Socialism...

[razzelflabben]

Free market is an ecomomical idealogy where the market is completely separate from any kind of goverment involvment...A true free market doesn't even have any uniform currency restrictions. From around 1779 through the very late 1800's...We had private banks printing their own currency...which doesn't necessarily sound all that bad at first, but then came the crash/panic of 1901.

If you have a bunch of currency from 6 different banks, those individual banks control the value of the currency by regulating the amount in circulation and the amount of commodities backing per unit. J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller started buying out all of the smaller banks (which they were able to do with their vast wealth because the government can't prevent monopolies in a true free market system).

If they now own 5 of the 6 banks that you hold currency from, they control the value and exchange rate of 5/6 of your money. Since they wanted to get into the internation central banking scheme with Rothschild and Warburg, naturally they formed their own currency (which they were allowed to do as bank owners in a true free market system) in the form of the Federal Reserve bank. Since they were pushing for their own currency to reign supreme and become the standard, naturally they did everything in their power to devalue the independant currency printed by all of the banks they bought out leaving most people virtually devestated by the rapid loss of value on all of the currency they possesed.

Benjamin Franklin warned of the dangers of allowing international banks to take over because it wasn't an "honest" money system. However, in a true free market, the government is powerless to stop that kind of take over. The free market system is nothing more than a precursor to a total aristocracy.

There has to be some kind of regulating body for the economy. You can't leave money control in the hands of the people because as we can see from history, whoever has the most will end up running the whole show and you end up with a regulating body anyways, it just ends up being the bankers themselves instead of an impartial third party like it should be...

Any other questions?

well, I don't have time to get into a whole debate about our banks, but I will ask you how we are better off with the government owning the banks than the Rockafellers...one requires profit, the other a devaluation of money....in fact, my grandparents were migrant farmers during the "great depression" and they repeatedly said that they have never seen the economy as bad as it progressed under more government control.

Now on to the point of this post that I want to make...As I said already stated and will state again, all forms of economic governments are run by the people, a people who will try and often succeed in manipulating and corrupting the ideas of the government. The best we can hope for is that we choose the government with the best chance at preserving the liberties of all and limiting the abuses...what floors me is that anyone, Rep., Dem, conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. thinks that any human form of government is without corruption or manipulation. In fact, from the start of this discussion I talked about how God's form of government is vastly different from man's and not a single person dared to comment.

Bottom line, sure free market has problems, so does capitalism, socialism, etc. The question for each person out there is which form of government best holds up the basic views of your personal beliefs. From a biblical standpoint, "free will" is the mark of life, and thus should be our consistant mark of government.

 

[theVirginian]

It seems it only took 100 days of having a Democrat in the office for Texas to abandon the "Country First" slogan and are now apparenly entertaining the idea of commiting treason so that they may sucede from the U.S. Obama has been in office a touch over 100 DAYS and we are already in succession talks!!!!

Texas threatens to secede every time the Federal government threatens their gun or property rights. Its how they get the national media's attention and protest. At least they are sticking with their ideals.

The liberal counties that make up northern Virginia have threatened to break loose from Virginia every decade or so since at least the '60s. Their gripe is that they pay most of the gas taxes, but get little back to keep their roads repaired and new ones built. The money has been going to the poor southern counties to improve their infastructure. The state has been trying to attract new businesses and industries there besides coal mining and good roads play a big part in this and, of course, the poor stand to benefit quite a bit if this ever is accomplished.

I do agree with them about the infamous Interstate to Nowhere, though.

 

[razzelflabben]

Texas threatens to secede every time the Federal government threatens their gun or property rights. Its how they get the national media's attention and protest. At least they are sticking with their ideals.

what does the constitution tell them their rights are when the government tries to take those rights away?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

what does the constitution tell them their rights are when the government tries to take those rights away?

Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't hold as much water as it used to. The US Code seems to to be the final authority.

