Author Topic: Left eating it's own  (Read 2354 times)

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Left eating it's own
« on: February 21, 2019, 05:30:35 PM »
Bernie Sanders has just announced, and reactions have been mixed.

I want to cry.  Honestly.

We get a guy who has stood up against bull*censored* foreign wars and money in politics for 35 years. Has been a staunch proponent of the same policies that turned Scandinavia and it's countries into third world nations.

He doesn't talk about black people enough.  He talks about a rising tide raising all ships. He acknowledges that poor white people are actually a thing and deserving to be listened to and somehow that's a bad thing.

It's gonna be 2016 all over again. I'm as liberal as anyone here and I am sick and tired of the race game.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2020, 09:23:50 AM »
I think this post is relevant now.

Bernie is over Biden in the polls and has surged past Biden on Election Betting Odds (35.6% vs 30.3%). Bernie is peaking at a very good time, right before the caucuses. His staff threatening to burn down cities and engage in mass riots if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination seems to be a winning message to the left. A $60 trillion spending package also seems to resonate with democrats.

I cannot believe democrats would nominate an avowed socialist and move so far left they become irrelevant bt looks like we really have a chance to see it happen.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2020, 12:43:53 PM »
I think this post is relevant now.

Bernie is over Biden in the polls and has surged past Biden on Election Betting Odds (35.6% vs 30.3%). Bernie is peaking at a very good time, right before the caucuses. His staff threatening to burn down cities and engage in mass riots if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination seems to be a winning message to the left. A $60 trillion spending package also seems to resonate with democrats.

I cannot believe democrats would nominate an avowed socialist and move so far left they become irrelevant bt looks like we really have a chance to see it happen.

Has anyone seen Babylon 5? This post reminds me of the propaganda being released by the fake news channel.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2020, 03:07:20 PM »
I think this post is relevant now.

Bernie is over Biden in the polls and has surged past Biden on Election Betting Odds (35.6% vs 30.3%). Bernie is peaking at a very good time, right before the caucuses. His staff threatening to burn down cities and engage in mass riots if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination seems to be a winning message to the left. A $60 trillion spending package also seems to resonate with democrats.

I cannot believe democrats would nominate an avowed socialist and move so far left they become irrelevant bt looks like we really have a chance to see it happen.

The inaccuracies here are mind blowing, even by crunch standards.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2020, 07:35:47 AM »
Which parts are inaccurate?

CNN:The cost of Sanders' agenda -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record

Washington Times: Project Veritas: Sanders staffer says 'cities burn' if Trump reelected, predicts violence at DNC
Quote
A Project Veritas video released Tuesday showed a man identified as a campaign organizer for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernard Sanders saying “cities burn” if President Trump wins reelection and predicting violence against police at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

Asked what would happen if Mr. Trump is reelected, the man described as Sanders campaign field organizer Kyle Jurek said, “F–ing cities burn,” adding, “I mean, we don’t have a lot of time left, we have to save f–ing human civilization.”

Sanders has, for decades, identified himself as a socialist. You can google that.

The polls and betting odds are also easily googled.

So, what was inaccurate?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2020, 07:45:41 AM by Crunch »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2020, 11:14:39 AM »
So, what was inaccurate?

All of it, and you know why :)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2020, 11:20:57 AM »
Saying "cities burn" is a prediction not a threat, and as I pointed out before this is one weird Oakland activist in any event, you are implying that this is how "the left" thinks. There is no indication that there is widespread prediction of violence by Sanders staffers or supporters.

From your own article.

Quote
Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care).

So there isn't enough detail to make the calculation. Plus it sounds like single payer is an add-on, when in reality businesses and individuals recoup all the money they are pumping into the current system.

Not to mention that people who are not crunch understand there are all kinds of democratic socialism, and don't necessarily panic that gulags are coming because of government healthcare.

I almost forgot that most people look at this number and immediately think annual when the figure refers to 10 years. Gee, why not say it will cost $600 trillion over the next century?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2020, 11:24:30 AM by TheDrake »

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2020, 12:31:15 PM »
Not the mention that the source video for the Washington Times article is from Project Veritas, which has a worse record of lying than even Donald Trump (which is admittedly hard to believe :) ).

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2020, 12:31:51 PM »
Sanders could have won in 2016 as a gun moderate but he’s bowed to the DNC on that issue and become unelectable. America would sooner elect a socialist than an enemy of the Second Amendment

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2020, 02:05:12 PM »
More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, so I'm not so sure about that, Pete. :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2020, 02:13:41 PM »
More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, so I'm not so sure about that, Pete. :)

Yes, after being told by their own party and the media that Bernie "had no chance." Guess what, people believe what they're told. It's all contra-factual, we'll never know.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2020, 04:24:16 PM »
So, what was inaccurate?

