It’s not REAL socialism though

HHusky

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

Gus Hall was running?

WestlinnDuck

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.

HHusky

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

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

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.

I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.

What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.

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.

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.

We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily

Such as?

Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.

"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.

I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.

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.

Sledog

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

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

What's a socialist utopia? Sounds like something Hayek was proposing.

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".

This is over your head

Go chase an ambulance

I'll look to you to explain it then.

I'll let Hayek do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDuPjK_HupY

Meaningless blather. Roche had to turn it to affirmative action to illustrate arbitrary 'cuz old Hayek wasn't making any sense.

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!

HH's idea of economics is pour some olive oil on the floor at the local grocery store and stage a slip and fall.

HHusky

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.

The gal who thinks this is about morality weighs in. Told ya.

MikeDamone

HHusky said:

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.

The gal who thinks this is about morality weighs in. Told ya.

Imagine defending socialism.

Swaye

HHusky said:

He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".

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.

UW_Doog_Bot

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

WestlinnDuck said:

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

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.

I don't advocate socialism, madam. I do advocate that you learn what it is.

What DO you economically advocate for Dazzler? We are waiting.

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.

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.

We'll ignore that if you had a problem with wealth inequality you could be doing something about it yourself voluntarily

Such as?

Don't worry! We said we'd ignore it for you. Charity and all. I want to hear about your economics plan.

"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.

I've heard of charity. We give to charity. I guess I'm already setting the example you mentioned then.

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.

I'm asking for Details here! Please do elaborate. Like I said, this is your chance, don't disappoint.

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.

UW_Doog_Bot

Swaye said:

HHusky said:

He obviously means something different by the "Welfare State" than you gals do. What he advocates, you decry as "socialism".

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.

It's sad that @Rubberfist hasn't even come back for the answer I took the time to write out for him. *sigh

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.

trublue

HHusky said:

trublue said:

You brought Hayek into the thread and got owned.

Take the L and slither away . . .

No.

I didn't.

Do try to keep up.

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.

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!