Perfect example: According to the 16th amendment, unapportioned income tax shouldn't be allowed...but we still have to pay it because of Title 26 of the US code.

I agree that the constitution should be held in higher regard, but when you create a document that's interpretations rather than definitive statements/rules, this is the kind of thing you can run in to.

 

[razzelflabben]

Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't hold as much water as it used to. The US Code seems to to be the final authority.

Perfect example: According to the 16th amendment, unapportioned income tax shouldn't be allowed...but we still have to pay it because of Title 26 of the US code.

I agree that the constitution should be held in higher regard, but when you create a document that's interpretations rather than definitive statements/rules, this is the kind of thing you can run in to.

Which is exactly why so many Americans are against the governmental changes we are seeing today, because they are changes that violate not only the constitution but the guiding principals of that constitution, a constitution btw that defines who we are (or should be) to the world.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is exactly why so many Americans are against the governmental changes we are seeing today, because they are changes that violate not only the constitution but the guiding principals of that constitution, a constitution btw that defines who we are (or should be) to the world.

While our constitution is an important historical document, it's hard to view that as the legistlative cornerstone of our society when it changes so often. How can people be opposed to changes when the very document their standing up for was designed to be changed over and over again?

While the constitution conveys a lot of really sound ideals, there's also a lot of stuff in there I'd rather not have our name on (whether it's still active or not). Such as minorities votes counting at 1/3 of what a white man's vote is and things of that nature.

The US Code was developed to be an unwaivering source of legislation. How can you take an amendment seriously if you know you can just lobby and throw money at a candidate and get it overwritten with another amendment?

I see both sides of the argument as having partial validity. The flexabiltiy of the constitution is nice, but I do think that there needs to be something a little more solid to enforce the big stuff.

 

[razzelflabben]

While our constitution is an important historical document, it's hard to view that as the legistlative cornerstone of our society when it changes so often. How can people be opposed to changes when the very document their standing up for was designed to be changed over and over again?

actually, the constitution has changed very little, and is designed for a minimum of change.

While the constitution conveys a lot of really sound ideals, there's also a lot of stuff in there I'd rather not have our name on (whether it's still active or not). Such as minorities votes counting at 1/3 of what a white man's vote is and things of that nature.

the constitution doesn't say that, maybe you should review it.

The US Code was developed to be an unwaivering source of legislation. How can you take an amendment seriously if you know you can just lobby and throw money at a candidate and get it overwritten with another amendment?

that is an abuse of power not what the constitution allows for.

I see both sides of the argument as having partial validity. The flexabiltiy of the constitution is nice, but I do think that there needs to be something a little more solid to enforce the big stuff.

The constitution is the big stuff, the first part of your posts suggests you are confusing the constitution with another document or even maybe history, it's an interesting read, why not review it?

 

[Chamdar]

Even if Obama is a socialist, I find the idea that he's somehow bringing socialism to America to be rather odd considering that it's already been here for several decades.

"Socialist" has become another one of those terms that have been tossed around so recklessly that it's arguably lost all meaning. The fact that I've seen even *libertarians* accused of being socialists further proves my point.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even if Obama is a socialist, I find the idea that he's somehow bringing socialism to America to be rather odd considering that it's already been here for several decades

Eh?

"Socialist" has become another one of those terms that have been tossed around so recklessly that it's arguably lost all meaning. The fact that I've seen even *libertarians* accused of being socialists further proves my point.

That, I can agree with.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I find it curious that so many people think a "free" market (read: a market that isn't controlled or even regulated by democratically elected institutions) is good for the common people, or even in their best interest.
Maybe it's the word "free" in there that makes it sound so attractive, as if it was somehow about personal freedoms and so forth. Well, it isn't. Free market ideology doesn't even rely on democratic political systems. In fact, it has blossomed best in places that were firmly in the hands of an authoritarian government, such as in Pinochet's Chile.

