. I say lets be rediculous. Lets have a BMWST rally in washington DC at a time and place where we can have some input as a group and meet with whomever will meet with us.

[David]

All things considered, though, I'm not as distraught as many of you appear to be. It seems to me that our society goes through a major upheaval, social or economic, on a regular basis.

 

Yes, our society does indeed go through these major upheavals. That in itself does NOT bother me, having lived through a civil war where many of my friends were brutally massacred as a matter of course.

 

What bothers me is not the upheaval but society's reaction to that upheaval. What they allow to happen, what they expect from the fixes, etc.

[John Ranalletta]

I've told you privately and I'll say it publicly, if you ever publish, I'll buy the first copy. I enjoy your posts. I'd probably enjoy them even if I disagreed with ideas therein.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

"Lets have a BMWST rally in washington DC at a time and place where we can have some input as a group"

 

Like the Whitehouse lawn?

 

"and meet with whomever will meet with us."

 

Like the Secret Service?

 

 

 

Harry

 

[yabadabapal]

"Lets have a BMWST rally in washington DC at a time and place where we can have some input as a group"

 

Like the Whitehouse lawn?

 

"and meet with whomever will meet with us."

 

Like the Secret Service?

 

 

 

Harry

 

Now you're talking. I like your style Harry. Ill be there to take the pictures.

[azkaisr]

AZKaisr,

 

The American "way of life" is not coming to an end, it just needs to change. What's really needed is a "back to basics" or more common sense approach to both our lives and the running of this country. We need this from both our representatives and the people who elected them. They were not elected to RUN the country (contrary to what they and a lot of sadly uninformed people believe), they were elected to represent the people and the wishes of the people.

 

Sadly, at this juncture, the U.S. does not need politicians, it needs STATESMEN!

 

 

 

 

Or even dare say protect it from the rabble?

 

Amigo I read your post and the first thought that popped into my head was what if we were 20 again and somebody had said that to me? I would say that old coot is just bitter. The only area where I agree is that as a society we have forgotten all about losing since we try to make sure nobody feels bad. Not trying to argue either amigo.

[philbytx]

To quote Monty Python (again!!)

 

"Is this the right place for an argument???" :grin:

 

A free and open exchange of ideas and opinions is a wonderful thing....glad we are able to do it and I am always happy to throw the proverbial "hand grenade" into one heheh!

 

FYI - I was saying the same thing about the U.K. in my late 20's and I left there for the U.S. when I was 31.

 

And, I am NEVER bitter......merely a realist who deals with the world as it comes at him and who enjoys every day he's on the planet .

 

 

[azkaisr]

To quote Monty Python (again!!)

 

"Is this the right place for an argument???" :grin:

 

A free and open exchange of ideas and opinions is a wonderful thing....glad we are able to do it and I am always happy to throw the proverbial "hand grenade" into one heheh!

 

FYI - I was saying the same thing about the U.K. in my late 20's and I left there for the U.S. when I was 31.

 

And, I am NEVER bitter......merely a realist who deals with the world as it comes at him and who enjoys every day he's on the planet .

 

 

But we agree you are an old coot right?

 

 

[Ken H.]

It seems quite ironic that the current plans/attempts to save capitalism are, in effect - socialism. Just, again, by different names. E.g. – “rescue plans”, "bailouts", "federal assistance programs", etc.

Where do you get the idea that these plans are attempts to save capitalism? The attempts represent socialistic interference with markets at their worst.

Because I think the end goal of all this interference is not to construct a more socialistic model, but to use those approaches as a short-term fix, with the real goal being to restore the free-for-all market of the recent past that allows a select few to get very, very, rich. In other words, not to figure out a better model, figure out how to get back to the old model.

[Ken H.]

I left a socialist country to come to the U.S. some 30 years ago....trust me, socialism doesn't work, in any way, shape or form...it goes against human nature!

Oh I so disagree. Some of the most socialistic countries on the planet are also the ones with the most stable governments, lowest level of unrest, highest surveyed personal happiness/ satisfaction numbers, lowest crime rates, lowest inflation rates, highest average personal wealth, best health care, best education systems, lowest poverty and homeless rates, cleanest / greenest / least polluted. Some of the Norwegian countries come to mind. And on all those categories and more, some of the worst numbers belong to the most capitalistic countries. The USA and in some catagories Canada, comes to mind.

