Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

Originally posted by projectvxn
First, when it come to things like wage inequality you either pay what the market calls for or the qualified people will go elsewhere.

Like where? Social Security? I don't know if you've noticed but the unemployment rate is very high. Wages have not improved drastically since 1973. During the Obama presidency they've declined by 3%

The market is calling for cheap expendable non union Labor, that they can pay minimum wage, no benefits and they may not even be American citizens.

I think I recall the one of the only real workers unions you have over there, the SEUI was lobbying and campaigning for higher taxes?

On Sunday morning, January 31, Rio Tinto Borax locked out 570 union workers from its mine in Boron, California, in the Mojave Desert. The lockout followed a failed five-month attempt to negotiate a new contract by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 30.

The prior contract expired two months ago. Rio Tinto presented a contract offer on January 28, along with a lockout ultimatum; union employees would be barred from working if they did not ratify the offer before January 31, which they failed to do.

When union workers showed up Sunday the entrance to the mine was blocked not only by private security personnel, but also by Kern County Sheriff’s deputies clad in riot gear.

Rio Tinto immediately brought in hundreds of replacement workers, provided by J.R. Gettier & Associates, a Delaware company that bills itself as a specialist in labor strike security and replacement workforce. Gettier personnel were also those blocking the entry of the locked-out workers.

wsgs

Workers united we'll never be defeated? I think not.

The worker is for socialism what capital is for capitalism. Can't have one without the other.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Just gotta ask. How do these people in your city selling all those things you say make a black market? I (this is just my defenition of things) don't consider a flea market a black market.

The city has deigned to legislate such actions as "illegal" and necessarily made a black market. Of course, that legislation is unconstitutional and most of those selling their wares, many of them immigrants, are fully aware of this. So, occasionally a police cruiser pulls up and tickets one or two of the vendors, they show up to court, and more times than not the charges were never filed. It is a silly game where the vendor has been removed from the sidewalk for the day, and usually moves up the block the next day, but they are always there selling their goods in a black market created by government.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Capitalism is free markets where people have a choice and government does not intervene to give anyone an unfair advantage under the guise of protecting the consumer. Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide. If quality and service suck or are corrupt people take thier business elsewhere. The only way you can stay in business is to provide a quality product or service as opposed to the socialist government eliminating your competition through regulation and allowing you to stay in business when you should have failed. Like the Big financial institutions they bailed out.

I like this idea, meaning I understand it and it makes sense in its totality.

I am rather leftist, but I am not sure if it would warrant a full socialist tag as I believe in capitalism and I make my living based upon it. However be it capitalism or socialism
I always seem to find unsavory things that can be activated by each. I think socialism, especially in this capitalistically mind nation will generally produce many negative outcomes as prescribed by many. At the same time I believe some socialistic programs
offset some of the unsavory things I perceive in a capitalistic dominated economy; whilst creating a whole other set of problems. (don't ask me where it ends, I don't know, I am thinking in the way I do, each variable changes the equation wildly)
I understand proponents of pure capitalism believe in moral hazard as being the "law of the land". However I am not convinced that this concept works as it is intended to in all cases. A larger point is any malfunction of the concept in certain realms can really
injure many people in a variety of ways, in those cases the cost is dispersed to society
in a manner which is not really measurable or addressable in a court of law. I look at the scope of the the future and feel my reservations would only be magnified by the growth of technology, options and population.

ONE FICTITIOUS EXAMPLE to highlight WHAT I am trying to say in regards to my outlook and the processes that compel my reservation.

scene; in ten years, in a completely deregulated climate as many propose-

one scientist has scientific proof that cellular phones destroy mitochondria DNA, causing brain cancer in 90% of users, 10-15 year onset, after after a 20 years of moderate exposure, due to the proximity of EMF radiation. Scientist publishes the findings in a popular journal which warrants 500,000 subscribers. Unfortunately the news is soon forgotten by those who read the paper and there are 300,000,000 million Americans
who are well on their way to exemplifying the baseline of the data set the scientist used.
NO cancer wave has struck, there is really no demand for change of this circumstance
because it is the norm. The news does not support the current profit model so it is combated with contrary claims whenever this study breaches the surface every now and again, plus the nature of society has the attention span less than it is today. The cellular companies do not feel the need to indicate the danger because it may damage a perfectly rewarding experience. Obviously is not compelled to because we are in a new era...

