LGP Political Discussion Thread

[pittsoccer33]

It is disgusting how much power unions have in this country. I am happy that Pennsylvania is a right-to-work state. The fact that in some states you HAVE to belong to a union to work in some fields is absolutely outrageous. And the above excerpt makes me want to kick Nick Balzano's teeth in.

PA is not. Ask anyone who was forced to pay union dues while working at Giant Eagle or Foodland in high school.

[shafnutz05]

PA is not. Ask anyone who was forced to pay union dues while working at Giant Eagle or Foodland in high school.

My mistake...for some reason I thought it was. Well than that is ridiculous. The unions are basically extortion rackets. And let's not forget how Obama's beloved SEIU sent out their thugs to town hall rallies to physically intimidate/assault protesters. (like this guy)

[doublem]

By his actions and statements, and with clear examples of each, I argue that he is no fan of capitalism. The GM example, in particular, spells out his philosophy very clearly IMO - as he was very hands-on in the process to save the union and screw the investors and screw the sacred right to private property that is fundamental in a capitalist society.

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

[GaryRissling]

By his actions and statements, and with clear examples of each, I argue that he is no fan of capitalism. The GM example, in particular, spells out his philosophy very clearly IMO - as he was very hands-on in the process to save the union and screw the investors and screw the sacred right to private property that is fundamental in a capitalist society.

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

Well, our financial institutions are "too big to fail", and being at least partially supported by Big Ben's printing press and US tax dollars; a major portion of our auto industry is union controlled; our healthcare system will be increasingly run by the US government; illegal immigrants will be encouraged to join unions as a way to acquire amnesty; government subsidized (and I would bet union dominated) green jobs are going to be implemented; so let's just say we are dropping rapidly in the rankings of free market economies, and we are on pace to drop a lot further.

[shafnutz05]

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

I don't know if he is implying that....I think he listed a lot of good points regarding Barack Obama's political ideology. I don't think we are going to be a full-blown socialist country in 4 years. However, I think he is pursuing a lot of policies and principles that transfer a lot of power, wealth, and property from the private citizen to the government and its beneficiaries (unions, etc). There will be a pseudo-revolution in this country long before we would ever get to the point you are implying.

One thing about Americans....they will take so much of something, but there is certainly a very clear line drawn.

[pittsoccer33]

the cap and tax bill actually provides provisions for all the jobs it will destory. thats would be hillarious if it wasnt so serious.

[doublem]

PA is not. Ask anyone who was forced to pay union dues while working at Giant Eagle or Foodland in high school.

My mistake...for some reason I thought it was. Well than that is ridiculous. The unions are basically extortion rackets. And let's not forget how Obama's beloved SEIU sent out their thugs to town hall rallies to physically intimidate/assault protesters. (like this guy)

That guy was never beaten. He like fell over and then decided to show up in a wheelchair the next day. http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... w-hurt-was" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously? This guy is about the attention. Did you even watch the video?

[shafnutz05]

I watched the video. The SEIU thugs should have never even been there in the first place. They were there for one reason only: to intimidate the people that were there. One of them grabbed him and they both fell to the ground. The point is...THEY HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE INTIMIDATING PEOPLE.

Kind of like the Black Panthers (which I witnessed firsthand) down here in Philly, which stood outside of polling places dressed in black pseudomilitary suits and smacking billy clubs in their hands. Also funny that the Bush Justice Department filed charges against these men, yet after the Obama inauguration, they abruptly dropped their case.

For all the talk about "disenfranchised voters" the Democrats throw around, they are getting pretty good at the thuggery themselves.

[doublem]

By his actions and statements, and with clear examples of each, I argue that he is no fan of capitalism. The GM example, in particular, spells out his philosophy very clearly IMO - as he was very hands-on in the process to save the union and screw the investors and screw the sacred right to private property that is fundamental in a capitalist society.

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

Well, our financial institutions are "too big to fail", and being at least partially supported by Big Ben's printing press and US tax dollars; a major portion of our auto industry is union controlled; our healthcare system will be increasingly run by the US government; illegal immigrants will be encouraged to join unions as a way to acquire amnesty; government subsidized (and I would bet union dominated) green jobs are going to be implemented; so let's just say we are dropping rapidly in the rankings of free market economies, and we are on pace to drop a lot further.

