It’s not REAL socialism though
Comments
-
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
-
Meaningless blather. Roche had to turn it to affirmative action to illustrate arbitrary 'cuz old Hayek wasn't making any sense.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'll let Hayek do it.HHusky said:
What's a socialist utopia? Sounds like something Hayek was proposing.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
I'll look to you to explain it then.RaceBannon said:
This is over your headHHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
Go chase an ambulance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDuPjK_HupY -
Yeah, "Hayek" wasn't making any sense. Let's hear from the Oracle of Paulsboro! C'mon Dazzler let's hear about your economic best ideas!HHusky said:
Meaningless blather. Roche had to turn it to affirmative action to illustrate arbitrary 'cuz old Hayek wasn't making any sense.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'll let Hayek do it.HHusky said:
What's a socialist utopia? Sounds like something Hayek was proposing.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
I'll look to you to explain it then.RaceBannon said:
This is over your headHHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
Go chase an ambulancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDuPjK_HupY
-
Bonus Hayek for those of you that can manage past 3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ -
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
-
You brought Hayek into the thread and got owned.
Take the L and slither away . . .
-
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
-
The dazzler just votes for authoritarian dems who want to micromanage the private economy. He remembers the horror of our February 2020 economy. Blacks working? Can't have that.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
-
Time for the Dazzler to start the ad hominem attacks . . .
LOL . . . Quotes Hayek and gets it shoved down his throat.
Classic Dazzler! -
I love that he really thought he had a "gotcha" moment right there.trublue said:Time for the Dazzler to start the ad hominem attacks . . .
LOL . . . Quotes Hayek and gets it shoved down his throat.
Classic Dazzler!
It's weird that he won't just come out and say what he's advocating for. I can't imagine why that is. It must be that he's crafting a well thought out and concise piece of well researched economic policy to elucidate all of us with. -
No.trublue said:You brought Hayek into the thread and got owned.
Take the L and slither away . . .
I didn't.
Do try to keep up. -
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people. -
There are multiple frog posts.whatshouldicareabout said:
Legit question: how many frogs posts have you made here?MikeDamone said:@TheKobeStopper We just need to vote for damage control until we can get there.
-
Socialism’s failure is America’s fault. Good to know. You’d think a system so awesome would succeed on its merits and popularity regardless of the meddling of an evil outside force..TheKobeStopper said:Impose sanctions.
Cause shortages.
Finger wag about socialism.
Just imagine how great Germany could have done if. we hadn’t fucked it all up for them in 1944. -
Good thing our poor get free healthcare, food, and housing.HHusky said:
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
"Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
"To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such ‘acts of God’ as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
“There is, finally, the supremely important problem of combating general fluctuations of economic activity and the recurrent waves of large-scale unemployment which accompany them. This is, of course, one of the gravest and most pressing problems of our time. But, though its solution will require much planning in the good sense, it does not — or at least need not — require that special kind of planning which according to its advocates is to replace the market.
"Many economists hope, indeed, that the ultimate remedy may be found in the field of monetary policy, which would involve nothing incompatible even with nineteenth-century liberalism. Others, it is true, believe that real success can be expected only from the skillful timing of public works undertaken on a very large scale. This might lead to much more serious restrictions of the competitive sphere, and, in experimenting in this direction, we shall have to carefully watch our step if we are to avoid making all economic activity progressively more dependent on the direction and volume of government expenditure. But this is neither the only nor, in my opinion, the most promising way of meeting the gravest threat to economic security.
"In any case, the very necessary effort to secure protection against these fluctuations do not lead to the kind of planning which constitutes such a threat to our freedom.”
-Hayek -
You don’t get Hayek, at all. Do you realize you quoted the road to serfdom?HHusky said:
What's a socialist utopia? Sounds like something Hayek was proposing.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
I'll look to you to explain it then.RaceBannon said:
This is over your headHHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
Go chase an ambulance
Since you’re so into Hayek, I dare you to watch this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ
-
He speaks! Fantastic start. I'm so proud of you. Obviously some truly groundbreaking stuff here and not just pabulum for the economic layman.HHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves.
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily in your own community and give you the virtue of argumental charity that IF everyone else did you would also pay additional taxes(and not drive to another state to avoid them). -
We have regulated capitalism and a safety net so H votes for the people who want to tear it down and replace it with socialism
The democrats aren't working to make America better. Quite the opposite -
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people. -
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think. -
Gus Hall was running?RaceBannon said:We have regulated capitalism and a safety net so H votes for the people who want to tear it down and replace it with socialism
-
One thing we do know is that the dazzler doesn't pay his fair share of taxes. But he waiting until the threat of jail to do so, because of his high character and love of fascism.