All of it, and you know why :)

Nope. It’s all 100% true as reported. Just because you can’t refute it doesn’t make it inaccurate.

Sure, there will be the litany of logical fallacies that pass for deep though here. Those are a given and you’ll see them all over the thread.

I quoted a CNN report. Accurately. I point to video, again accurately. The polling data was also accurate.

Just because you don’t like it it doesn’t make it false.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2020, 04:28:59 PM »
Saying "cities burn" is a prediction not a threat, and as I pointed out before this is one weird Oakland activist in any event, you are implying that this is how "the left" thinks. There is no indication that there is widespread prediction of violence by Sanders staffers or supporters.

From your own article.

Quote
Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care).

So there isn't enough detail to make the calculation. Plus it sounds like single payer is an add-on, when in reality businesses and individuals recoup all the money they are pumping into the current system.

Not to mention that people who are not crunch understand there are all kinds of democratic socialism, and don't necessarily panic that gulags are coming because of government healthcare.

I almost forgot that most people look at this number and immediately think annual when the figure refers to 10 years. Gee, why not say it will cost $600 trillion over the next century?

The threats of violent repercussions comes from staff members. You can argue they’re mentally deficient outliers but it’s more than one and there is a strong propensity for violence from the left why should we believe they are just lying? If you watch the video, it’s clearly a threat.

As for the money, it’s 10 years because that’s standard CBO projection horizons.  Sanders does indeed refuse to say how much it will cost - says it’s impossible to say. But CNN and other do some reasonable calculations and come up with tens of trillions of dollars.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2020, 05:37:33 PM »

More Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, so I'm not so sure about that, Pete. :)

Yes, I’m one of those who voted Hillary based on DNC lies, and I’m still angry about it.

Hillary cheated, outspent both her rivals put together and still managed to lose the election.  And full win no respect from me by trying to change election rules after the election. It’s contemptible.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2020, 05:59:58 PM »
If it is so widespread, then you must have a quote from Bernie's campaign manager, a state level organizer, or maybe somebody with more credibility than a campaign volunteer, probably an unpaid one. But its good that you think someone's campaign staff reflects on the candidate next time a Manafort surfaces in the Trump camp.

Not to mention that O'Keefe asks leading questions trying to goad people into saying stupid things and then edits out all the buildup. Dimes to dollars he proposed the idea of violence, rather than asking "what do you think might happen" in an innocent way.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2020, 07:37:55 AM »
How about yesterday’s NYT where they have write-up on the Bernie supporters who have been attacking and in some cases making threats (both online and off) against people who fail to support their candidate:

Quote
Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter…

“Politics is a contact sport,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary. “But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online. You might have to put your phone down. There’s going to be a blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.”

In recent days, he said, one man sent a profanity-filled private message on Instagram, calling Mr. Sellers, who is black, an “Uncle Tom” and wishing him brain cancer…

For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live…

While Mr. Sanders’s poll numbers with nonwhite voters are stronger than many rivals’, female and nonwhite Sanders critics say they continue to face disproportionate harassment from ostensibly progressive forces. “People talk about white dudes getting radicalized on the right,” said Imani Gandy, a senior legal analyst for Rewire.News behind a popular Twitter account, @AngryBlackLady. “I feel like white dudes in Brooklyn are being radicalized too.”

Then there RoseAnn DeMoro who was the leader of the California Nurse’s Association which pushed for Medicare for All in California back in 2017. DeMoro’s group was so aggressive that the entire Democratic caucus in the state assembly wrote a letter demanding that she stop harassing lawmakers. “We have become alarmed and disheartened by bullying tactics, threats of violence, and death threats ...”

DeMoro has been openly discussed as a possible cabinet pick in a future Sanders administration - Sanders named her himself.

Sanders and his high level staff are smart enough to be discreet about it. His followers, volunteers, campaign organizers, and cabinet picks are not so restrained, especially since they know they can count on cover from people like right here in the thread.

As of the video, you can watch it, see what happened. Or you can continue to refuse and repeat the talkung points. I’m sure Sanders can count on you to do the “right thing”
« Last Edit: January 28, 2020, 07:43:14 AM by Crunch »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2020, 10:48:35 AM »
Are you going to look into Trump supporters next?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2020, 10:56:02 AM »
Or how about chocolate milk supporters? I'm sure some of them are crazy, and that no doubt also proves that chocolate milk is evil.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2020, 11:00:28 AM »
Or how about chocolate milk supporters? I'm sure some of them are crazy, and that no doubt also proves that chocolate milk is evil.

That would be the point, yes.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2020, 11:47:31 AM »
Haven't followed much of what's said above, but I did see where Bernie's campaign was taking some flack for advertising the fact that Joe Rogan recently mentioned, rather offhandedly, that he would probably vote for Bernie. Rogan's podcast has around 190M downloads per month, so it seems reasonable that Bernie would want to leverage that reach.