However in 2060 this scientists findings come to fruition, long after he is dead and it is not good... America is very sick, the majority of people over 35 are in this state.

Now in this case of fancy the implications are copious-

If the numbers effected are correct as prescribed by the study, we have a complete destruction of society. An illness which typically cost tons lot to treat, the population
at large is unable to work, the volume is far beyond the capacity of any measure we can treat... In fact the treatment costs are exponentially greater than the entire value of the cellular sector and the entire private insurance pool combined.

My point is at this moment there is no recourse, the damage is so massive, blame and
justice are useless notions. At this point, I would suggest some artificial form of society
based advocation would have been greatly beneficial. At the same time, this broad freedom based approach has produced a truly tyrannical circumstance, that has no
real solution but time. Forgoing any control has produced a situation of total control
that dwells outside mans command of manipulation.

Now before I get lanced I hope everyone understands, I have only tried to convey
my reservations, in the same manner they were formed, which is exploration and anticipation in my fallible mind.

The example is NOT the point, the process in the example is, which is
a window into what constitutes my perspective... Had this cancer wave only struck 1,000,000 people, I would suspect the basis of legal recourse would be nearly impossible to prove, the cost of compensation ( is that subjective or objective? a whole other can of worms) would be a separate crisis altogether, plus people would die
which is not good clearly.

We could juxtapose many different causative agents (cellphone) in this equation, hormone in milk, new chlorine booster in drinking water, food additive, etc...

But guess what?

If we lived in a completely socialist, government control/produced America, the outcome of this same fantasy can occur

Ah the government, deems something safe that is completely caustic and ensures that
this agent is present in 95% of all food, repeat the fantasy above...>

2060 the scientists findings come to fruition, long after he is dead and it is not good... America is very sick, the majority of people over 35 are in this state.

Now in this case of fancy the implications are copious - ETC- flip and insert private market forces.

However in both cases you introduce the force that is missing GOV/PRIVATE and I submit the scenario would not be as likely

The government entity recognizes the danger of cellular radiation and forces new standards on the industry, or the ensuing political battle creates a NEW MARKET,
via public concern, for a new generation of phones that prevent the disaster my sick mind has come up with.

second scenario - introducing unrepresented force

Next, the private industry launches a massive marketing campaign warning about the dangers of the substance the FED has introduced into state produced food. The industry
offers a complete line of the same food, less the caustic agent the FED is hawking, which creates more jobs, a vital new market that prevents the disaster my sick mind has come up with.

You see in both cases of extremes, the individual may retain personal control of faculties, but has transfered the whole of societies influence to external whims.
I believe this is the point of having a single vote


Extreme passivity
In one case - the private - you have to except any direct or indirect impact upon you
because you have transfered your trust to a force of nature, don't like it, deal with it,
you have allowed it to dictate the external parameters on a societal level

Extreme determinance
In two - the government case- you have to except any direct or indirect impact upon you because you have transfered your trust into the will of men, who are HUMAN
and subject to corruption, don't like it, deal with it, you have allowed them to dictate
the external parameters on a societal level

I actually believe that America seems to have such a close percentage of "left/right"
folks because that is the natural balance of mankind. I believe the founding father knew this in some way, otherwise you would think they would not have limited power of government, or they wouldn't have given government transformative powers in the first place. However they did BOTH, see I think the key is force, wether it be natural or also a product of nature in some fashion, manmade , any contrary force limits the destructive force of the opposing one.

The evidence of force is even apparent in the science of music

The farthest you can possibly get from one note, the complete opposite mathematically
speaking, makes the most dissonant sound POSSIBLE when the two notes are struck in tandem. However one note to the LEFT OR RIGHT of that opposite, contrary, horrible note creates the two foundations of ALL HARMONY. You flip those two notes
the other way and they switch their functionality exactly and are in effect mirror images of eachother, while being completely distinct. Music as we know it could not exist with out the very neighbors on both sides of the mathematical extreme, a 4th and a 5th.

