Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It’s not REAL socialism though
Comments
-
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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. -
Deep thoughts from the Dazzler . . . LOL . . . The growth of government has exploded.
I wonder what your father (the retired public school teacher) would think of today’s educators and the quality of public education (at the K-12 level) at the present time.
Is he still alive? -
Take the L, Counselor.
You’re a fucking hack.
Barack Obama - the more Conservative alternative.
Good one . . . -
Ah, dusting off the old, "rampant capitalism caused the Gilded Age".HHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.
Nevermind that rent seeking was a large cause of inequality and monopolizing of industry, even with those inefficiencies the US model was so terrible that immigrants streamed in from around the world because US standards of living were record breaking for the common man and the number of self made fortunes was higher than the rest of the history of Europe combined.
The work week, rising wages, the end of child labor, etc. The government takes credit for these things but the reality is that in each case they were already socially the norm because of improved living standards by the time legislation caught up to the market.
Kind of a run on but I'm on mobile.
In all of history Capitalism has existed for a blip. In that blip capitalism has allowed a small fraction of the world population to create more wealth than all of humanity in the rest of history combined.
Then you have capitalism being spread and destroying poverty at the fastest clip in recorded history over the last 20-40yrs across the world.
It's far from perfect but it creates more wealth for more people than any other system and it ain't close. -
Now! I do have some middle ground perhaps.
Global liberalization has increased gdp across the globe but very much so at the expense of the American middle class. Something many economists believe is transitory but after 2016 many opinions have shifted. China is essentially an entire nation of slave labor. Our elites and the CCP are the ones profiting from outsourcing while the middle has been hollowed out.
Combine that with the fed printing fiat currency which FAR favors those that make their living from capital vs. Those that earn wages.
People are pissed, left and right. The trouble is I don't see giving the swamp more money as a way to fix this. Fix the regulatory environment for small businesses. Fix the tax code. Fix immigration (make a legal process that makes sense) Fix international trade and world standards(like ending incentives for doing business with the CCP). Stop printing fucking money to hand out to government rat holes while causing inflation.
I digress, not my best work but as said, I'm on mobile. -
No need to pile on . . . The Dazzler has been bedazzled . . .
-
I could hear the Dazzler Gurgle from Greater Idaho!
-
Is $6 trillion not a strong enough net?Rubberfist said:
Wait a minute now… I specifically remember you and I having a discussion about nationalized healthcare and I brought up these European (and Canada)countries that are absolutely capitalist but have strong social safety nets and they were “socialist” for that discussion. So what are they?SFGbob said:
Now try listing countries that are actually socialist/communist. Lou Dobbs!!!!Rubberfist said:Now do Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Canada, France and Switzerland.
It’s a cautionary tale to those with synapses that actually fire.
All around the country, millions of jobs can’t be filled because of Socialism.
In the words of the late, grate @TheKobeStopper, you’re not very good at this.
-
JFC. those damn 40 years…..that continue today as long as the leftists you worship get out of they way. And why do you leave out the decades that were extremely prosperous before 1940. Fucking idiot. Your really should kill yourself. Addition by subtractionHHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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. -
Dazzler credits the economic boom of that era to high tax rates.MikeDamone said:
JFC. those damn 40 years…..that continue today as long as the leftists you worship get out of they way.HHusky said:
Boomers are very fortunate in that the mid-20th Century was a uniquely favorable period for self-made wealth. What the 40s 50s 60s and 70s looked like has not been the norm for industrial capitalism and things have been reverting back to something more typical and less egalitarian for decades.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.