But apparently some of Bernie's fans are not happy with this because Rogan is a transphobe. He's made comments saying he thinks it's dangerous for biological men to compete against women in combat sports. Apart from those radical and hateful statements, Joe's pretty liberal and about as apolitical as it gets.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2020, 12:46:14 PM »
Quote
He's made comments saying he thinks it's dangerous for biological men to compete against women in combat sports. Apart from those radical and hateful statements, Joe's pretty liberal and about as apolitical as it gets.

Is left moving toward the requirement that in order to be a Liberal one must fall in line with everything 'woke' and never push back or question identity roles or politics.
Without knowing anything about the context of the statement That it's "dangerous for biological men to compete against women in combat sports." what is it that makes that a radical and hateful statement?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2020, 12:49:58 PM »
Without knowing anything about the context of the statement That it's "dangerous for biological men to compete against women in combat sports." what is it that makes that a radical and hateful statement?

I believe ScottF was being facetious with this statement. Basically it's radicalism co-opting the media spotlight and pretending to be mainstream.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2020, 12:58:37 PM »
Quote
As of the video, you can watch it, see what happened. Or you can continue to refuse and repeat the talkung points. I’m sure Sanders can count on you to do the “right thing”

Oh man, you got em dead to rights. Sanders supporters are all bent on murder and destruction. You saw right through their ploy of caring about people, trying to make sure they don't have to live out their diseased lives on city streets.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2020, 01:00:48 PM »
Now wait, who was it said this?

Quote
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

Looks like a Trump supporter advocating mass violence. Or do you have an excuse that makes this okay, but not the Sanders supporter?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2020, 01:03:14 PM »
Quote
Here’s the money quote from that thread. This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That’s where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate too.@StewartRhodesOK https://t.co/DjB8TY0vCo

— Oath Keepers (@Oathkeepers) September 30, 2019

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2020, 01:03:47 PM »
Quote
Earlier this year, after Trump’s reelection campaign repeatedly ran ads quoting Trump’s references to an “invasion” on the southern border, another group—the United Constitutional Patriots—set up camp at the New Mexico/Mexico border. Without any legal authorization, this group assumed the duty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop and detain migrants, all while heavily armed and dressed in military fatigues.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2020, 01:05:55 PM »
Quote
But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 36 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.

In nine cases, perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically attacking innocent victims. In another 10 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant's violent or threatening behavior.

Seven cases involved violent or threatening acts perpetrated in defiance of Trump, with many of them targeting Trump's allies in Congress. But the vast majority of the cases -- 29 of the 36 -- reflect someone echoing presidential rhetoric, not protesting it.

So who's got the violent supporters again? I'm waiting....

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2020, 01:12:58 PM »
Okay, I have to recommend the video now because I busted out laughing. "He earned almost $11,000." It's like if somebody in a high school AV club recorded video with their Motorola phone. They claimed to have taken footage of this guy for months. And yet they still didn't get him actually planning a violent act, or a street protest, or basically anything other than talk.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2020, 01:35:12 PM »
Lot of complaints for a statement that is mostly fact with one sentence of hyperbole.

I think this post is relevant now.

Bernie is over Biden in the polls and has surged past Biden on Election Betting Odds (35.6% vs 30.3%). Bernie is peaking at a very good time, right before the caucuses.

Facts and an opinion on it being a good time to peak, which is hardly controversial.

Quote
His staff threatening to burn down cities and engage in mass riots if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination seems to be a winning message to the left.

This one is untrue, its burning down cities if Trump wins not if Bernie doesn't get the nod, and it's more of a prediction than a threat.  It's hyperbole by Crunch, which makes the hyperbole by the Bernie support (or if it's not hyperbole by the Bernie supporter then it's even more accurate), and it flags that Bernie supporters are more unhinged and dangerous than those of most politicians.  Since this is literally an oft repeated smear of Trump and was literally a Democratic talking point (without evidence) in 2016, it's oddly ridiculous to dismiss it here.

Quote
A $60 trillion spending package also seems to resonate with democrats.

Fact.

Quote
I cannot believe democrats would nominate an avowed socialist and move so far left they become irrelevant bt looks like we really have a chance to see it happen.

Fact that he is a socialist, and fair opinion about where the Dems have to be to consider nominating him.

From your own article.

Quote
Exact cost projections on all of Sanders' proposals aren't available, in part because he hasn't fully fleshed out some of the ideas he's embraced (such as universal pre-K and child care).

So there isn't enough detail to make the calculation.

Lol.  There's enough detail to make the ball park calculation.  Any failing to provide details that would provide more focus and accuracy are completely on Bernie and his desire to hide the costs involved.