Interesting enough if you replicate the extreme over and over, you will only get the same result of disharmony in EVERY CASE.

Or we can take an ice water bath or a boiling water bath, the sounds may be different,
but the end result is the same if you don't add the other...

BTW I has been up all night, I may regret my adventure later, all I am doing is trying to be additive as best I can in a quasi delirious state.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by hawkiye

Capitalism is free markets where people have a choice and government does not intervene to give anyone an unfair advantage under the guise of protecting the consumer. Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide. If quality and service suck or are corrupt people take thier business elsewhere. The only way you can stay in business is to provide a quality product or service as opposed to the socialist government eliminating your competition through regulation and allowing you to stay in business when you should have failed. Like the Big financial institutions they bailed out.

I like this idea, meaning I understand it and it makes sense in its totality.

I am rather leftist, but I am not sure if it would warrant a full socialist tag as I believe in capitalism and I make my living based upon it. However be it capitalism or socialism
I always seem to find unsavory things that can be activated by each. I think socialism, especially in this capitalistically mind nation will generally produce many negative outcomes as prescribed by many. At the same time I believe some socialistic programs
offset some of the unsavory things I perceive in a capitalistic dominated economy; whilst creating a whole other set of problems. (don't ask me where it ends, I don't know, I am thinking in the way I do, each variable changes the equation wildly)
I understand proponents of pure capitalism believe in moral hazard as being the "law of the land". However I am not convinced that this concept works as it is intended to in all cases. A larger point is any malfunction of the concept in certain realms can really
injure many people in a variety of ways, in those cases the cost is dispersed to society
in a manner which is not really measurable or addressable in a court of law. I look at the scope of the the future and feel my reservations would only be magnified by the growth of technology, options and population.

ONE FICTITIOUS EXAMPLE to highlight WHAT I am trying to say in regards to my outlook and the processes that compel my reservation.

scene; in ten years, in a completely deregulated climate as many propose-

one scientist has scientific proof that cellular phones destroy mitochondria DNA, causing brain cancer in 90% of users, 10-15 year onset, after after a 20 years of moderate exposure, due to the proximity of EMF radiation. Scientist publishes the findings in a popular journal which warrants 500,000 subscribers. Unfortunately the news is soon forgotten by those who read the paper and there are 300,000,000 million Americans
who are well on their way to exemplifying the baseline of the data set the scientist used.
NO cancer wave has struck, there is really no demand for change of this circumstance
because it is the norm. The news does not support the current profit model so it is combated with contrary claims whenever this study breaches the surface every now and again, plus the nature of society has the attention span less than it is today. The cellular companies do not feel the need to indicate the danger because it may damage a perfectly rewarding experience. Obviously is not compelled to because we are in a new era...

However in 2060 this scientists findings come to fruition, long after he is dead and it is not good... America is very sick, the majority of people over 35 are in this state.

Now in this case of fancy the implications are copious-

If the numbers effected are correct as prescribed by the study, we have a complete destruction of society. An illness which typically cost tons lot to treat, the population
at large is unable to work, the volume is far beyond the capacity of any measure we can treat... In fact the treatment costs are exponentially greater than the entire value of the cellular sector and the entire private insurance pool combined.

My point is at this moment there is no recourse, the damage is so massive, blame and
justice are useless notions. At this point, I would suggest some artificial form of society
based advocation would have been greatly beneficial. At the same time, this broad freedom based approach has produced a truly tyrannical circumstance, that has no
real solution but time. Forgoing any control has produced a situation of total control
that dwells outside mans command of manipulation.

Now before I get lanced I hope everyone understands, I have only tried to convey
my reservations, in the same manner they were formed, which is exploration and anticipation in my fallible mind.

The example is NOT the point, the process in the example is, which is
a window into what constitutes my perspective... Had this cancer wave only struck 1,000,000 people, I would suspect the basis of legal recourse would be nearly impossible to prove, the cost of compensation ( is that subjective or objective? a whole other can of worms) would be a separate crisis altogether, plus people would die
which is not good clearly.

We could juxtapose many different causative agents (cellphone) in this equation, hormone in milk, new chlorine booster in drinking water, food additive, etc...