 

Just to say socialist = bad, is no more true than to say capitalist = good.

 

[ghaverkamp]

Some of the Norwegian countries come to mind.

 

How many are there?

[philbytx]

Yup! When compared to you young whippersnappers

So no argument from me on that one :grin:

[ghaverkamp]

Where do you get the idea that these plans are attempts to save capitalism? The attempts represent socialistic interference with markets at their worst.

Because I think the end goal of all this interference is not to construct a more socialistic model, but to use those approaches as a short-term fix, with the real goal being to restore the free-for-all market of the recent past that allows a select few to get very, very, rich. In other words, not to figure out a better model, figure out how to get back to the old model.

 

That's a pretty wild logical leap. In order to preserve the dying system, the government ignores a central tenet of the system -- failures should lead to failure -- and actually buys large chunks of the industry.

 

I don't think you understand a thing about capitalism, other than you hate it.

[Ken H.]

So how do we make freedom "better"? How do we improve liberty? Does the progressive view take this into account -- i.e., the freedom and liberty necessary to pursue happiness --

I guess that’s where basically I fundamentally disagree. It kind of depends to a certain extent how one defines “freedom and liberty” though. Certainly one who is incarcerated in a prison longs for freedom from that prison.

 

But OTOH, I believe there are many people on the planet who live under governments, regimes, systems that we would not likely define as “free societies”, whom are quite happy in and with their lives. These are people who’s needs are being met by whatever the system they live under, and who derive their happiness (in a more healthy way IMHO BTW) from the relationships they have with others, from the personal satisfaction with the lives they lead, and from their contribution to the micro-society in which they day-to-day exist. Their happiness is not defined by what they don’t have, in particular westernized materialism, but rather by what they do have.

 

The flip group is the masses of people in free societies; who never-the-less are quite unhappy indeed.

 

Satisfaction and contentment, followed by happiness, then self-actualization is more a function of the system’s, any system’s, ability to deliver peoples needs, than by some esoteric “freedom” than does nothing to provide for the populous. Freedom and liberty in and of itself solves/provides nothing.

 

[philbytx]

Ken,

 

I don't remember saying Capitalism was good, merely that Socialism goes against human nature. And I assume you meant Nordic or Scandinavian countries

 

Sure any unfettered "ism" is a bad thing and as we have all seen, unfettered Capitalism at it's worst. But, then again, it is definitely not as bad as unfettered Socialism!

 

What's the old adage...Everything in moderation!!!

 

 

[SeanC]

I have a better idea, John: How 'bout you start a publishing company and then send me an advance royalty check? I'll deliver a manuscript to you eventually.

 

Seriously though, thanks for the kind words. A lot of my ideas (on a great number of topics) have been inspired (and sometimes goaded) by some of my favorite thinkers on this very board. Of course I'm referring to people such as yourself, David, Kent and others. The following is a good example. I know it could solve future problems, eliminate pork barrel spending and go a long way to returning the nation to financial solvency:

 

1) Abolish Mandatory Withholding -- If taxpayers were required to write their own quarterly tax checks, they would pay MUCH closer attention to how it's being spent and the decisions that guide fiscal policy. Ken mentioned something about learning from our mistakes and taking steps to correct them. Even the original drafter of the employer withholding plan stated it was the worst economic policy mistake this nation has ever made. We can correct it. In another recent thread, I recall Seth bemoaning the state of voter awareness. I agreed with him on that point and got to thinking about how to improve it. Well, this would raise awareness and eliminate apathy more than all other attempts combined.

 

2) Abolish the Direct Election of US Senators -- Our government no longer has the deliberative body required to make sound decisions (as it was originally designed). We've essentially turned Senators into Tenured Representatives with 10 X more power and influence, but only 1/3rd the accountability of regular representatives.

 

If either one of the above were implemented, we wouldn't be in the OMG/WTF mess we find ourselves today. If both were implemented, it would eliminate all the financial nonsense and political shitstorms that distract, divide and annoy this otherwise fine society of ours.