Ok, but you do you know that little of that has to do with not being a capitalist economy. During the New Deal era all this supposed "government" take overs would have looked small in comparison and capitalism was still around. Here is a list of numbers that show the U.S. AND regulation:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/18392 ... of-the-u-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[doublem]

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

I don't know if he is implying that....I think he listed a lot of good points regarding Barack Obama's political ideology. I don't think we are going to be a full-blown socialist country in 4 years. However, I think he is pursuing a lot of policies and principles that transfer a lot of power, wealth, and property from the private citizen to the government and its beneficiaries (unions, etc). There will be a pseudo-revolution in this country long before we would ever get to the point you are implying.

One thing about Americans....they will take so much of something, but there is certainly a very clear line drawn.

Just out of curiosity what would you have said during the New Deal? Nothing Obama has done is even remotely close to regulation or "government take over" like during that time.

[shafnutz05]

Just out of curiosity what would you have said during the New Deal? Nothing Obama has done is even remotely close to regulation or "government take over" like during that time.

The New Deal was also a case of the government far overstepping their bounds, and you're right, nothing SO FAR has come close to that. One of the greatest lies/myths in U.S. history was that the New Deal ended the depression. Modern studies show that it actually served to lengthen it. The Keynesian geniuses were wrong. World War II ended the recession.

[GaryRissling]

Ok, but you do you know that little of that has to do with not being a capitalist economy. During the New Deal era all this supposed "government" take overs would have looked small in comparison and capitalism was still around. Here is a list of numbers that show the U.S. AND regulation:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/18392 ... of-the-u-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I particularly like the third graph down in the article, though I don't necessarily support the conclusions of the article (some pretty liberal sources are used); but taking that graph on its own merit (which shows the skyrocketing national debt relative to skyrocketing profits of financial institutions), I'll say this: Credit has to come from somewhere - either from savings or from a printing press. I don't think taking a partisan tone to belittle capitalism is helpful as I don't believe our financial institutions are actually capitalist enterprises. Not when central banks don't have to disclose their balance sheets to reveal who they are printing money for. Moreover, the Fed (which I also consider to be an extension of our financial institutions) depletes this nation's savings by discouraging savings in the US by keeping interest rates in the basement and thus we rely on borrowing money from other countries or printing money.

Or worst case, we print money to lend to our financial institutions a 1%, which devalues our currency, and allow the financial institution to lend the money to the government charging 4% to taxpayers (while the CEO takes a near-billion dollar bonus for such a creative transaction). I really have no idea what that is, but it isn't capitalism!

The main involvement IMO the government should have in the free market in terms of regulation is to ensure transparency in the market, yet one of the actions they defend the most is the right for our central bank to be opaque. That is not capitalism, either IMO. Those banks needed to fail last year, instead they just got rid of the competition (Lehman/Bear).

[Guinness]

The Keynesian geniuses were wrong.

This is true. However you cannot say that and then say:

World War II ended the recession.

[/quote]

World War II did not end the Great Depression.

[pittsoccer33]

I'd say it did, or at least the immediate post war period, where all of europe was coming to us for loans and equipment and supplies to rebuild their continent, creating jobs and allowing for unprecedented growth.

[Guinness]

Just out of curiosity what would you have said during the New Deal? Nothing Obama has done is even remotely close to regulation or "government take over" like during that time.

The market crashed in '29. Hoover's interventionist policies produced the dead-cat bounce that had the country believing the recession was ending. FDR was elected in '32, when the second of the double dip was beginning to kick in. That's when the intervention really began.

I guess what I'm saying is, give government at least as much time to screw it up this time, 'kay?

[Guinness]

I'd say it did, or at least the immediate post war period, where all of europe was coming to us for loans and equipment and supplies to rebuild their continent, creating jobs and allowing for unprecedented growth.

Typically the myth is that the government spending ON the war is what lifted the country out of depression. That's what I'm referring to.

It was after the conclusion of the war, once the economy was returned to a peace-time footing, that the recovery began.

[Guinness]

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

What makes you think it is one now?

[doublem]

I don't think taking a partisan tone to belittle capitalism is helpful as I don't believe our financial institutions are actually capitalist enterprises.