But guess what?

If we lived in a completely socialist, government control/produced America, the outcome of this same fantasy can occur with the same simple impunity

Ah the government, deems something safe that is completely caustic and ensures that
this agent is present in 95% of all food, repeat the fantasy above...>

2060 the scientists findings come to fruition, long after he is dead and it is not good... America is very sick, the majority of people over 35 are in this state.

Now in this case of fancy the implications are copious - ETC- flip and insert private market forces.

However in both cases you introduce the force that is missing GOV/PRIVATE and I submit the scenario would not be as likely

The government entity recognizes the danger of cellular radiation and forces new standards on the industry, or the ensuing political battle creates a NEW MARKET,
via public concern, for a new generation of phones that prevent the disaster my sick mind has come up with.

second scenario - introducing unrepresented force

Next, the private industry launches a massive marketing campaign warning about the dangers of the substance the FED has introduced into state produced food. The industry
offers a complete line of the same food, less the caustic agent the FED is hawking, which creates more jobs, a vital new market that prevents the disaster my sick mind has come up with.

You see in both cases of extremes, the individual may retain personal control of faculties, but has transfered the whole of societies influence to external whims.
I believe this is the point of having a single vote


Extreme passivity
In one case - the private - you have to except any direct or indirect impact upon you
because you have transfered your trust to a force of nature, don't like it, deal with it,
you have allowed it to dictate the external parameters on a societal level

Extreme determinance
In two - the government case- you have to except any direct or indirect impact upon you because you have transfered your trust into the will of men, who are HUMAN
and subject to corruption, don't like it, deal with it, you have allowed them to dictate
the external parameters on a societal level

I actually believe that America seems to have such a close percentage of "left/right"
folks because that is the natural balance of mankind. I believe the founding father knew this in some way, otherwise you would think they would not have limited power of government, or they wouldn't have given government transformative powers in the first place. However they did BOTH, see I think the key is force, wether it be natural or also a product of nature in some fashion, manmade , any contrary force limits the destructive force of the opposing one.

The evidence of force is even apparent in the science of music

The farthest you can possibly get from one note, the complete opposite mathematically
speaking, makes the most dissonant sound POSSIBLE when the two notes are struck in tandem. However one note to the LEFT OR RIGHT of that opposite, contrary, horrible note creates the two foundations of ALL HARMONY. You flip those two notes
the other way and they switch their functionality exactly and are in effect mirror images of eachother, while being completely distinct. Music as we know it could not exist with out the very neighbors on both sides of the mathematical extreme, a 4th and a 5th.

Interesting enough if you replicate the extreme over and over, you will only get the same result of disharmony in EVERY CASE.

Or we can take an ice water bath or a boiling water bath, the sounds may be different,
but the end result is the same if you don't add the other...

BTW I has been up all night, I may regret my adventure later, all I am doing is trying to be additive as best I can in a quasi delirious state.

Ya, I'm sleepy

DP

time to make the bucks baby!!!

OK

I posted this three times?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


OK. So you are using the term in it's broader sense, including any and all unauthorized markets. Most people, I think, would take it to mean the drugs/arms/sex/stolen goods markets.

I would say that these small markets work because of their size and probably because all the operators are on a similar economic level.

I mean look at what walmart has done to mom and pop stores. Sure if they can't compete they should be closed.

My question would be that, if a true free market existed in the US, what would keep walmart or even a group of these type of companies from getting together and fixing prices.

I don't know if the free market model prohibits government from regulating something like this but I can believe that a few greased palms would get them to look the other way even if it did.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by daskakik]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by daskakik]

OK, me again, I think I am going retarded

did ATS remove the edit feature?

The button seems to be hiding, yes I seem to be punishing myself

and yes I do have to drive somewhere in an hour, god save the queen.

reply to post by belial259


I'm a fan of simplicity. But there's more to it than that. I agree that there are abuses. But this is why we need government to protect and enforce rights, not beat the little guy down with regulations that favor the very same people who are causing the problem to begin with.

reply to post by daskakik

OK. So you are using the term in it's broader sense, including any and all unauthorized markets. Most people, I think, would take it to mean the drugs/arms/sex/stolen goods markets.