Quote
Plus it sounds like single payer is an add-on, when in reality businesses and individuals recoup all the money they are pumping into the current system.

There's never been a single scrap of reality or logic in this Warren talking point.  It's been destroyed in the financial press.  Redirection of money from business/personal payments to insurance to the government through taxes to pay for medical costs will not net out to zero.

Quote
Not to mention that people who are not crunch understand there are all kinds of democratic socialism, and don't necessarily panic that gulags are coming because of government healthcare.

Anyone who thinks there's a material difference between Democratic Socialism and the failed systems in communist and socialist countries is the one that lacks an understanding.  As practiced in the US, Democratic Socialism is literally class warfare where a politician promises anything, without regard to costs to get electoral power, and then only implements things that increase their own power regardless of what they promised.

Quote
I almost forgot that most people look at this number and immediately think annual when the figure refers to 10 years. Gee, why not say it will cost $600 trillion over the next century?

New spending of $6Trillion a year?  The entire GDP is not yet $20 trillion (and that's under Trump, not under the Bernie/Warren contraction that will occur).  Add that to the current $4 trillion we are spending annually and you are talking about spending literally half of the entire GDP of the country, while simultaneously putting in place massive disincentives on all forms of business and business investment.

The numbers are there, and not digging into them is a conceit that we can no longer afford.  As GI Joe use to say, knowing is half the battle.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2020, 02:03:36 PM »
Anyone who thinks there's a material difference between Democratic Socialism and the failed systems in communist and socialist countries is the one that lacks an understanding.

It always comes back to the definition game on this topic. What exactly is meant by "socialism" or "communism"? We know very well they can mean anything one wants them to. A man holding a gun to your head and telling you he's "protecting you" from the evil capitalists is a "communist" if you want to use the word that way, but really he's a terrorist. A party doing that are "communists" if you care to use the word that way, but really they are gangsters. But when we (here at least) discuss issues like social democracy or socialism we are talking about a way of distributing resources that retains a market system while also putting the brakes on rampant inequality and abuse. Yes, it will involve different distribution, and I use that term instead of redistribution because I fundamentally object to the idea that people have an innate right to amass incredible amounts of resources for their own personal use. There is no rational or moral reason why any person should be able to do this; mechanically of course we know how people can do this, either through strategy or guile. So taking a broken scenario and trying to fix it will of course be called 'theft' by the people who were benefitting from the broken system. Where you in particular differ from people advocating for social democracy is that you don't in fact think it is broken, and they do. That's a fine area in which to find disagreement, but let's not get bogged down by fake terms like communism. The USSR was communist in the same way that any terror state is; they use force, fear, and everyday oppression to take control and quell dissent. Beyond that any organizational principles they may have employed are more or less beside the point and inconsequential. Comparing Finland to that is a joke.

Were I *will* agree is that sometimes a peaceful and seemingly 'friendly' situation can actually be oppression in disguise, where fear masquerades as politeness, and that is indeed something to be wary of.


Quote
As practiced in the US, Democratic Socialism is literally class warfare where a politician promises anything, without regard to costs to get electoral power, and then only implements things that increase their own power regardless of what they promised.

I think a better example of class warfare would be the idea that certain people can "own" the technological developments accrued by centuries of joint human effort, and become the veritable lords of the land by virtue of having correctly positioned themselves to be able to leverage power into more power. This is the game and certain people are good at winning it. I am totally in favor of rewarding innovation and resourcefulness, but the notion that class warfare is people trying to prevent others collecting everything is backwards to me; class warfare is really the fact that even if no one is doing anything at all against any class the underclass is always under attack by default. So yeah, if not government then who? The industries that lie about nicotine addiction for money?

I'm diverging a bit but my intent is to say that the typical manners in which Bernie's types of policies are maligned (by Crunch, for example) are simply off the map in terms of being relevant to his propositions. I agree with your desire to show that certain things might not be affordable, but playing the "communism" card isn't an economic forecast, it's invoking the boogeyman, and you might consider that it betrays an inherent dislike of certain types of ideas regardless of how easy or hard they are to implement.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2020, 02:25:49 PM »
Quote
There's never been a single scrap of reality or logic in this Warren talking point.  It's been destroyed in the financial press.  Redirection of money from business/personal payments to insurance to the government through taxes to pay for medical costs will not net out to zero.

It doesn't have to net zero. But it is also non-zero. It defrays some portion of the cost, not reflected in CBO estimates, which these are not in any event.

When you give healthcare options to the ~30 million people who currently don't have any, of course it is going to cost more than ignoring them.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2020, 04:10:32 PM »
Anyone who thinks there's a material difference between Democratic Socialism and the failed systems in communist and socialist countries is the one that lacks an understanding.

