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.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
What has been nationalised so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?
A government bailout means the government buys stocks of the beleaguered company, thereby transferring ownership from the private sector to the federal government.
That is NOT what a bailout is. A bailout of private industry is a either a handout or loan towards the failing business from the treasury purse. The government does NOT buy shares of the company; in other words there is no stock transfer from the private sector to the public sector.
The government can nationalise the company if the company cannot pay back its loan obligations, but I cannot think of any such example in the usa as of recent.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by dontreally
War in Iraq has nothing to do with Israel. Your assumption that is does is based on your fanatical bias against Israel (or Zionism).
It certainly had nothing to do with wmd found in iraq; they only found trace amounts of chemical weapons. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and neither did afghanistan. Iraq and iran have always hated israel and have made it known. But just because they hate israel does not mean they would attack unless provoked.
A leftist party does not loan $4 trillion in tax payer guaranteed bailouts for starters and second they do not support corporate imperalism via wall street
You have a very scant understanding of politics. Government bailouts of corporate monopolies leads to nationalization of industry - a socialist prerogative. For all you know, Obama's bailouts may be a prelude to the nationalization of other sectors of society.edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)
What has been nationalized so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?
$4 trillion loaned out(or given out, depending how one looks at it) and the federal reserve says "none of your business".
The French politician who said Indian steel company ArcelorMittal should leave the country has told CNBC that his government is only acting like U.S. President Barack Obama. Industry Minister Arnaud Montebourg, a member of the governing Socialist party, caused controversy last week when he said that the Indian company, which employs close to 20,000 people in France, should leave after it said it would have to close down a factory. The French government announced on Thursday that it could nationalize the factory in question, with backing from an unnamed businessman. The news raised the specter of the nationalizations of the early 1980s, which were instigated by Hollande’s predecessor Francois Mitterrand. Montebourg told CNBC after a meeting with trade unions in Paris: “Barack Obama's nationalized. The Germans are nationalizing. All countries are nationalizing. I've also noticed the British nationalized 6 banks.”
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I think it is more a case of the government holding on to some corporate shares as collateral till the loans get repaid, rather than some fully nationalized companies. I don't have time to look at the data now but I will later perhaps.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Must have overlooked this.
I get that it's a part of your socialist creed to hate Israel - but understand that there isn't any rational justification for that position.
Your party line requires you to parrot what it's chief thinkers have considered important: nationalism is an anachronism. Therefore, the concept of the ethnic-nation state called Israel must be opposed on purely ideological grounds. Just like Islamists, Israel cannot be tolerated because it represents the diametrical opposite of the ideology in question: for leftists, it contradicts their universalism; for Islamists, the world-historical mission of Islam.
Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
I'm saying it would be a smooth transition from "capitalism" i.e privately owned industry, to nationalization of Industry, now that the government is a de facto owner of the monopolies they bailed out.
This is essentially the scenario described by Frederich Hayek in his 'the road to serfdom'.
As for socialism? I get panicky when people throw around that word. I would fight very hard to keep government as small and decentralized as possible.
As for the cliches and slogans of popular socialist writers: Get real. Their real agenda is radical cultural reform through acquisition of state powers.
Libertarianism is the only system worth believing in. The only system that promotes cultural pluralism by defending all peoples. And private ownership is the key element.
Socialism benefits just one small group: and this small group claims they "represent the workers". Which workers? They pretend as if workers are a homogenous group which thinks the same. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc, peoples of various worldviews and moralities, fit under the label 'worker'. When the socialist party in question garners power - which group will they be supporting? In Nazi Germany - it was the nationalist conservatives. In most other times, it's atheist liberals. NO! F-ucking thank you. I do not trust anyone with that much power so they can engineer the kinds of human beings that they want.
It is arrogant, or as Hayek aptly termed it, the "fatal conceit".edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)
Indeed so and it is great! No more rothschild and rockefeller elitism. Who would not be proud of that moment?
"Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life"
Capitalism sucks!
atheist communist
You people make no sense whatsover and are politically illiterate. I am for a mixed economy with a public central bank.
Originally posted by goldspirit
What is it called when the poor are cared for? What is it called when the sick are looked after? What is it called when there is justice for all? What is it called when every child born is considered to be an equal member of society? Conversely, what is it called when society is winner take all, and the rest can just go begging?