It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Postmodern Socialist

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: 4003fireglo




I never said you plagiarized anyone. I said it looked like you wrote an essay and submitted it to turnitin because it looks like something you're about to publish elsewhere or turn in for a grade.


It's just personal taste. No one has to read it.




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

No, not all banks took advantage of people, just the ones who were bailed out and came out the other end richer.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

So they passed the bill for no good reason? Ok, if you say so.


Yes. As I stated, politicians pass laws to make it look like they are doing something even though said legislation may have little to no effect on correcting the real issues at hand.

I can't debate it with you because you clearly aren't versed enough on mortgage finance, the procedures, previous and existing regulations involved.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: introvert

You hit the nail on the head. Walmart is one of the most profitable businesses in the world yet their employees cost taxpayers over $6 billion a year for welfare.

Welfare is great for corporations, it just means they can pay their employees less.


They want big government, they got big government.

Perfect right?




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

In that case all laws are pointless and are only there to make politicians look better.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Of course they want big government, yet the ones who usually defend them are all about small government.

Ironic isn't it?



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

As already mentioned, welfare programs, in one form or other, have been around since ancient times, before socialism was ever conceived. It neither comes from socialist thinkers or practices.

Welfare capitalism makes more sense, I think.


If none of these things are Socialist then you're practically arguing against something that is non-existent...

Unless you can tell me something you think is Socialist.

But so far you've argued that a myriad of things aren't...
So we are not left with much, in essence...

Basically the way you're saying things seems to point to the notion that Socialism doesn't even exist.

Please expand, if you can thanks Les.

edit on 22-9-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: Autocorrect.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Edumakated

In that case all laws are pointless and are only there to make politicians look better.



I think he is saying that political pressure sometimes results in useless laws.

And if hr 1728 is such a good law, then banks must not be screwing people over today.
They couldn't take advantage of anyone after that law passed......haha



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Like I said, the definition can be debated endlessly. While you may approach the term in a very literal sense, like those that claim the Nazis were socialist because it was in the party name, the term can evolve and become part of new political/economic philosophies.

In my opinion, welfare is socialism. SS is socialism and has been considered as such by those that disagreed with it since the New Deal.


I know how some terms are abused in the US—the words "liberal" is a pejorative for some reason—but there is simply nothing socialist about welfare or social security.


I can agree with that as well. In the end, it doesn't really matter what you call it. The results are the same.

Capitalism begets poverty. Capitalism begets more in the hands of the few, and less in the hands of the many. And in order to rectify that capitalism, through the government, must take from the collective whole and give to those that have fallen to the bottom of a flawed system.

Capitalism is just as flawed as any other sort of system.


Capitalism also begets wealth and a middle class. I cannot say the same about any other system. Just compare West Germany to East Germany, South Korea to North Korea. In both cases they started using opposing economic theories and systems—captialism and socialism— at the same time, and look at them now. It is untrue that Capitalism is just as flawed as any other sort of system.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm sure the banks wrote in a loophole that only they can take advantage of. That's usually the case at least.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well if you think banks control the wording of the law, how do you think this law changed their behavior?
If they loopholed themselves it was nothing more than politicians reacting to pressure.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




If none of these things are Socialist then you're practically arguing against something that is non-existent...

Unless you can tell me something you think is Socialist.

But so far you've argued that a myriad of things aren't...
So we are not left with much, in essence...

Basically the way you're saying things seems to point to the notion that Socialism doesn't even exist.

Please expand, if you can thanks Les.


We could look at states that attempted socialism and pick from them instead of from capitalist societies. On those grounds, an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

Post Modernism is just a rebrand of Cultural Marxism.


In what ways?



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




If none of these things are Socialist then you're practically arguing against something that is non-existent...

Unless you can tell me something you think is Socialist.

But so far you've argued that a myriad of things aren't...
So we are not left with much, in essence...

Basically the way you're saying things seems to point to the notion that Socialism doesn't even exist.

Please expand, if you can thanks Les.


We could look at states that attempted socialism and pick from them instead of from capitalist societies. On those grounds, an example of a socialist policy would be collective farming.


The examples I could find with an admittedly quick google search pointed more towards Communism rather than Socialism...

& I'm afraid I'm not versed well enough in collective farming to engage a serious discussion about it.


Any other examples of Socialist policy you can think of?



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

If they only introduced the law to make themselves look good then the supposed reason for the law must be a valid one, no? It's called the "Predatory Lending Act", how can it make them look good unless predatory lending was an issue?
edit on 9/22/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It must be nice to live in your imagination where the early 1900's didn't happen where all the nation's biggest industries monopolized their fields.


Clearly the 1900's happened. It's the year 2017.


And there are no mega corporations and conglomerates, right? And this country isn't an oligarchy, right? And the disparity in wages is getting much better, right?

Not a socialist, but certainly I'm one that can see flaws in the capitalist system we have imposed here in this country.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Socialism, generally speaking, like capitalism, are abstract theories of the way economies work.

There is not one country that has followed a purely Marxist path ... because it's impossible.

There is not one country that has followed a purely Free Market path ... because that too is impossible.

There is not one country that has followed a purely anarchistic/libertarian path ... still impossible.

All government is authoritarian. The trick is to diffuse and limit that autocratic control by installing different branches and levels of government and by the limitation of government power via the incorporation of strong individual rights.
edit on 22-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Many socialist countries are and were run by Marxist and Communist parties. Communism is the end goal; socialism is the means to attain it. But so long as the state exists, it is socialism.

Really I am having a hard time thinking of any type of socialist policy. Internet censorship is common, but not unique to socialism.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek




And there are no mega corporations and conglomerates, right? And this country isn't an oligarchy, right? And the disparity in wages is getting much better, right?

Not a socialist, but certainly I'm one that can see flaws in the capitalist system we have imposed here in this country.


No one is saying there aren't flaws in capitalism, only that they pale in comparison to those of socialism, feudalism, and so on.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Bluntone22

If they only introduced the law to make themselves look good then the supposed reason for the law must be a valid one, no? It's called the "Predatory Lending Act", how can it make them look good unless predatory lending was an issue?


Just like how the Affordable Care Act made healthcare affordable...

Look, I know you are smarter than this... politicians do things that make themselves look good to an ignorant public. The public often doesn't know the details or the real issues, so it is easy to pass some law so you can say you accomplished something without having to actually prove said law actually did what it was claiming it was going to do.

I am going to give you an example... I will keep it with mortgages. The State of Illinois passed SB1167 right after the housing crash. A predatory lending law that was supposed to stop predatory lending by forcing homeowner's who got certain types of mortgage to go to "counseling" prior to getting their mortgage.

So if someone was getting a mortgage that had features like interest-only, balloons, prepayment penalties, 100% financing, etc, you had to go to counseling.

In addition, the mortgage company and title companies have to complete a database entry to ensure counseling is or isn't required.

The law is utterly worthless because banks don't really offer mortgages with those terms anymore. In fact, the only people who actually can get mortgages with features like interest-only are usually upper class / rich nowadays because the underwriting guidelines were curtailed so much.

However, every single mortgage holder in Illinois is now paying $100-$200 more on their transaction because the banks and title companies have to be in compliance with the law despite the fact the state can't even show where a single person was prevented from getting a predatory loan because the loans they call predatory simply don't exist anymore.







 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join