A "free" market will result in only one thing: plutocracy. The undiluted, uncontrollable tyranny of those who own large quantities of money over those who do not.

"So, you don't want to work for 8 Cents per hour? Tough luck! There's a crowd of more than a dozen desperate, starving, unemployed people queueing in front of the door, who'll gladly take your place. It's the competition! Don't blame me! If I paid you more, other companies would outpace me!"

Now, some may point out that the system we currently have already bears some resemblance to that - yes; BUT IT WOULD BE EVEN WORSE IF IT WEREN'T FOR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED INSTITUTIONS THAT CAN AT LEAST INFLUENCE THIS *SOMEWHAT*.

People talk about "the State" as if it were some tyrannical dictatorship. It isn't. It is *your* government, elected by *you* (and the rest of the population). And it's the government's job to see to it that you aren't abused or exploited by people who have more monetary leverage than you do.
People who complain about "the State" don't seem to realize that this is an institution they *do* have some control about. Big businesses in a free market system, on the other hand, could just waltz right over you and your interests, and nobody would be able to do anything about that. Or do you think that the stock holders will care?

 

[Kharak]

Well the issue at hand is that a competitive market does benefit people, but people are not so privy to maintain the status quo and give up their landed benefits. I believe the founding father of economics, Scotsman Adam Smith, had warned about conspiracies to restrict trade by firms. Given certain markets, effective competition can be impossible in certain areas.

The real problem though? Firms are protected by law and ensured rights as they are essentially the instruments of an individual or group of individuals who have taken a risk (the right to property). The solution in herein lies within dismantling cartels with respects to their effect on an economy as a whole for (as the Tau would call it): The Greater Good.

Having said that, a free market benefits all but the poorest in a given economy by allowing the price of goods and services to reach an equilibrium with their actual demand and respective substitutes. As we saw near the end of the Soviet bloc, food prices and queues were high and long, as only a sufficiently liberalized economy can effectively feed a population in the long run; though built on a national infrastructure this effect can be extended to further permit more accessable interactions of markets (cheaper shipping costs for longer distances, constant electricity, etc.).

 

[Chamdar]

Eh?

Social Security is technically socialist.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well the issue at hand is that a competitive market does benefit people, but people are not so privy to maintain the status quo and give up their landed benefits. I believe the founding father of economics, Scotsman Adam Smith, had warned about conspiracies to restrict trade by firms. Given certain markets, effective competition can be impossible in certain areas.

How do people benefit from competition if it essentially encourages the formation of monopolies? As soon as competing companies have gobbled up their beaten rivals, you end up with monolithic blocks controlling most of the market.
Likewise, competition favours the lowest possible ethical standard: the company who pays the lowest wages to its employees gains an undisputable advantage over those who treat their workers as full-fledged human beings. There's a reason why most of our clothes come from Asian sweat shops these days, where young women work 16-hour-shifts until they're essentially too drained to continue.
And free market economists basically argue that the best way to cope with that is to implement the same (nonexistant) work ethics in our own countries, too. How else will you compete? The working classes struggled hard to abolish such exploitation and abuse, but with a globalized economy, things have grown considerably worse.

The real problem though? Firms are protected by law and ensured rights as they are essentially the instruments of an individual or group of individuals who have taken a risk (the right to property). The solution in herein lies within dismantling cartels with respects to their effect on an economy as a whole for (as the Tau would call it): The Greater Good.

Having said that, a free market benefits all but the poorest in a given economy by allowing the price of goods and services to reach an equilibrium with their actual demand and respective substitutes. As we saw near the end of the Soviet bloc, food prices and queues were high and long, as only a sufficiently liberalized economy can effectively feed a population in the long run; though built on a national infrastructure this effect can be extended to further permit more accessable interactions of markets (cheaper shipping costs for longer distances, constant electricity, etc.).

Oh, I fully agree that the sort of economy the Soviet bloc tried to implement was even more disastrous than the free market. It's not as if these were the only two options, though.