It always comes back to the definition game on this topic.

Of course it does.  When your  policies have led to misery and oppression without fail everywhere they've been tried and you're seeking to undercut the most successful mechanisms ever devised for bringing actual equality and improvement in people's lives you have to change your name and your definitions to keep them from realizing what exactly it is you are advocating.

Quote
What exactly is meant by "socialism" or "communism"?

The same things they meant before and the same thing that is meant by the advocates of social democracy today.  Specifically that no matter who produces a gain its the property of all, and needs to be allocated by the government (for express political gains of the elites in that government and not the "selfish" people who generated it).

Quote
We know very well they can mean anything one wants them to.

No, we know that people seeking to justify them will claim they can mean anything one wants them too.  I recommend you look at the actions and the policies advocated by the people involved, not at the words they use and twist.

Quote
A man holding a gun to your head and telling you he's "protecting you" from the evil capitalists is a "communist" if you want to use the word that way, but really he's a terrorist.

There's no sense in this statement at all.  Do you really think it represents some general principle?  In any event I sort of agree, the fact that Social Democrats tell you one thing (ie that they are acting for your benefit to fight injustice) while actually hurting you makes them communists, or terrorists or whatever you want to call them.

Quote
But when we (here at least) discuss issues like social democracy or socialism we are talking about a way of distributing resources that retains a market system while also putting the brakes on rampant inequality and abuse.

Again, if you have to twist words then you're probably not advocating what you think you are.  There is no retention of a market system, there's pretending that having a government market is a market system.  Market systems are fundamentally about exchanges based on self interest, and you literally below deny that it's acceptable to amass wealth, ergo you don't believe in a market system.

This fundamentally important.  Contrary to your claim (which is in fact a common propaganda claim) that wealth is amassed only by "strategy" or "guile" or some other wrong doing or abuse, the reality in a market system is that wealth is amassed by the generation of things that make people's lives better.  What guile did J.K. Rowlings employ to become a billionaire other than enriching the lives of millions of children and people.  Do we have Tesla's and a big jump on electric powered self driving cars without Elon Musk, for all his faults there's no question that his personality has driven it more than even his technical skills - would we even have companies without the ability to gain on capital invested and hard work?  It's even ironic that you're responding on a computer or a phone, the production of which made countless others wealthy not by wrong doing but by enriching your life to the point where we "couldn't live without them," complaining about the evils of making products for a profit?

None of that is "strategy" or "guile."  In fact, the places where we see "strategy" and "guile" most commonly connected to wealth are outside the market in governmental rent seeking, and in flat out crimes like fraud.  Corruption is endemic in government allocations of wealth, and not generally in private ones.  Its endemic in rent seekers specifically because governmental officials are spending your money (not theirs) and can easily be swayed by changes in their own personal circumstances.   How often have you heard complaints about "abusive" tax practices or tax shelters?  100% Governmentl rent seeking implemented.  How often are government contracts given out fairly?  I've never heard of a long term government project to build housing where the developers weren't accused of some kind of manipulation of connections or permissions. 

Which is more responsive to you, the local Walmart or Grocery store - run for profit without any real "guile" - or your bureau of development where you need to get a permit? 

Everything the government touches becomes more and more corrupt and tainted, unless we are constantly vigilant about it - aid shipments are routinely stolen or misappropriated.  Healthcare used to have family doctors that would make house calls.  Now it has massive insurance conglomerates that deny claims without cause and build massive bureaucracies to deny appeals - that's squarely at the feet of the governmental mandates in health care and decades of regulation (including by legal action).

Quote
Yes, it will involve different distribution, and I use that term instead of redistribution because I fundamentally object to the idea that people have an innate right to amass incredible amounts of resources for their own personal use.

Yet you want to retain a "market system" and Social Democrats are different from communists and socialists.  I guess you can be successful, just not more successful than anyone else.

The market is literally a system of distribution that is designed to distribute things to their most efficient uses.  A "different" distribution, will quite literally be a bad thing economically, and often times morally as well.  This is distinct from regulations designed to encourage efficiency (like for example prohibiting fraud) and those designed to require the person receiving the benefit also bear the costs (like most of our work place safety and environmental regulations).

Quote
There is no rational or moral reason why any person should be able to do this; mechanically of course we know how people can do this, either through strategy or guile.

A market system is specifically designed to provide both a rational and moral reason for a person to be able to do this.  Expressly, in a market system amassing wealth can only occur by providing a benefit to others that they value more than that wealth.  You literally become rich by making the world a better place and other people better off.  (Though I agree, some of our current markets, like the financial investment market are much less directly tied to this - though they still are).

Ergo, despising success is actually tantamount to a belief that its wrong to make other people's lives better.

