'Worker's Paradise': Another look.

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Aug 3, 2007.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Caps on Prices Only Deepen Zimbabweans’ Misery

    Another success story for Leftists... they leveled the Society's outlook. Even 'the rich' are now going hungry...except how can Socialism come in and save the day, here?

    Think Chavez is watching? I doubt it... I'm sure he thinks he's smarter than Mugabe. No, it's Venezuelans who will have had the benefits of both systems.

    Remember how this all started? surely you read about it... I read it in the news, you should have studied it, right?

    Let's now refer to Hillary's continuous remarks on how she 'will take those excess oil company profits...'

    To be fair... the Oil companies have the option to change the mark-up model to flat rate, instead of the % rate which infuriates socialists and consumers everywhere.
    To be clear, it costs the same to process $50 dollar crude as it does $25 crude; the markup should be a percentage of the handling/processing costs, not crude's market price. Pass the changes in crude costs directly through without marking them up

    Then let the refined product margins float. Supply and demand then would still determine wholesale prices. And the companies still would have profits to pass along to 'Joe Retiree'... who, Hillary seems to forget, benefits from Oil profits.

    Never fear though... US quasi-marxists like Hillary and Schumer wont go so far as to grab industry... They'll just 'manage it through executive fiat'.

    You know.. the "National Socialism" model. Wait ...there should be a shorter single word for that...


    Related: Dont like how a floor vote went? Just erase it and pretend it never happened. House erupts in chaos
     
    #1
  2. WonsanUnited

    WonsanUnited New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    RE:

    Mugabe isn't socialist. Only in name. That's like saying North Korea is communist when in fact it really isn't.

    Socialism has helped Scandanavia, but the more radical near Marxist versions of socialism don't get things done. You need SOME privitization.
     
    #2
  3. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    RE:

    Scandinavia is indeed a good study model.

    But things there arent all hunky-dory, either.
    Explain how it's different than Cuba... or Maoist China. Or Stalinist USSR.

    Hmmmmm? Explain how Mugabe's actions are any different than happened in those regimes.

    Sorryy... that's ALWAYS the Left's mantra... We have to keep trying till we get it right.

    Until then we have to suppress dissent and criticism to give it a chance to work.


    Perhaps I have to [ad nauseum] repeat AGAIN... I analyse by the direction a country/society is going, NOT by their goal model or claimed ideal.

    Why I dont get all upset over China's Human Rights abuses, Marxism is dying in China... to be sure, the end result may not be what we'd like {another National Socialist regime} but until that happens, China's middle class is indeed on the ascent and their freedoms are greater than they were before.

    Let me make something perfectly clear so you guys can think about it...

    How many years has it been since truly free market nations went to war against each other?
     
    #3
  4. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Alright first off by all accounts Mungabee is a complete and utter idiot. Capitalism is the way to go, the only way to go. Oh it has its flaws but they are so megear in comparison to anything else. Mungabee killed any hope for the lower classes and now he's doing in the middle class and that leaves only the ruling class, the soliders and beaurecrats with something to eat. I think this is all fairly plain to see. He's killing his country and now the people can do nothing but flee by the millions and poor South Africa is going to have to bare the brunt of it.

    Second, fog is comparing Billary to Mungabee based on the fact that she wants to "take those profits" of the oil companies. I think there was already a discussion about this quote on here. The fact that it was taken out of context. Fog you say its "continuous" threat that she makes. I thought it was a one off statement but I could be wrong on that of course.

    In any case I was under the assumption that she was speaking of taxing oil company profits not forcing them to sell their product at half price as Mugabee is doing with the small business owners of Zimbabwe.

    Beyond that we don't really have a true free market system do we? Not really. We've instituted price controls on things before, cereal comes to mind, I recall reading about Nixon turning to price controls aswell but could be off on that one. Not just that but the fact that we subsidize industries. 2billion to corn a year is the one thats all the talk at the moment. I'm not very informed on it all but I've read about the governments use of food banks buying up things like milk to insure that the price stays at a level as to keep dairy farmers in business. Beyond agriculture which pretty much all wealthy nations subsidize we subsidize oil companies, drug companies, student lenders, ect. Now many want to subsidize coal to liquid plants. Its endless. The point I'm attempting to make is that we ourselves hardly have a pure free market that Hillary is going to come in and muck up.