[John Ranalletta]

Satisfaction and contentment, followed by happiness, then self-actualization is more a function of the system’s, any system’s, ability to deliver peoples needs, than by some esoteric “freedom” than does nothing to provide for the populous. Freedom and liberty in and of itself solves/provides nothing.

Yikes!

 

What are those people to do whose source of "satisfaction and contentment" is having the freedom to try and fail? A system you describe that provides "satisfaction and contentment" for some, takes it away from others. Unfortunately, it takes it from those who take risks and create jobs. I guess we can all work for the government. It seems to be working out for France.

[John Ranalletta]

Option 1 is a non starter. Unions learned this a long time ago. Having negotiated a number of labor contracts, I can aver the first and most important demand on the union's list is "checkoff", i.e. having the company deduct unions dues. Many faithful union members who signed authorization cards and and voted for representation have second thoughts when having to write the check. Unions will strike over this issue. If proposed legislation passes that gives union the right to representation without a secret ballot election, an employer might choose to take a strike or a lockout over this very issue. I would.

 

I suggest we move elections to April 16th from November.

 

Option 2 speaks to the heart of the problem. I sense there exists a "super citizen" class, almost a royalty that consists of senators, federal judges and those fortunate to have worked at very high levels of government. They are very protective of their status. They lather themselves with riches and protect themselves from being ousted; and, when they are, they land in the well-padded arms of the lobbying firms.

 

If we could start a movement to run a slate of senatorial candidates who refuse to travel to DC...

[John Ranalletta]

I have a better idea, John: How 'bout you start a publishing company and then send me an advance royalty check? I'll deliver a manuscript to you eventually.

It's been done. Rockbench. Expect an advance from DCB presently.

[Lawman]

So how do we make freedom "better"? How do we improve liberty? Does the progressive view take this into account -- i.e., the freedom and liberty necessary to pursue happiness --

I guess that’s where basically I fundamentally disagree. It kind of depends to a certain extent how one defines “freedom and liberty” though. Certainly one who is incarcerated in a prison longs for freedom from that prison.

 

But OTOH, I believe there are many people on the planet who live under governments, regimes, systems that we would not likely define as “free societies”, whom are quite happy in and with their lives. These are people who’s needs are being met by whatever the system they live under, and who derive their happiness (in a more healthy way IMHO BTW) from the relationships they have with others, from the personal satisfaction with the lives they lead, and from their contribution to the micro-society in which they day-to-day exist. Their happiness is not defined by what they don’t have, in particular westernized materialism, but rather by what they do have.

 

The flip group is the masses of people in free societies; who never-the-less are quite unhappy indeed.

 

Satisfaction and contentment, followed by happiness, then self-actualization is more a function of the system’s, any system’s, ability to deliver peoples needs, than by some esoteric “freedom” than does nothing to provide for the populous. Freedom and liberty in and of itself solves/provides nothing.

 

The Peoples Temple was initially structured as an inter-racial mission for the sick, homeless and jobless. He assembled a large following of over 900 members in Indianapolis IN during the 1950's.

 

"He preached a 'social gospel' of human freedom, equality, and love, which required helping the least and the lowliest of society's members. Later on, however, this gospel became explicitly socialistic, or communistic in Jones' own view, and the hypocrisy of white Christianity was ridiculed while 'apostolic socialism' was preached."

 

Are you talking about something like this?

 

[TyTass]

Option 1 is a non starter. Unions learned this a long time ago. Having negotiated a number of labor contracts, I can aver the first and most important demand on the union's list is "checkoff", i.e. having the company deduct unions dues. Many faithful union members who signed authorization cards and and voted for representation have second thoughts when having to write the check. Unions will strike over this issue. If proposed legislation passes that gives union the right to representation without a secret ballot election, an employer might choose to take a strike or a lockout over this very issue. I would.

 

I suggest we move elections to April 16th from November.

 

Option 2 speaks to the heart of the problem. I sense there exists a "super citizen" class, almost a royalty that consists of senators, federal judges and those fortunate to have worked at very high levels of government. They are very protective of their status. They lather themselves with riches and protect themselves from being ousted; and, when they are, they land in the well-padded arms of the lobbying firms, whilst collecting very, VERY generous retirements (voted for by themselves, but paid for by the tax payers).

 

If we could start a movement to run a slate of senatorial candidates who refuse to travel to DC...