Quote
So taking a broken scenario and trying to fix it will of course be called 'theft' by the people who were benefitting from the broken system.

Calling the capitalism of the western world a "broken" system, when it's generated more advances at a faster rate in the standard of living and every form of technology than all the other systems combined is a specially noxious conceit.

I'm am going to call it theft, you are the thief, you are calling to steal the benefits that I and every other person in this country are receiving from that economy, that freedom and those advances, primarily for the benefit of a political class that wants to call themselves Robin Hood but live like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Quote
Where you in particular differ from people advocating for social democracy is that you don't in fact think it is broken, and they do.

Do they?  Let's ask the poor in this country to give up their phones, give up their tvs, their internet access, their medical care and accept the same benefits that would have existed without capitalism (ie third world country standards).  Do they still think our system is broken?

Being able to convince people against their own best interests is not the same as in fact establishing that a system is broken.  It's a sign that miseducation and propaganda are effective.

Quote
That's a fine area in which to find disagreement, but let's not get bogged down by fake terms like communism.

How about we drop fake terms like "Social Democrat" and just call them communists.   Then we won't be bogged down at all.

Quote
The USSR was communist in the same way that any terror state is; they use force, fear, and everyday oppression to take control and quell dissent. Beyond that any organizational principles they may have employed are more or less beside the point and inconsequential. Comparing Finland to that is a joke.

How about I compare it to Bernie declaring that he'll seize the assets of those that try to leave the country?  Or Warren or Bernie intending to end the concept of wealthy?  Or AOC flat out saying that no one made a billion dollars other than stealing it from black and brown people?

Or heck pointing to a poster that thinks having wealth is de facto proof of harm ones done to others and only accomplished by guile or strategy?

All communist states come to the eventual conclusion that they will run out of assets to redistribute if they forbid self interest in the economy.  Some cut or ration services, some exploit national resources that can't be renewed, some use terror.  The ones that have been most effective though have undone the very principles that you're espousing and specifically reincorporated self interest into their economies.

Quote
I think a better example of class warfare would be the idea that certain people can "own" the technological developments accrued by centuries of joint human effort, and become the veritable lords of the land by virtue of having correctly positioned themselves to be able to leverage power into more power.

This is the "Google" invented itself and those who get the benefits just stole it from the rest of us nonsense.  While I do agree that patent laws and copywrite laws are being abused, virtually every bit of that abuse is tied to government rent seeking.  The length of those laws keeps expanding and expanding solely because of government rent seeking.  The idea behind those laws is actually good.

Quote
This is the game and certain people are good at winning it. I am totally in favor of rewarding innovation and resourcefulness, but the notion that class warfare is people trying to prevent others collecting everything is backwards to me; class warfare is really the fact that even if no one is doing anything at all against any class the underclass is always under attack by default. So yeah, if not government then who? The industries that lie about nicotine addiction for money?

You are "totally in favor" of rewarding innovation - except you are literally opposed to rewarding it because it's somehow a theft.

How about, you know, the "wonderful" government correct this "wrong" by reversing the very laws the government established that created it.  Cut the copywrite period back, end patents sooner, heck establish better principals for what can be patented in the first place.

It's always stunning to me that people ascribe to the market what is LITERALLY a governmental interference in the market.  This is why your policies are wrong.  While Government is needed to make the markets efficient if its not carefully constrained it creates the very problems that you want to solve because it rewards rent seekers.

Quote
I'm diverging a bit but my intent is to say that the typical manners in which Bernie's types of policies are maligned (by Crunch, for example) are simply off the map in terms of being relevant to his propositions. I agree with your desire to show that certain things might not be affordable, but playing the "communism" card isn't an economic forecast, it's invoking the boogeyman, and you might consider that it betrays an inherent dislike of certain types of ideas regardless of how easy or hard they are to implement.

Misunderstanding that Bernie's policies are flat out communism and where they will lead - which is no where you want to be living in 20 years, is 100% relevant.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2020, 05:59:38 PM »
Agree Seriati. The attacks against Free Enterprise is more than just Socialism.

The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.
Quote from: Folsom
The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.

As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.

Quote from: Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of [i]Michigan[/i], Folsom
When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayers’ money, not their own. If the road fails, it’s the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.

Judge Thomas Cooley, Michigan’s most famous 19th-century lawyer and a president of the American Bar Association, observed this waste firsthand. He wrote about it later and said, "By common consent it came to be considered that the State in entering upon these works had made a serious mistake." The people of Michigan, Cooley reported, became convinced "that the management of railroads was in its nature essentially a private business, and ought to be in the hands of individuals." In 1846, therefore, the state of Michigan abandoned all the canals and sold the Central and Southern Railroads, which were only partly completed, to private investors. The new owners promised to do some rebuilding and to expand the lines to the Chicago area. From this distress sale, the state recovered one-half of its $5 million investment and ended its headaches from being in the railroad business.

