Originally posted by Bluesma
I wouldn't bother arguing with Electric Universe, this person is caught in extremist views, and also tends to wrap their mistakes up in a bunch of rhetoric instead of face responsibility for what they say. That has happened to me in the past, and in fact, I didn't even see it at the time, no matter how many times someone(s) would point it out to me. This came from actually being afraid of others; not trusting others; being terrified of their influence- the wall of round -about text is a defensive system.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I wouldn't bother discussing any topic with you either. You should know the difference between arguing and discussing, obviously when you wrote "arguing" it is a clear indication that you don't like to discuss, you argue. But don't worry, you are not the only one that uses such tactics. you have also tried to use another tactic, playing the victim...
However, what actually made me respond to this, thanks to a staffmember,(so thank you staffmember) I noticed how you label me an extremist just for having a different view than you, and even after showing facts that corroborate my arguments... This is exactly what the government of Obama, and Janet Napolitano, among many other leftwingers, are doing right now... Branding/labeling anyone who doesn't agree with them as "extremists"... Are you sure you are not working for the Obama government from France?...
Originally posted by FyreByrd
March 26, 2013 |
North Dakota is the very definition of a red state. It voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Romney over Obama, and its statehouse and senate have a total of 104 Republicans and only 47 Democrats. The Republican super-majority is so conservative it recently passed the nation's most severe anti-abortion resolution  – a measure that declares a fertilized human egg has the same right to life as a fully formed person.
But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America. Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota? Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?
Because it works.
In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence. The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York. More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates. It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota. In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers. Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure.
I believe this is one area where all the 99%, Blue, Red and other, can come together. Banking can be considered a Public Utility and should be. Banking can be for the benefit of everyone not just the very rich.
Even economic idealogs can come together in fighting the influence politically that the uber wealthy weld. The wealthy constantly bombard us with the message that Public Utilites don't work, they aren't effiecient and they are "socialist" (we don't do that ****). It's a message that the last thirty (forty now almost) years has proved destructive to work-a-day people.
I like alternet for several reasons: The stories are well documented and two you can read them without the clutter of ads and other stories screaming for your attention. Just hit the PRINT button at the top right of any story and it flips to a text page for printing or reading; also, the links are live at the bottom of the story when you want to check sources or to get more information.
A very well designed and human friendly site.
post by ElectricUniverse
"The Chinese state is USING capitalism so that their socialist/communist system stays afloat, but they are not capitalists."
Wrabbit2000 post from here
I hear ya on your points. I really have to take this one out as a single one though. In one sentence, you have summed up the long and short of the whole idea. They are 'using' capitalist elements to buttress their communist system and morph it into some cross between the two that works. Without that, as you and I both seem to agree, they weren't likely to survive. They were heading where Russia went in 1989.
The problem now is, we're the ones heading to that 1989 collapse point. Now, it's our turn to stop and say 'Hey.. This ain't working... now what?' We can do that from the ashes of a ruined system with nothing left to work with ...or we can ask that in advance of a total general collapse. Math makes the outcome without change pretty clear, however it came about.
Your argument is that because 'Socialism' has murdered millions of people.... yadda, yadda, yadda.
This is a common 'argument' from the right wing sound bite machine - that it completely irrelevant to this, or any other discussion, about socialism, it's definition, it's ideals, and it's usefulness.
Please don't use this idiotic "Socialism murdered more...." card again in any discussion. It cannot be supported nor verified and is just what you want to believe is true. The facts, who can say.....
The countries that lean more towards socialism tend to be more stable and productive.
In fact, the USA as part of the rebuilding of Europe (and Japan) after the war instituted many socialist policies in those countries specifically to ensure their continuing stablility.
Capitalism after WII would have caused wide spread death and destruction thoughout the countries that were ravished by that war.
Those countries that have pursued it - a combined capitalism/socialist, let's call it Democratic Socialism for ease of discussion have done pretty well. The Northern European countries, and Scandinavia stand out in all measures of social justice and economic equality and opportunity.
Just the opposite, when the government does not regulate business activity in the market, allows businesses to ignore societies rules, the big businesses in the form of corporations take over the country and destroy the economy by establishing monopolies.
Business alone can only supply the customer, it can do nothing else without the coersive force of the state.
The failure of the state is in aiding and abetting the abuse. More laws means more lawyers wins.
Your perfect world has a government. Why is that?
Business is a transaction. Coercion is a threat of force. Two different things.