John, I think you ommitted an important piece of data that would better illustrate your point. See text in red above.

[steve.foote]

It seems quite ironic that the current plans/attempts to save capitalism are, in effect - socialism. Just, again, by different names. E.g. – “rescue plans”, "bailouts", "federal assistance programs", etc.

Where do you get the idea that these plans are attempts to save capitalism? The attempts represent socialistic interference with markets at their worst.

Because I think the end goal of all this interference is not to construct a more socialistic model, but to use those approaches as a short-term fix, with the real goal being to restore the free-for-all market of the recent past that allows a select few to get very, very, rich. In other words, not to figure out a better model, figure out how to get back to the old model.

 

So, basically you think that Greg just said that the government is using "effective" socialist measures to put us back on the "failed" track of capitalism?

[SeanC]

But OTOH, I believe there are many people on the planet who live under governments, regimes, systems that we would not likely define as “free societies”, whom are quite happy in and with their lives. These are people who’s needs are being met by whatever the system they live under, and who derive their happiness (in a more healthy way IMHO BTW) from the relationships they have with others, from the personal satisfaction with the lives they lead, and from their contribution to the micro-society in which they day-to-day exist. Their happiness is not defined by what they don’t have, in particular westernized materialism, but rather by what they do have.

 

The flip group is the masses of people in free societies; who never-the-less are quite unhappy indeed.

 

Satisfaction and contentment, followed by happiness, then self-actualization is more a function of the system’s, any system’s, ability to deliver peoples needs, than by some esoteric “freedom” than does nothing to provide for the populous. Freedom and liberty in and of itself solves/provides nothing.

So the freedom to chart one's own destiny and pursue happiness however he defines it is worth abandoning in favor of a system that provides one's needs (provided those needs aren't particularly westernized or materialistic)?

 

I have some experience with this, albeit from the system side. See, I grew up on a ranch in Montana. We raised cattle following the same principles -- provide all their needs (food, shelter, healthcare, protection from predators, etc.) and promote healthy relationships between them. In fact, it's these very relationships from which cattle derive their contentment. They'll suffer just about any hardship so long as they remain with the herd.

 

Compare and contrast their way of life to that of the bison that often wander onto our property. I have to admit the cows appear happier... They're certainly fatter. The bison know no master and thus must find their own food, fend off predators, protect their territory, etc. They're lean and mean creatures, unpredictable, ornery, often violent and dangerous, with little or no respect for the boundaries (read: fences) of ranchers. As if all this weren't bad enough, they can also carry and spread dangerous disease (brucellosis). They too rely on close relationships for their safety and well-being, but clearly their life is much harder with razor-thin margins between success and failure.

 

That said, if I had to choose between the life of a bison or life of a cow, I'd choose the bison way without a moment's hesitation. I have little or no faith in systems and would rather struggle to meet my own needs than depend on a system to provide them for me.

 

But that's just me.

[DavidEBSmith]

But the bison were nearly exterminated by commercial hunting in the 1800s, i.e. unregulated, unfettered capitalism. So how does that fit into your romantic metaphor?

[steve.foote]

1) Abolish Mandatory Withholding -- If taxpayers were required to write their own quarterly tax checks, they would pay MUCH closer attention to how it's being spent and the decisions that guide fiscal policy.

 

WooooHoooooHooooo! That is the single most important change this country could possibly make. It would bring a whole new level of connection between individuals and their government.

 

At the same time, all non-monetary compensation should be abolished. No pension plans, no health care plans, no company cars, etc. All a company can compensate employees with is cold hard cash. Talk about leveling the playing field.

 

That would be a return to capitalism.

[SeanC]

But the bison were nearly exterminated by commercial hunting in the 1800s, i.e. unregulated, unfettered capitalism. So how does that fit into your romantic metaphor?

I'd still rather be shot in the wild whilst fleeing unfettered capitalist hunters, have my head lopped off and displayed as a trophy while my guts were left to the craws of buzzards than be led to the slaughterhouse by well-regulated, appropriately fettered ranchers, my inheritance stripped from my bones along with my soul in a meat-packing plant, if that's what yer askin'...

[Ken H.]