Once the railroads had been privatized, they were rebuilt with care and extended across the state. At last, Michigan citizens had the roads they needed to trade and thrive. This turnaround was so startling that its implications were not lost on Michigan voters. They learned from history.

In 1850, Michigan threw out its old constitution and wrote a new one. It read, "the State shall not subscribe to or be interested in the stock of any company, association, or corporation." Furthermore, "the State shall not be a party to or interested in any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work" except to provide land. The heavily taxed voters were determined to learn from their mistakes and chart a better future for the state. In the years of laissez-faire that followed, Michigan’s entrepreneurs developed the state’s natural resources—lumber and iron ore—so effectively that Michigan soon became a major industrial state.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2020, 04:19:25 AM »
Michigan had more than a bit of "location, location, location" going on, being bounded by great lakes on several sides, and already established rail connectivity with the Mid-West and the East Coast by that point. For the interior regions, so long as the Railroad gave them service, they were golden. The areas without rail on the other hand...

But that's kind of the point, if there is money to be made in developing access to a location, access will be created, with or without the Government being involved. If there is no (evident) money to be made in doing so, either expect to languish in obscurity, or enjoy some government subsidies.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2020, 04:38:24 PM »
Quote from: The Deamon
... if there is money to be made in developing access to a location, access will be created, with or without the Government being involved.

Not quite. The point was that government does it bad, but the Free Enterprise system works far better.

Yes, government can be a catalyst - but should stay out of business.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2020, 05:56:21 PM »
Government has challenges that Private Enterprise does not. Fed Ex is much better than the US post office because they can sell their premium product to a smaller section of the population. But the US post office has to maintain lots of buildings in backwater towns that an efficient private enterprise would consider to be irrelevant and there would simply be no mail service for a bunch of rural citizens.

As far as transportation goes, the problem is scale and capital. Truly staggering costs for the first transcontinental railroad. Truly private enterprise isn't going to tackle this project, it just wouldn't be feasible.

Quote
To finance the project, the act authorized the federal government to issue 30-year U.S. government bonds (at 6% interest). The railroad companies were paid $16,000 per mile (approximately $455,000 per mile today) for track laid on a level grade, $32,000 per mile (about $911,000 per mile today) for track laid in foothills, and $48,000 per mile (or about $1,366,000 per mile today) for track laid in mountains. The two railroad companies sold similar amounts of company-backed bonds and stock.[33]

$8 billion for the panama canal. It is unlikely that any private company could have tackled that program.

Government tends to get involved when returns are very long term (like project that takes many years to start making revenue), or massive amounts of capital. It will do things in a more expensive way because it is often creating new technologies to make things possible. Private enterprise is looking great in space flight right now, but we reached orbit decades earlier than private enterprise would have because corporate interests would have waited until their payload fees could turn them a profit.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2020, 05:57:27 PM »
Quote from: The Deamon
... if there is money to be made in developing access to a location, access will be created, with or without the Government being involved.

Not quite. The point was that government does it bad, but the Free Enterprise system works far better.

Yes, government can be a catalyst - but should stay out of business.

The point was that government was unresponsive on multiple fronts, because it doesn't need to be.

While a business has inherent reasons to want to avoid graft, waste, and abuse(of itself; customers and employees are another matter).

A business has to be able to raise funds for what it is trying to do. If it wants to continue to do business, it needs to make those funds go as far as they possibly can.

A government on the other hand, doesn't have to concern itself with whether or not its "business activities" are profitable or not. As it can use its own citizens as a revenue stream even absent their participation in the "business activity" in question. "Guaranteed" income streams in general are toxic for encouraging innovation and improvement.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2020, 06:08:07 PM »
Quote from: TheDeamon
...A government on the other hand, doesn't have to concern itself with whether or not its "business activities" are profitable or not. As it can use its own citizens as a revenue stream even absent their participation in the "business activity" in question. "Guaranteed" income streams in general are toxic for encouraging innovation and improvement.

Exactly.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2020, 06:29:12 PM »
Government has challenges that Private Enterprise does not. Fed Ex is much better than the US post office because they can sell their premium product to a smaller section of the population. But the US post office has to maintain lots of buildings in backwater towns that an efficient private enterprise would consider to be irrelevant and there would simply be no mail service for a bunch of rural citizens.

This can be witnessed with Amazon right now. They're getting independent contractors to operate "Amazon Delivery" services in more populated areas, they use UPS/FedEx to cover the areas where Amazon Delivery isn't considered viable, and the use the USPS where UPS and FedEx don't serve.

Quote
As far as transportation goes, the problem is scale and capital. Truly staggering costs for the first transcontinental railroad. Truly private enterprise isn't going to tackle this project, it just wouldn't be feasible.