    The connection of Hillary to Mungabee is a ridiculous one. As if she were going to come in and start forcing all business to sell everything at half-price and soon we'll be Zimbabwe! People vote democrat for a number of reasons, your lumping them all in to a leftist, quasi-marxist category with Chavez and Mungabee types is tiresome fog.
     
    #4
  5. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    No... no .. no!

    Much as I hate parsers for effect... her remarks are NOT being taken out of context.

    Read this comment on gasoline prices .. and the surge in oil company profits:

    "We're going to take those profits..."

    There is NOTHING before or after that can change the meaning of that. it is exactly what she meant.

    And you'll recall that Mugabe started out by confiscating just a few farms.. mainly those who worked against him politically... and redistributing then to the peasants. he didnt start out as a madman.. he started out as a popular hero.

    dont they all.

    Now as to subsidies... if you want to get up a petition to end all subsidies, especially for corn and grains unless it's a floor subsidy....I'll be very happy to sign it.

    But you'd better check with Tom "Ethanol is gonna get me elected forever" Harkin.

    Coal to liquid plant subsidy is a GOOD thing, though. It's new tech and needs a kick start.

    Commodity services, like refineries should NOT be subsidized, nor should oil exploration or, IMO, ANY commercial energy production facility. With the possible exception of fluidized-bed nukes.
     
    #5
  6. WonsanUnited

    WonsanUnited New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Communism ain't good, but North Korea is worse than communism, it's even worse than Stalinism. Cuba is just a sad place that the Marxists use as a good example of communism when in reality it's just sad. Vietnam has seen the light and are doing a good job with capitalism, but China is just a sad sad place that communists and capitalists alike don't really like.

    Scandanavia is nice. I haven't heard about much rioting, a little in Denmark by the anarchists, but otherwise it's quiet, not as racist as the rest of Europe, and you get lots of stuff!
     
    #6
  7. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    While not commenting on the politics that drove this thread or this post, I'd like to point out that eliminating the rest of the paragraph is the textbook definition of "out of context." To eliminate the second half of the sentence is egregious enough to make the "Out of Context Hall of Fame."

    There; that point's made. Rant on brother, rant on! 8)
     
    #7
  8. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Okay peeps heres the quote;

    Speaking on the subject of energy independence Ms. Clinton said the following;

    “The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and put them in a stratgic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence.”

    watch it for yourself;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

    It is this quote which leads fog to draw the comparision from Hillary Clinton to Robert Mungabee. One day she'll take a bit of the profits from the biggest fat cats of all fat cats and before you know it we'll be no better off than Zimbabwe. Because its creeping socialism don't you know its CREEPING! So what was todays lesson kids? Clinton = Marxisim/Socialism/Maoism/Communism, thats right so vote Thompson!

    Seriously Fog your comparison is BOGUS. There are LOTS of reasons not to vote for Hillary, this is not one of them.
     
    #8
  9. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    "I want to take these profits..." I'll say it again, I see it you dont.. fine. You were probably also in favor of Mugabe's land redistribution.. it was the same concept -a means to an idealistic end- if not the same rhetoric.

    I do not give a crap WHAT she is going to use them for! PERIOD!

    If those oil companies get subsidies of any kind.. end them. Dont confiscate wealth for re-distribution.
     
    #9
  10. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Oh Chr!st, come on. "also in favor" I wasn't in favor of anything of Mungabe's in the first place and your gonna slap with that!

    I would never support a Mao-like outright confinscation of land, companies, assets, class turmoil.

    Yes I tend to vote for Democrats and if the goverment wanted to tax the oil companies at a slightly harsher rate for purposes of actually taking care of the enormous deficit or funding alternative energy you can bet it wouldn't bother me, and yes I will defend Hillary against your slanderous comparision but that doesn't make me some kind of over idealistic leftista who has Che! posters lining my walls and cheers on Zimbabwe land reforms.