"Broader sense"? I am fully aware of what most people think, hence the unwarranted crack about morality. That, however, speaks to the ignorance of people and it is certainly not I redefining what a black market is.

I would say that these small markets work because of their size and probably because all the operators are on a similar economic level.

I would completely agree with you and that is what true capitalism is. One of the fundamental tenets of capitalism is massive competition. Those who have managed to turn their economic situation into a better one move out of the black market and into a more standard "brick and mortar" situation. I had the great privilege of knowing a man who was affectionately called "5th Street Dick". He was called this because he was once homeless and bought a coffee urn, and pushed that urn up and down 5th Street all day long. After a few years, he not only turned his homelessness around, he opened up a coffee house with the coolest jazz in town. He called this place...you guessed it...5th Street Dicks. He sadly died of throat cancer a few years ago, but the thriving coffee house he built is still in operation today.

I mean look at what walmart has done to mom and pop stores. Sure if they can't compete they should be closed.

The mom and pop stores can compete with Walmart and many are figuring out how to do so. By forming associations with their competitors they can pool their money and then buy the products they sell at the same price as Wallmart, and thereby compete with both that conglomerate, and their competitors they forged an alliance with. Capitalism baby!

My question would be that, if a true free market in the US, what would keep walmart or even a group of these type of companies from getting together and fixing prices.

In a true free market, there would be massive competition and the few who colluded to fix prices couldn't. They can, however, do so under a heavily regulated market and do.

I don't know if the free market model prohibits government from regulating something like this but I can believe that a few greased palms would get them to look the other way.

Think about what you just stated. In a free market system there would not be any palms to grease, because government would be out of the equation, and all a business can do is offer the best product at the best price and thereby "grease" the palms of their customers. In a regulated market, plenty of palms to be greased, and the evidence of this is clear.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


All very good points and would work great in an ideal world. If you could keep government out of the market it would have a better chance of working but I don't see that happening so as far as I am concerned it is all just academic.

reply to post by daskakik


Tragically my friend, you are so far correct. It is, no doubt, a Sisyphusian effort I and others make in advocacy of free market principles, but an effort worth making none the less. Thanks for the discourse.

reply to post by hawkiye


Oh me, oh my...

Socialism = Free education for all (= political science, spelling and grammar...)
Keeping the population smart and awake!

Just sayin'.

What is Fascism ?

Mussolini defined it as a government controlled by corporations.


The former Soviet Union operated under "Hard Fascism disguised as Socialism".
All the wealth generated by the Soviet Union was swept away by Oligarch middlemen. When Putin took power and kicked out the Oligarchs, who showed up to claim 25% of the Soviet state run Oil company....a Rothchild.

Europe operates under "Soft Fascism disguised as Socialism". Oligarchs own the medical companies, drug companies, banks etc. They push the legislation through to give their companies the contracts for social programs & government loans, construction contracts etc.. They profit from interest payments to the national debts.

America operates under "Fascism disguised as Capitalism". The failure is being blamed to change it to "Fascism disguised as Socialism".

Its a strange mix indeed, but there are no free countries left in the world.
All countries have Central Banks (part of the communist manifesto) All citizens are forced to pay taxes to a national debt. That interest payment goes to International Bankers.

Thus, everyone is an economic slave to international banks, who dominate politics in every country. The seek out & help elect corrupt politicians, who increase the national debt with corruption, leading to the next crisis.

Over the next 10 years they likely will try to push every country into a totalitarian world government. Any reasonable standard of living will be reduced to neo serfdom. Want to see the future........watch:

Google Video Link

[edit on 7-5-2010 by zzombie]

Originally posted by Gromle

Originally posted by projectvxn

So its a bad thing that the government makes sure the workers get paid, that the production doesn't pollute more than necessary? Its about justice, so that the few rich don't exploit the workers. Is that a bad thing? How wealthy would the average Joe be then?

I see the stories in here, US workers working their asses of, and still need food coupons??! Whats wrong with you guys? Most of you would probably penniless if the government hadn't given you some sort of rights.

clap...clap...clap

I have enough to make a comfortable living and still do things I like. I wish people would just state their agenda. I am a Socialist supporter...there I said it.