Quote
To finance the project, the act authorized the federal government to issue 30-year U.S. government bonds (at 6% interest). The railroad companies were paid $16,000 per mile (approximately $455,000 per mile today) for track laid on a level grade, $32,000 per mile (about $911,000 per mile today) for track laid in foothills, and $48,000 per mile (or about $1,366,000 per mile today) for track laid in mountains. The two railroad companies sold similar amounts of company-backed bonds and stock.[33]

IIRC, most of the Transcontinental Railroad wasn't financed through cash from the government, land-grants covered most of it. The railroads were allotted huge tracts of land for laying down specified amounts/types of tracks, and the railroad was expressly authorized to resell that land for profit to recover their costs. From some family history research and discussions over this year, I can attest to the Railroads selling land, some of my ancestors purchased land from the railroad when they settled in Nebraska.

Quote
$8 billion for the panama canal. It is unlikely that any private company could have tackled that program.

Eh, it was in the realm of possible, just not particularly probable or viable at the time. There are several companies around today that have the capability, at least on paper, to undertake such an undertaking today. They won't though, because it wouldn't have a 5 year ROI, by far one of the most annoying investment paradigms out there.

But as something of a counter-example, I just recently watched a video on this project in Singapore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Bay_Sands
Quote
Las Vegas Sands initially committed to invest S$3.85 billion in the project, not including the fixed S$1.2 billion cost of the 6,000,000 square feet (560,000 m2) site itself. With the escalating costs of materials, such as sand and steel, and labour shortages owing to other major infrastructure and property development in the country, Sheldon Adelson placed the total cost of the development at S$8.0 billion as of July 2009.

In April of this past year, they announced another $3.3 Billion expansion project at that same site. So obviously, there are operations that CAN raise $8 Billion to build something if they want to.

Government tends to get involved when returns are very long term (like project that takes many years to start making revenue), or massive amounts of capital. It will do things in a more expensive way because it is often creating new technologies to make things possible. Private enterprise is looking great in space flight right now, but we reached orbit decades earlier than private enterprise would have because corporate interests would have waited until their payload fees could turn them a profit.

Private enterprise could have done a lot more, a lot sooner if Government officials hadn't been trying to grant and protect NASA's monopoly status for decades. Once it was clear that commercial satellites were a viable business to be in, there should have been efforts to get the private sector into a position to handle that portion of access to space. Instead it took until Bush 43 for anything to happen on that front, and even then, it was after Russia and the European Space Agency had proven launch capabilities that they were willing to sell to anyone.

Funny how that one worked out, the moment NASA knew it had to compete with another Government's Space Program for clients(and that it couldn't do so effectively). That was suddenly when it was declared that "the private sector is ready" to step into certain roles.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2020, 06:51:49 PM »
But as something of a counter-example, I just recently watched a video on this project in Singapore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Bay_Sands
Quote
Las Vegas Sands initially committed to invest S$3.85 billion in the project, not including the fixed S$1.2 billion cost of the 6,000,000 square feet (560,000 m2) site itself. With the escalating costs of materials, such as sand and steel, and labour shortages owing to other major infrastructure and property development in the country, Sheldon Adelson placed the total cost of the development at S$8.0 billion as of July 2009.

In April of this past year, they announced another $3.3 Billion expansion project at that same site. So obviously, there are operations that CAN raise $8 Billion to build something if they want to.

Minor mea culpa, Those dollar amounts are in Singapore currency, but at about S$1.43 to US$1, that still works out to nearly US$5.6 Billion

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Left eating it's own
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2020, 07:13:06 PM »
Take GPS satellites, for example. I'm assuming a private company would charge for the service, like SiriusXM or DirecTV? Then you'd have competition, like Dish, so you'd have competing services and incompatible hardware most likely. Free location based services make things like 911 for mobile a reality. We pay 1.4 billion per year for it. Over 200 million adults, That would mean $70/year.

But of course as a product, they'd probably charge $200 list, and a lot of people couldn't afford it, with tiered discounts for big corporate customers, and people on a tight budget could go pound sand.

That investment fueled lots of private enterprise activity, everything from google maps to self driving cars to Uber.

For me, that's the catalyst effect in action. Of course, nobody bitched about that one because it was built for the military applications, and that's the one area that Republicans will support increased spending. But if that had been a clean energy plant, o boy you'd hear about the evil of government.

Mind you, I only advocate a limited role for government. I don't like them building arenas for sports teams, or nationalizing energy companies, or taking over airline security. Where they need to get involved is when every resident should have the good or service provided. I wouldn't care for a private fire department that lets houses burn if they are owned by non-subscribers. I wouldn't like kids to not be able to go to school because their family couldn't afford it.