Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota?

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

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.
...


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?...


edit on 25-5-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   

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?...




Wow that was such a long time ago... Why are you searching through such old posts to argue ?

I like to discuss, and consider arguing as part of discussing. Discussion is 'to consider the pros and cons of something" and arguing is "to give reasons for or against something."

I think it is appropriate to argue (give reasons behind your position).

I did not call you "an extremist" I said you held extremist views (subtle difference, but important ).

I also found that you made a mistake back then, in your reasoning on a specific point, and no matter how many people pointed it out, refused to acknowledge it. Instead you go off into abstraction and distraction to avoid doing so.
I remain of that opinion.

Obama probably has no opinion about you and your reasoning in any discussion, and wouldn't bother getting me to work for him in commenting on it.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

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 [3] – 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.


www.alternet.org...

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.



If socialism really worked, it would happen by people voluntarily joining coops, which would become over time the only form of economic organization, for whatever reason.

Socialism enforced by a totalitarian government is oppression.

The BND made a profit. Profit is not the the same as exploitation.

Big Business i.e. Cartels, monopolies and mergers, are created by the regulations of the State, not the free market.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


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.


Both the Chinese and the Western economic problems were and are caused by the decisions of the power elite. Economic forces alone have never caused a depression. Failures by controllers have. The socialistic aspects of our economy are the reason we are owing trillions in debt and have a lowering standard of living.

The econoic argument on this thread is "We need more socialism to bailout the socialism we already have". That idea is what sunk the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

The founding fathers understood that a free people must be a self controlling people. Self control at that level must be part of the culture. We do not have a culture of self control or even of self knowledge.

In place of religon as a form of self control we have humans telling other humans what absolute reality is, as if any human knows absolute reality. Religious "Free Will" indoctrination is replaced by "you get what we want to give you" indoctrination. That is how China works, capitalist activity by a nation of socialists.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



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.


So 140 million murders are OK as long as socialism gets a fair chance, or fulfills its destiny.

Socialism will work pretty well when there are no non socialists left alive. Good plan.


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 Ukrainian Famine,
World War II,
the Cultural Revolution

edit on 27-5-2013 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



The countries that lean more towards socialism tend to be more stable and productive.


As compared to what? All countries lean more towards socialism, except maybe Mainland China.



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.


Yes, Martial Law Occupation is a socialist policy. World War II was caused by socialism BTW.


Capitalism after WII would have caused wide spread death and destruction thoughout the countries that were ravished by that war.


If that is true, it is because the socialistic prewar economies left people mentally dependant on a state that had taken everything away.

Free markets appear naturally. They are the normal condition of life. Free Markets may have flourished by now in those countries that needed charity to resart. There is always coersion away from free markets.


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.


The richer countries of the world are still the richer countries of the world. What has socialism improved over the capitalism that has really never been more than Mercantilism. (a form of socialism)



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



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.


Just the opposite, when govenment enforces regulations that discourage or bankrupt start up small businesses, the monopolies are created and protected. Most regulations demand fixed costs that are easier for large companies, spreading them out over many more sales. Business alone can only supply the customer, it can do nothing else without the coersive force of the state.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The failure of the government was in failing to prevent the abuse.


The failure of the state is in aiding and abetting the abuse. More laws means more lawyers wins.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where government always represented the people, and worked to enforce societies rules for the benefit of all.

Just the same, as it would be nice if markets were capable of self regulating, and functioned without the need of rules through a governing body.

Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world.


Business alone can only supply the customer, it can do nothing else without the coersive force of the state.


Sorry, but this is propaganda nonsense.

Business is completely capable of coercing people without government involvement. In fact, one of the purposes of government is to protect the liberties of the individual from abuse and coercion by businesses.


The failure of the state is in aiding and abetting the abuse. More laws means more lawyers wins.


Not exactly, poorly written laws mean more lawyers, which is the goal of those free market preaching politicians.

Without clearly written laws, an evenly enforced fair set of rules, people with the most money, able to hire themselves an army of lawyers, get to write the rules.

Which is why the super rich preach the whole free market propaganda.

Societies rules should be written by a representative government,

Not by fat cats with armies of lawyers.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where government always represented the people, and worked to enforce societies rules for the benefit of all.


Your perfect world has a government. Why is that?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Business is completely capable of coercing people without government involvement.


Business is a transaction. Coercion is a threat of force. Two different things.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 



Your perfect world has a government. Why is that?


I don't believe in a perfect world. I am not such an unrealistic idealist.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 



Business is a transaction. Coercion is a threat of force. Two different things.


Well, there are businesses out there that will offer you a deal you can't refuse.

And eliminating government will only result in the expansion of their business, which is how most of the third world operates.

because we don't live in a perfect world.









 
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join