The Peoples Temple was initially structured as an inter-racial mission for the sick, homeless and jobless. He assembled a large following of over 900 members in Indianapolis IN during the 1950's.

 

"He preached a 'social gospel' of human freedom, equality, and love, which required helping the least and the lowliest of society's members. Later on, however, this gospel became explicitly socialistic, or communistic in Jones' own view, and the hypocrisy of white Christianity was ridiculed while 'apostolic socialism' was preached."

 

Are you talking about something like this?

Naw, those kind of micro-experiments, out of a lack of a better term, are forced to attempt to exist in a societal environment that is counter to their principles. That they become overwhelmed by the pressure and challenge is no big surprise.

[steve.foote]

Ken, paint us a picture of your ideal society. How would it be structured? Who would lead it, and how would it be governed?

[Ken H.]

That said, if I had to choose between the life of a bison or life of a cow, I'd choose the bison way without a moment's hesitation. I have little or no faith in systems and would rather struggle to meet my own needs than depend on a system to provide them for me.

 

But that's just me.

But Sean, you can’t/couldn’t survive on your own. No one can.

 

Actually your metaphor is quite a good one. And in it which is most likely to perish first? The ‘free’ bison of course.

 

But the point I’ve tried to make (more than once) is that you, or any singular person can’t prosper, or even survive in ‘bison mode.’ Humans require each other to survive. We require the betterment of the whole to have betterment of individual selves. It’s mandatory for the type of creature we are on this planet.

 

I have a sister-in-law, who is the outdoorsy type, and we’ve got into this argument before. She is convinced she could survive on her own. Hunt, fish, make shelter, etc. To which I ask - with what? With her rifle for example she replies. Who made the rifle? It’s the product of human cooperation of course. As are the bullets. She says she could live in a tent. (Ignoring the fact that this is Canada in the winter!) Who made the tent? Could grow her own crops. Where would/did the seeds come from? Or the tools. Even if you could overcome all the physical obstacles, the knowledge base of how to survive singularly is product of human cooperation. We/she wasn’t born with the ability/knowledge to start a fire with two sticks. Or what not to eat in the wild so as to not be poisoned. The list goes on and on. As a matter of fact without a successful society to provide our basic needs: food, clothing & shelter, we would absolutely perish.

 

Sure some group of people could survive for some period of time, maybe even for the rest of their own particular lives, if they drew a line in the proverbial sand and ‘stepped out of society' so to speak. But that would only be because they are dependent on the creations of a successful society prior to their decision to ‘unplug.’ But that doesn’t make the basic principle of them being just as reliant on society as the person who doesn’t ‘take the leap.’

 

My point is no man is an island. We all rise and fall by the plight of the collective. And when the good of the collective, i.e.- the common slides/fails we all do to. The current world financial crash is a perfect micro-example. Everyone is going to be hurt to some extent by the downfall of middle-class America. It can be no other way. The Butterfly Effect is alive and well, proven time and time again.

 

[Ken H.]

So, basically you think that Greg just said that the government is using "effective" socialist measures to put us back on the "failed" track of capitalism?

I’m not trying to put words in Greg’s mouth, he can answer what if that’s what he intended to commutate as his opinion or not.

 

But it’s certainly what I think. Even the way these various bailout attempts are being sold / spun contain giveaways of the real intent. They are all laced with terms like, “when the market recovers…”, “we’ll sell the (federalized) assets when their value goes back up…”, “The people will get the money back in time and with interest.” These are all clear indications to me that no one is seriously (yet anyway) talking about a change in direction, a correction of what’s wrong with the model that got us to this point in the first place. Their all just talking about band aid approaches, a ‘short detour on the socialistic path’ if you will, with the longer term intended goal of returning to a, yes failed, path of unfettered capitalism.

 

Now whether or not those ‘effective socialist measures” will truly turn out to be effective; well the jury’s still out on that one. So far anyway, it appears that those measures haven’t accomplished didly-squat. Each day the numbers, on oh so many fronts, are worse that the day before.

 

[russell_bynum]

It seems quite ironic that the current plans/attempts to save capitalism are, in effect - socialism. Just, again, by different names. E.g. – “rescue plans”, "bailouts", "federal assistance programs", etc.

Where do you get the idea that these plans are attempts to save capitalism? The attempts represent socialistic interference with markets at their worst.