Doesn't anyone have an issue with the fact that Joe Workingman slaves over a turret lathe for 9 hours a day, 6 days a week and can't determine if he can feed his family and fill a prescription at the same time? Doesn't it concern people that while bank CEO's crash the economy and get paid big bucks for the job the did, that Jane the Nursing Assistant wades through blood and vomit all day to get paid 9.50 an hour? Yes I believe to be helped you should make a concerned and actual effort but we have people working so hard all day and get paid nothing.

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill we pass out billions to 'energize the economy' ad the first of that money went to pay bonuses to the very CEO's who watched the banks fail

you're right though...those people totally deserve Lamborghinis while Joe Workingman get's in trouble when his Pinto couldn't make the 20 mile trek to work.

So sick of people attacking Socialism. It's about time our blue collar force get's treated properly. You think the CEO of Citibankis gonna fix his own car and repair his toilet?

Even when I get my LPC (Therapist's license) I am STILL going to campaign for the working man because last I checked they support all the big boys.

-Kyo

To me, socialism is a system that makes sure everyone gets an equal chance to prosper through free education and free medical treatment...

While fascism is more like "survival of the fittest".

Thus, these two systems stand in opposition to each other.

Capitalism is an economical system, not a political one.
You can't vote capitalist.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by belial259

 

i agree with you. labels are thrown around strictly for emotional appeal.
capitalism is so deeply rooted in america, that this country becoming a socialist country is so remote it's laughable. just yesterday an amendment to the finance legislation, that would have broken up the 7 banks who control 63% of the entire GDP of america, failed, because not enough senators considered them to be, too big to fail. obviously the were coerced, bribed, or threatened, simply because that would have been the most logical and reasonable thing to do.

Sigh! You don't know what you are talking about. That is not capitalism that is protectionism from the government. They are protecting thier cronies market. What you and every socialist can't seem to wrap thier minds around is they are not operating in a free market. So when the government fails to regulate some aspect of the banks and they run rough shod over the people it is not free market capitalism it is protectionism within the socialist framework. That what the system is designed for to protect the politically connected not the consumer. And all you people can do is opine for more socialist regulation. Can't you see that is the problem?

They have woven such a deep web of lies and deception you folks keep asking for more of the everything that is your demise. The answer is to get rid of the socialist system all together and allow real competition. Not some controlled supposed deregulation that does nothing but allow the politically connected to do what it wants with no real competition and the socialist to cry about the supposed evils of capitalism

[edit on 7-5-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Oh me, oh my...

Socialism = Free education for all (= political science, spelling and grammar...)
Keeping the population smart and awake!

Just sayin'.

Well it's always the last resort of those who cannot make a substantive argument to resort to attacks on spelling etc.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by hawkiye]

Here is the problem so far none of the socialist on this thread can argue thier case.

They claim socialisms means free health care, education, etc. really so if it's free then it must just come from God cause free means no one has to pay? What you really mean is it's free for some at the expense of others. IOW it was stolen cause someone had to pay for it.

Next they claim deregulation on some particular company is capitalism and when the company screws the people they proclaim capitalism doesn't work. When in fact many of those big companies only exist because of socialist government regulation. So the government props them up and then deregulates some aspect of thier business for a kick back and the socialist cry capitalism capitalism we need more oversight blah blah.... Sigh!

So let's get a few thing straight shall we?

We do not have capitalism or free markets. Deregulation of some aspect of the non-free highly regulated markets does not equal capitalism!

NOTHING IS FREE! Someone always has to pay for it.

Now maybe we can get back to the real issues. Is taking something against someone will as long as they or it are not harming anyone ever not stealing? And what do you have against making everything voluntary?



[edit on 7-5-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by hawkiye
I am sick and tired of all the socialist here showing thier utter ignorance and just parroting the crap they hear on the nightly news or read on some blog or website.

Ah I get it. The truth hurts. It must really be hurting you badly to demand we shut up. Last time I checked we have certain unalienable rights like freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to run for public office and freedom to vote our collective will. That is exactly what we the people did. If you don't like it (and you clearly do not) then try to learn how to be a graceful loser. No sense going though life in misery.