Socialism?

#76
#76
droski said:
i'll say it again. was stalin a communist? because if you read the wikipedia definition he sure as hell wasn't. and no one is saying that every democrat is a socialist, but the president is as close to a socialist as any leader of an open economy in history.
Click to expand...

And Hugo Chavez knows one when he sees one. :birgits_giggle:
 
#77
#77
dave956 said:
• 63% think Obama is a socialist.

What is socialism? Here, from Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

In no way can President Obama intelligently be labeled as a socialist, except maybe the part about people being paid commensurate with the work they do. Period.
(That would be really cool if it happened, but that's for another post, I think).

However, let's assume for fun that the president was a socialist. He would be in very good company. Please open your Bible to Acts 4:32 - Acts 5:11. KJV will do fine if you wish.

If you don't want look it up, the gist of the passage is that members of the apostolic community contributed all they had to the community, taking back only what they needed. The passage continues with a story about a couple who sold some land they owned, but did not give the entire proceeds to the community. When the man went to Peter, Peter knew exactly what had happened and then the man was struck dead by the Lord. The same happened later to his wife.

I know that doesn't really sound like socialism, communism is closer.

Go figure!

If you can make it through Leviticus past the anti-gay stuff and the no football parts, you'll find that a very large proportion of the book is devoted to telling the children of Israel the proper way to treat thew poor, widows, orphans, illegal aliens etc. All I'll say is that no one running on the Levitical platform could be nominated, much less elected in this country.

Pity, I think.
Click to expand...

Not to get to technical here, but what you stated here applied to the local church not the government. And I'm still looking for that illegal aliens part!
 
#78
#78
volinbham said:
Paul did a nice job of pulling apart some concepts of socialism and I think it's pretty clear that Obama's approach to "market failure" is more socialistic than we've historical seen and that he sees "market failure" where it doesn't exist (eg. GM, Chrysler). His response to the latter not only distorts the market, it creates government ownership and partially transfers ownership to the workers (unions).
Click to expand...



What would your approach be to solve a market failure? How would you, personally, identify one?
 
#80
#80
shootermcgavin7 said:
So we have a socialist government and an open economy. Just making sure I have your quote down literally.

That's your statement, right?
Click to expand...

i said president, not government. your reading comprehension really sucks. i must have missed when obama became supreme dictator and was able to impliment whatever economic policies he wanted. my apologies.
 
Last edited:
#82
#82
shootermcgavin7 said:
What would your approach be to solve a market failure? How would you, personally, identify one?
Click to expand...

First, I believe market failures are less frequent than politicos would have us believe.

So in many cases the question is not are there market failures or not but to what extent is the market mechanism creating pain and should the government step in to reduce the pain.

I think GM and Chrysler are examples where there was not a market failure but failure of those companies would have painful repurcussions for many people. Even if I agreed to a bailout the actual bailout was more winner (unions) loser (creditors/tax payers) than it needed to be. It was based on a political viewpoint beyond simply trying to minimize the negative externalities of failing companies.

We can also look to some of the lending practices, some of the Fannie and Freddie mechanisms as cases where the government distorted the market to achieve some political aim. I wouldn't consider the fact that high risk borrowers had trouble securing loans as a market failure.

An area where we see market failure (or market failings) is something like national defense. The advantage of coordination and government ownership outweighs the disadvantages and inefficiencies. In general I would say this is more true in areas requiring substantial investment and with single customers (e.g. government).

I realize we will never have a pure market system. We always intervene to steer the market or subvert market forces to advantage some particular group.

My point is that the approach of this administration is to intervene at a more micro level than others have. Pay caps, voiding contracts of specific creditors, cram-downs, government ownership, etc. are steps beyond what is necessary IMHO. For example, the pay cap stuff is good political fodder but is far from essential to mitigate negative externalities from banking problems.
 
#84
#84
shootermcgavin7 said:
So we have a socialist government and an open economy. Just making sure I have your quote down literally.

That's your statement, right?
Click to expand...

This has been the recurring point throughout the thread. It's not a socialist regime but the actions taken have more of socialistic nature than we've typically seen or are necessary IMHO.

If you want to discuss, I'd be glad to. If you want to argue semantics and restructure someone's argument I'll pass.
 
#85
#85
volinbham said:
First, I believe market failures are less frequent than politicos would have us believe.
Click to expand...

Before I start, which politicos? Because for most of the past decades, the majority of politicians and central bankers were attempting to convince people that they don't exist.

I enjoy the utility angle you take later in your post, and think it is the right way to go, but I want to make sure the assumptions are clear beforehand.
 
#86
#86
shootermcgavin7 said:
Before I start, which politicos? Because for most of the past decades, the majority of politicians and central bankers were attempting to convince people that they don't exist.

I enjoy the utility angle you take later in your post, and think it is the right way to go, but I want to make sure the assumptions are clear beforehand.
Click to expand...

Politicians representing particular constituencies. They aim to protect theirs from the negative consequences of the market.
 
#88
#88
volinbham said:
This has been the recurring point throughout the thread. It's not a socialist regime but the actions taken have more of socialistic nature than we've typically seen or are necessary IMHO.

If you want to discuss, I'd be glad to. If you want to argue semantics and restructure someone's argument I'll pass.
Click to expand...

I don't play semantics. I think it is a waste of time and inhibits learning.

I prefer to deal in plain English. However, I am unaware of day-after-day announcements of "market failures" by politicians outside financial and/or energy crises. Hence my curiosity.
 
#89
#89
I'd argue that all the handwringing about tarp and how we can't let this once in a lifetime market event happen again is in and of itself arguing it a far more common occurance than it is. otherwise why the massive need for reform? particurally considering that the actual banking loans from tarp have made the taxpayers tens of billions, yet that is the only industry obama et all wants to regulate.
 
#90
#90
droski said:
I'd argue that all the handwringing about tarp and how we can't let this once in a lifetime market event happen again is in and of itself arguing it a far more common occurance than it is. otherwise why the massive need for reform? particurally considering that the banking loans from tarp have made the taxpayers tens of billions, yet that is the only industry obama et all wants to regulate.
Click to expand...


Ah, now I see. You feel punished, hence the tendency to lash out at anyone who wants to revert to the pre-1999 financial industry regulation.
 
#91
#91
do you really think these banks wouldn't have gone under in the 90s under the same economic conditions? please show me the last time the real estate market crashed and there haven't been massive bank failures?
 
#95
#95
shootermcgavin7 said:
I *know* that many of the investments they made in the 2000s would have never been made in the 1990s. I can email you the CDO data tomorrow if you like.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Graham Leach Bliley is the cause here?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#97
#97
shootermcgavin7 said:
I *know* that many of the investments they made in the 2000s would have never been made in the 1990s. I can email you the CDO data tomorrow if you like.
Click to expand...

A lot of those investments didn't exist in the 90s in nearly the size of the 2000s. This isn't apples to apples. Banks were still doing hte same off balance sheet enron style sivs in the 90s.
 
#98
#98
BigPapaVol said:
Are you saying that Graham Leach Bliley is the cause here?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Not *THE* cause. But it certainly contributed, in a big way, yes.

The primary avenue was through commercial banks using their investment banking arms to peddle subprime mortgages to hedge funds.
So, yes, A cause. Not "THE" cause.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top