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

Not when central banks don't have to disclose their balance sheets to reveal who they are printing money for. Moreover, the Fed

Yea, I agree the Fed sucks, but I'm sure I would disagree about why. I think the U.S. should have a central bank just not like the Fed. The problem is the private/government banking system is failed to begin with. Private banks should not have that much as a stake in determining the role of the country. It was failed compromise from the start IMO.

I really have no idea what that is, but it isn't capitalism!

Corporatism/Corporate masters/ Owners call them what you like.

Those banks needed to fail last year, instead they just got rid of the competition (Lehman/Bear).

Yes, they did and they are setting up the system to fail all over again. Nothing was fixed. It is probably a lot worse now.

[Sarcastic]

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

That's the thing I disagree about with Ron Paul. Wouldn't work. Couldn't work. I distrust private corporations / the super elite, as I do the government we've had for several decades. In fact, I'd say we are getting closer to fascism rather than socialism: the merger of corporate world and government.

By the way, the other big thing I read about R.P. was that he's not too big on Women's Rights. Against equal pay. At least what I remember reading. I hope that was a BS blog of some kind.

[doublem]

Do you really think the United States won't be a capitalist country in the near future?

What makes you think it is one now?

Socialism??

[GaryRissling]

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

That's the thing I disagree about with Ron Paul. Wouldn't work. Couldn't work. I distrust private corporations / the super elite, as I do the government we've had for several decades. In fact, I'd say we are getting closer to fascism rather than socialism: the merger of corporate world and government.

By the way, the other big thing I read about R.P. was that he's not too big on Women's Rights. Against equal pay. At least what I remember reading. I hope that was a BS blog of some kind.

I will say this, without a central bank setting interest rates, the risk of mal-investment in a a less-regulated market causing a recession is minimal. Beyond that, I can probably be convinced that some regulation would be necessary outside of rules for transparency; but the elimination of the current fed-funded Sachs-Citi-SEC-Fed-Treasury-congress-senate oligarchy would do more clean up our markets and our country than any legislative measure IMO.

[doublem]

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

That's the thing I disagree about with Ron Paul. Wouldn't work. Couldn't work. I distrust private corporations / the super elite, as I do the government we've had for several decades. In fact, I'd say we are getting closer to fascism rather than socialism: the merger of corporate world and government.

By the way, the other big thing I read about R.P. was that he's not too big on Women's Rights. Against equal pay. At least what I remember reading. I hope that was a BS blog of some kind.

Don't let Guinness let you hear that. I'm assuming Ron Paul would be against equal rights and equal pay. I'm assuming he thinks the state should have no part in that. The omniscient market will work it all out. Are you talking about RP racist remarks?

[Sarcastic]

I will say this, without a central bank setting interest rates, the risk of mal-investment in a a less-regulated market causing a recession is minimal.

I believe that our dependence on the central bank is excruciating. Beyond that, I wouldn't trust company owners to do what's right for their workers. We already had that a hundred years ago. Maybe the unions aren't the answer like some say, but we cannot allow the Walmarts of this world to decide what workers should earn and whatever rights they possess (look to their operations in Asia). Government regulation is indispensable.

Beyond that, I can probably be convinced that some regulation would be necessary outside of rules for transparency; but the elimination of the current fed-funded Sachs-Citi-SEC-Fed-Treasury-congress-senate oligarchy would do more clean up our markets and our country than any legislative measure IMO.

That's the thing. Some regulation will always be necessary. Who will do the regulating? Either the government or a CEO, take your pick.

[Corvidae]

[Sarcastic]

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

That's the thing I disagree about with Ron Paul. Wouldn't work. Couldn't work. I distrust private corporations / the super elite, as I do the government we've had for several decades. In fact, I'd say we are getting closer to fascism rather than socialism: the merger of corporate world and government.

By the way, the other big thing I read about R.P. was that he's not too big on Women's Rights. Against equal pay. At least what I remember reading. I hope that was a BS blog of some kind.

I'm assuming Ron Paul would be against equal rights and equal pay. I'm assuming he thinks the state should have no part in that. The omniscient market will work it all out.

Are you talking about RP racist remarks?

That's what RP believes would happen. All would work out. As if he has had his head in the sand and wasn't able to notice how corporate America has behaved for the last 10 or 20 years.

I don't recall any racist remarks. Did he say anything?