Because I think the end goal of all this interference is not to construct a more socialistic model, but to use those approaches as a short-term fix, with the real goal being to restore the free-for-all market of the recent past that allows a select few to get very, very, rich. In other words, not to figure out a better model, figure out how to get back to the old model.

 

That's like giving the alcoholic a big bottle of Vodka as a short-term fix with the real goal of making him not an alcoholic.

[Ken H.]

Ken, paint us a picture of your ideal society. How would it be structured? Who would lead it, and how would it be governed?

Well an article in the August 18th issue of Maclean’s (a Canadian magazine I believe) titled, “Does China Have It Right?” puts it in far better words than I can. I wish I could find an online link to the article; I’d post it.

 

In it the author, Mauruce Strong, uses the term, “A Socialist Market Economy.” The new China is, “...using the methods of capitalism to achieve the goals of socialism.” Neither embracing a pure socialist model, nor a capitalist one. But rather, weighing the pros and cons of individual attributes of each, and selectively deciding which of each to pursue. Pursue to strike a balance between incenting its people to succeed both individually and collectively. Is it still an experiment/work in progress? Of course it is. All societies are. But most importantly, China is abandoning a rigid adherence to the dogma of socialism. The need for an abandonment of the rigid dogma of capitalism is realization most of the western world has yet to come to, but yet doing so is just as mandatory for its survival.

 

I think China will get it right sometime in the remainder of this century. They’ve arguably raised more people out of poverty in the last few decades than all other nations on earth combined. I agree with Strong that China will re-emerge as a world leader. And they are no democracy by any stretch of course. But they today recognize that a strong and willing middle-class is key to their long term success. Something we once knew but have forgotten.

 

 

Edit - OK I found the link - http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20080806_32272_32272

[Ken H.]

That's like giving the alcoholic a big bottle of Vodka as a short-term fix with the real goal of making him not an alcoholic.

Yup. And both efforts are equally doomed.

[steve.foote]

If I understand this correctly, you are talking about a combination of capitalist and socialist characteristics, and that China is close to that example. Do I have that right? If so, then in your view, what are the primary positive attributes of capitalism, and of socialism, that you would want included in this ideal society?

 

Also, I don't know how China's government is selected, but would you advocate a similar system?

[John Ranalletta]

I think China will get it right sometime in the remainder of this century.

If you believe that a society that intentionally murders tens of millions of its infant females to accomplish its social/economic policies is "getting it right", we have nothing more to discuss.

 

Take a trip to Shanghai soon. You'll understand why Harbor Freight tools are painted red. That's so they don't have to wipe off the workers' blood off before packaging.

[tallman]

Yep, they've got it right.

Environmentally.

Politically.

Just right of Stalin.

Their model, the same as the ones of all developing countries in the 19th and 20th centuries depends on exploitation of a working class, environmental havoc, growth, contrition, growth, and then collapse followed by a different model.

(See; British Empire, American Imperialist Empire)

The negative interaction sanctioned by governments to obtain natural resources and increase industrial production has always resulted in a less than optimal outcome.

TADT.

Until we, collectively, can sustain an economic model that doesn't result in a negative overall impact and/or depletion of natural resources (See; water quality, air quality, groundwater pollution, deforestation, desertification, environmental poluution from mining, for examples) we are destined to eventually see a collapse of economies that exist in such a paradigm.

We will survive, but it may require the next Ice Age to accomplish the catharsis.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

[John Ranalletta]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

• One hopes China's still-primitive society will mutate to one that is much more humane. I'd offer, conditions in pre-industrial China were less good
• Pragmatically, one cannot ignore the alternative which is war, sooner than later. China's policy of eliminating female infants has created an immense skew in it demographics. There now exists a disproportionately large number of unwed (thus, socially undocked) males who have left their homes for work in industrial centers. High unemployment and unrest in this group could politically destabilize the country. China's option is to export this problem in the form of an army.
• It's their country, not ours, and unlike our current prez, I do not believe in proactive intervention to bring about political change in other countries who do not pose an imminent threat to US.
• We have no alternative because we do not have the political, moral or financial resources to do so

[Whip]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

 

 

 

Simple

 

I like Chinese food.........they like my money.