    I don't fit that mold don't put me in it.

    Interesting speculation (cheapshots by the Times aside) today about Hillary, the WSJ, and Murdoch.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/busin ... ref=slogin

     
    #10
  11. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Spencer, I gotta tell you that anything that would make the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal set themselves on fire is A-OK with me!
     
    #11
  12. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    Ah, the politics of fear. Must smell like a vanilla, pumpkin candle every "morning in America" to all those old, fat farts from the Grand Oil Party.
     
    #12
  13. Lyle

    Lyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Scandanavia is fundimentally capitalist, but with a heavy veneer of "socialism". They just pay higher taxes so their government can organize their citizens lives into a nice and neat logical Nordic order.

    I've lived in Germany twice. They don't like to think of themselves as capitalist, but IKEA and Daimler Benz say otherwise.

    Chavez and Mugabe are absolute morons and are impoverishing their people. Anybody in Venezuela with money is leaving. All the wealthy whites and blacks in Zimbabwe are going as well. You just don't take peoples' property and give it to unproductive poor farmers who won't be able to make a living off of farming 10 acres of land. It's stupidity personified.
     
    #13
  14. Lyle

    Lyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Booo!!!! Whistle!!!!
     
    #14
  15. FFCinPCB

    FFCinPCB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Location:
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL
    Nope, we pay our farmers to be unproductive. :banana:
     
    #15
  16. timmyg

    timmyg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    after spending a semester there, its all about the hygge!

    and i wouldnt mind paying insanely high taxes - as long as bridges and tunnels were built (properly) and maintained (regularly) so they dont collapse.
     
    #16
  17. Lyle

    Lyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    so bridges and tunnels fail in the US on a regular basis? When I was in Germany a train in a tunnel in Austria caught on fire and killed just about everyone. I think a Swedish or Finnish ferry sank in the Baltic Sea as well. and trains have actually crashed in Germany before.
     
    #17
  18. Lyle

    Lyle New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    This isn't really true. We pay a few of our farmers to not produce certain crops to keep the price of that crop artificially high so that farmers who grow that crop won't go bankrupt every few years.

    More importantly America is the breadbasket of the world. Our farmers are ridiculously productive, often over productive, and they actually have a comparative advantage over the rest of the world's farmers.
     
    #18
  19. Smokin'

    Smokin' Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Location:
    Machu Picchu
    This topic is an interesting one because it has no conversational beginning or end.

    Here it is... long before socio-economic nation types, there were, simply nations...

    ... blah blah blah...

    ... the thing is poor people will take any form of communism freely if they are poor enough. Usually they are the left over lowest classes from the previous nation that occupied that land.

    Since I barely speak english, let me try to clarify. If Country A, full of the indigineous peoples of that land, was taken over for colonization purposes (assest grabbing of more organized nations) the infastructure is destroyed and new stuff is built. The locals are going to be the laborors of that new stuff as well as those who extract wealth from the land. Eventually the place they live will be come unable to uphold the extraction process, disease discomfort, etc spreads and the people get ansy. A man (or woman), of the people, stand up to the ruling class...

    usually other countries swoop in to "HELP" or to start their own asset grabbing under the guise of charity. Those who deal with the helpers get influenced and corrupted, eventually starting a new ruling class and the cycle starts over.

    Capitalism is the way to go simply because its a free system. After years ina communist system on the ruling class has the ability to rule unless a revolt happens... and in that case, you starve a person or two million here, or some else terrible happens that showcases the power of the leaders...

    Unfortunately, the ruling class needs to be pacifist, considerate, and uncorruptable for any socio-economic structure to work.

    Neither form has those guarantees.
     
    #19
  20. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    I should lock this thread after Smokin's post.. because he captures the essence.

    Summary: Our system works because we allow open dissent.. yes, even socialists and fascists!
    The way we deal with them, inside our society, is to make fun of, and take microscopes to, those we dont agree with, rather than just hunting them down and cutting off their heads or blowing them up.

    And the media will wobble here and there but ultimately they must reflect the truth.
     
    #20

Share This Page