-
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
-
HH's idea of economics is pour some olive oil on the floor at the local grocery store and stage a slip and fall.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Yeah, "Hayek" wasn't making any sense. Let's hear from the Oracle of Paulsboro! C'mon Dazzler let's hear about your economic best ideas!HHusky said:
Meaningless blather. Roche had to turn it to affirmative action to illustrate arbitrary 'cuz old Hayek wasn't making any sense.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I'll let Hayek do it.HHusky said:
What's a socialist utopia? Sounds like something Hayek was proposing.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
I'll look to you to explain it then.RaceBannon said:
This is over your headHHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
Go chase an ambulancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDuPjK_HupY -
The gal who thinks this is about morality weighs in. Told ya.WestlinnDuck said:One thing we do know is that the dazzler doesn't pay his fair share of taxes. But he waiting until the threat of jail to do so, because of his high character and love of fascism.
-
Imagine defending socialism.HHusky said:
The gal who thinks this is about morality weighs in. Told ya.WestlinnDuck said:One thing we do know is that the dazzler doesn't pay his fair share of taxes. But he waiting until the threat of jail to do so, because of his high character and love of fascism.
-
Watching you try to argue economics with an actual economist is hysterical. It's like me challenging Jordan to some one on one, only worse.HHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
-
I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.HHusky said:
I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.HHusky said:
Such as?UW_Doog_Bot said:
We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarilyHHusky said:
I like adequately regulated capitalism myself, plus a social safety net. Capitalism will still produce a lot of wealth though, and wealthy people should pay more in than we do, and not merely to pay for the stuff government does, but also as a redistribution mechanism in an age of increasing wealth inequality.UW_Doog_Bot said:
What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.HHusky said:
I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.WestlinnDuck said:
Yeah, the dazzler aka Mr. Conservative for his mythical Reagan votes. His advocacy of socialism is what he learned getting his pretend MBA. Quoting Hayek as an advocate of massive government interference in the private sector is like quoting Mao as a capitalist advocate.doogie said:@HHusky is principled and voted for Ronald Reagan and advocates for a socialist utopia and I’m guessing, 👍 legalized shrooms in the workplace
Now one of you Einsteins will say that I can volunteer to pay more, as some sort of exercise in morality. Because you're not serious people.
"I'd love to hear more. What do you mean by "adequately regulated capitalism, plus a social safety net."
I'd also love to know what level of wealth inequality is acceptable in a society and how you ensure that redistribution goes to those intended and not to the redistributers themselves."
This is your chance! We are all waiting to hear what you have to say! I can't imagine why it's so hard to get you to tell us what you think.
Regulated capitalism has been our system for some time. I'm not a revolutionary, and I like our system; the arguments will be over the details. I like the fact we provide some social safety net; the arguments will be over the details.
It is desirable that most of us feel we have a stake in the economy and that the Republic isn't controlled by massive concentrations of wealth. I'm far less concerned about the occasional corrupt redistributor than I am about the enormous concentrations of dynastic wealth itself. The latter threaten the continued existence of the Republic much more than the former.
As to the second point, the vast majority of American wealth is 1st generation(Gates, Bezos, Musk to name a few) and very few families make it beyond 3 generations of inherited wealth. There's a few notables no doubt but for the three you can name there's thousands more that have foundered.
Political corruption on the other hand, is this even really a conversation we are having? Isn't this one of the few things generally agreed upon by both the left and the right of this bored? I could wax on about lobbying, political insider trading, the swamp's revolving doors etc. but do I need to? By all means, I will if we disagree but I thought money in politics WAS a problem.
-
It's sad that @Rubberfist hasn't even come back for the answer I took the time to write out for him. *sighSwaye said:
Watching you try to argue economics with an actual economist is hysterical. It's like me challenging Jordan to some one on one, only worse.HHusky said:He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".
I should have put in more pictures of Swedish chicks. FTR they also didn't lock down and instead prioritized personal freedom.
Maybe we SHOULD be learning some things from them. -
Oh, I’m keeping up. You’re getting owned. Your lawyerly doublespeak is hilarious as you try to fight your way out of a paper bag.HHusky said:
No.trublue said:You brought Hayek into the thread and got owned.
Take the L and slither away . . .
I didn't.
Do try to keep up.
I’m sold on the value of an education from UW until YOU come on here, brag about it and repeatedly (over many years) make a complete jack ASS out of yourself.
You must be the outlier . . . Kind of like Biden achieving 3 degrees; being near the top of his class in law school; getting his way paid through college based on his academic aptitude and achievements . . .
You must operate in a very narrow, specialized legal field.
Thanks for the laughs!