 

[razzelflabben]

Even if Obama is a socialist, I find the idea that he's somehow bringing socialism to America to be rather odd considering that it's already been here for several decades.

"Socialist" has become another one of those terms that have been tossed around so recklessly that it's arguably lost all meaning. The fact that I've seen even *libertarians* accused of being socialists further proves my point.

what I generally hear is that we have been moving further and further toward socialism for a long time now, in fact there is currently a big movement that thinks that the republicans are to socialist for this nation....I also think that because of the programs that Obama is establishing and trying to establish, many see him as ushering in the no turning back policies of socialism...at least that's the feeling I get from what I hear from people....

 

[razzelflabben]

I find it curious that so many people think a "free" market (read: a market that isn't controlled or even regulated by democratically elected institutions) is good for the common people, or even in their best interest.
Maybe it's the word "free" in there that makes it sound so attractive, as if it was somehow about personal freedoms and so forth. Well, it isn't. Free market ideology doesn't even rely on democratic political systems.

right, which is why the founding fathers established not a democracy but a representative republic.

In fact, it has blossomed best in places that were firmly in the hands of an authoritarian government, such as in Pinochet's Chile.

now we disagree and I would love to see some evidence to support this claim.

A "free" market will result in only one thing: plutocracy. The undiluted, uncontrollable tyranny of those who own large quantities of money over those who do not.

and yet, in the USA it is leading us to full blown socialism, so again, please show evidence to support this claim

"So, you don't want to work for 8 Cents per hour? Tough luck! There's a crowd of more than a dozen desperate, starving, unemployed people queueing in front of the door, who'll gladly take your place. It's the competition! Don't blame me! If I paid you more, other companies would outpace me!"

free market also dictates how much that 8 cents will buy....if 8 cents will not provide the majority of people with the goods and services needed to survive, then the price of goods and services will come down....the other thing that a free market will do, is adjust as the number of workers available adjusts, as in fewer workers, higher wages, more workers lower wages....it's all about supply and demand.

Now, some may point out that the system we currently have already bears some resemblance to that - yes; BUT IT WOULD BE EVEN WORSE IF IT WEREN'T FOR DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED INSTITUTIONS THAT CAN AT LEAST INFLUENCE THIS *SOMEWHAT*.

huh? Please evidence this claim, thanks

People talk about "the State" as if it were some tyrannical dictatorship. It isn't. It is *your* government, elected by *you* (and the rest of the population). And it's the government's job to see to it that you aren't abused or exploited by people who have more monetary leverage than you do.

actually, the governments job in the USA is to represent the people who elected them....it is not about protection, or leverage, or money, it's about representing those who put them in that office....why does this basic understanding of our government seem to be missing today....maybe a review of the history of this nation is in order.

People who complain about "the State" don't seem to realize that this is an institution they *do* have some control about. Big businesses in a free market system, on the other hand, could just waltz right over you and your interests, and nobody would be able to do anything about that. Or do you think that the stock holders will care?

actually, in free market, you control the big corporations through money, if you don't buy what their selling, they won't stay in business and you still retain all your liberties.....that is the beauty of free market, the people control it, not a government that doesn't care about the people. Each individual retains control over the money as well as the representative they elect....now power is given up in free market systems.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well the issue at hand is that a competitive market does benefit people, but people are not so privy to maintain the status quo and give up their landed benefits. I believe the founding father of economics, Scotsman Adam Smith, had warned about conspiracies to restrict trade by firms. Given certain markets, effective competition can be impossible in certain areas.

The real problem though? Firms are protected by law and ensured rights as they are essentially the instruments of an individual or group of individuals who have taken a risk (the right to property). The solution in herein lies within dismantling cartels with respects to their effect on an economy as a whole for (as the Tau would call it): The Greater Good.

Having said that, a free market benefits all but the poorest in a given economy by allowing the price of goods and services to reach an equilibrium with their actual demand and respective substitutes. As we saw near the end of the Soviet bloc, food prices and queues were high and long, as only a sufficiently liberalized economy can effectively feed a population in the long run; though built on a national infrastructure this effect can be extended to further permit more accessable interactions of markets (cheaper shipping costs for longer distances, constant electricity, etc.).

what I am anxious for is someone who can show me how socialism helps the poor.

OH and btw, we saw people eating, etc. in free market in the country...

 

[razzelflabben]

How do people benefit from competition if it essentially encourages the formation of monopolies? [As soon as competing companies have gobbled up their beaten rivals, you end up with monolithic blocks controlling most of the market./quote] in free market, everyone in the society has the opportunity to vote with their dollar to prevent monopolies.

Likewise, competition favours the lowest possible ethical standard: the company who pays the lowest wages to its employees gains an undisputable advantage over those who treat their workers as full-fledged human beings. There's a reason why most of our clothes come from Asian sweat shops these days, where young women work 16-hour-shifts until they're essentially too drained to continue.

again, in a free market, each individual in the society is responsible for preventing sweat shops, and they do so by voting with thier dollars....it's about each person taking responsibility for themselves not passing that responsibility off on the government of people who don't care about the people.

And free market economists basically argue that the best way to cope with that is to implement the same (nonexistant) work ethics in our own countries, too. How else will you compete? The working classes struggled hard to abolish such exploitation and abuse, but with a globalized economy, things have grown considerably worse.

vote with your dollar....


Oh, I fully agree that the sort of economy the Soviet bloc tried to implement was even more disastrous than the free market. It's not as if these were the only two options, though.

compare Planned economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with Market economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[razzelflabben]

Here's some more good sources for anyone wanting to learn more before proclaiming to know truth

Keynesian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Socialist economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wyzaard]

actually, in free market, you control the big corporations through money, if you don't buy what their selling, they won't stay in business and you still retain all your liberties...

Except that in many cases, you have little choice but to buy such products from the concentrated set of interdependent interests, food and gas for example; do we really have any meaningful choice to go without essentials? Add to that the effect of collusion, monopolies, market traders, advertising, and overall manipulation of interconnected economic interests by those with the capital and positioning to do so... a consumer controls NOTHING.

..that is the beauty of free market, the people control it, not a government that doesn't care about the people.

It'll start caring if we take it back from corporate powers.

 

[razzelflabben]

Except that in many cases, you have little choice but to buy such products from the concentrated set of interdependent interests,

you mean like my vote not counting for more than just one person? limited power of the individual? (couldn't resist, moving on)

food and gas for example; do we really have any meaningful choice to go without essentials?

there are a lot of ways to acquire the essentials just ask a motivated poor person, in fact, before a monopoly exists the options are way many....but let's take food for example, you can raise your own food, ask a farmer to raise it for you, buy from independents, purchase only home grown, in fact, we attend church in a farming community and someone is always butchering and wanting to share the meat, as a community would do in the days of less government and even before we became a nation, you know what the country comprised of many native nations.... Point being there are a host of options...our son when on a walking trip, got hungry and killed and ate a possum....free market doesn't limit your power to change interests, it empowers you to be able to change who holds the power...if you really want economic equality for all, free market is the way to go, because it is your dollar that determines who lives and dies economically speaking.

Add to that the effect of collusion, monopolies, market traders, advertising, and overall manipulation of interconnected economic interests by those with the capital and positioning to do so... a consumer controls NOTHING.

you would be absolutely wrong there, money is the force that drives all of those when the people say the money drys up, they will stop producing, stop selling, stop gaining....

It'll start caring if we take it back from corporate powers.

Cool so you don't like capitalism either....let's take away corporate powers, take away government powers and give the people back the liberties the costituation guarentees.....what do you say, we are take back the liberties we have lost by refusing to sacrifice human lives for the collective?