Eric finds it amazing that so many Democrats are openly supporting a Democratic Socialist. I find it amazing that he is surprised since so many of their goals are so closely aligned. MP Sanders and DSA
"I find it much more interesting that for years many Democrats have denied the reality that they are truly Democratic Socialists at heart. Republicans would say that the Democrats on the Far Left were socialists and the Far Left would yell back denying the reality and insisting that those on the Far Right were incorrect.
Maybe Sanders is giving many Democrats the courage to face reality and come out of the closet." G2A
"To me it looks like there is little difference between the DSA's short term goals and those of the Left leaning Democrats. See for yourself. http://www.dsausa.org/socialist_strategySee the MP comments for more context.
The difference appears to be in the Long Term Vision... The true Socialists dream of a world where the people via government own the businesses. And the businesses are operated purely for the good of society.
The idea that many people own the businesses via stock and they are operated to survive, grow, and make a profit is unacceptable in their view.
As for Tea Party vs GOP... The GOP is ok with continuing to slowly move Left as a country. (% of GDP controlled by government... Was 10%, then 25% and is now ~36% ) The Tea Partiers think we have shifted too far and want to pull us back some before we go over a cliff. Thus they have a sense of urgency where as many of us are like cows going with the herd..." G2A
20 comments:
"The difference appears to be in the Long Term Vision... The true Socialists dream of a world where the people via government own the businesses. And the businesses are operated purely for the good of society."
This, in case you hadn't noticed, is a major, major, major difference.
I don't find it at all surprising that socialism is growing in it's appeal. Capitalism has had a really rough couple of decades and more and more people are exploring alternatives, and socialism is one of them.
--Hiram
Sean,
Have you read the DSA's Documents? Why do you think so many "Democrats" are supporting a "Democratic Socialist" if they don't see the DSA beliefs as good?
DSA Bill of Rights
I think government ownership is a small part of their plan... More of a foot note...
Why are you reluctant to admit that the left side of the Democratic party strongly supports and advocates for the DS agenda? I think Laurie understands and fully accepts this. She would love if the USA operated like Norway, Sweden, etc.
And I am comfortable admitting the the right side of the GOP wants the USA to become nearly perfectly Capitalistic. (ie nearly no gov't mandated wealth transfer, retirement programs, insurance programs, etc)
Remember: Political Self Awareness How far do you want to swing that Govt % of GDP to the Left? The Sanders folks want to put in the 50% to 60% zone.
"And I am comfortable admitting the the right side of the GOP wants the USA to become nearly perfectly Capitalistic. (ie nearly no gov't mandated wealth transfer, retirement programs, insurance programs, etc)"
I don't think that's true actually. There's no practical constituency that is going to repeal Social Security and Medicare without replacing it with some other socialist program. Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is essentially the Affordable Care Act, for instance.
Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist Capitalist
"...how that’s different from being a very liberal Democrat? ..There's no difference. ..Let's just call Bernie very liberal"
So is capitalism working the way it should? What do you think of these results?
"The top one-tenth of 1 percent" of Americans "own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,"
.. 58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top 1 percent...
I think our economic system is need of some adjustments.
For most of my life, I have thought that capitalism didn't have to follow it's natural path, that it's cyclicality and crisis prone nature could be alleviated through modest reforms. Having been born after the Great Depression, and it's reforms, I assumed that we had somehow created a more stable version of capitalism that would be the new normal for the future. But now it's becoming clear that was a mistake, that the reforms which made financial crises things of the past, weren't permanent features of our economy, the were instead temporary fixes, which capitalism would throw off once it developed the political power, and the rest of us developed the historical amnesia, that would make that possible.
We are returning to the past, and the old bugaboos of the past are returning too. Socialism, a response to capitalism's flaws, which was once almost forgotten, is roaring back. We are also hearing more theocratic voices and fascist, with the rise of of new Father Coghlans, and a presidential candidate from one of our major parties who bears a disturbing resemblance to Il Duce.
Yeats said it definitively and best: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
--Hiram
NIce quote, Hiram, but I think there is an alternative to your view that "unbridled capitalism" or even the regulated capitalism of post-WWII years, has inherent flaws that need government fixes. My view has always been that the unbridled capitalism of the roaring '90s up the roaring '20s was what made this country great. We built the railroads, the factories, endowed the great learning institutions and charities. For the 30 years after WWII, it worked very well, too, as a more regulated capitalism. For the next 30 years after that, government took a larger and larger hand in trying to manage the economy, both the national and the personal, and things started to deteriorate until now we lurch from one government-caused economic crisis to the next, pausing only to apply another government "fix" that comes back to bite us with unintended consequences.
I'm less concerned with the percentage of the economy DIRECTLY controlled by government (in "Communist" China it's about 50%) and more concerned with the amount it controls indirectly, through regulation. Obamacare was bad enough-- 14% of the economy under government's thumb, and now Obama's EPA wants to control the energy and agriculture sectors through regulation as well.
By the way, in place of that "rights" document, you should say "fanciful wish list." Sure, it would be great if everybody had the "right" amount of "good food." How are you going to convince somebody to PROVIDE it? What's their motivation? How do you ensure that I eat the right foods, in the right amount, without wasting any since it's "free" to me? The problem with socialism is that it assumes that the decisions of a dozen central planning bureaucrats is superior to having millions of individuals make billions of decisions in the free marketplace. Messy, but ultimately effective.
NIce quote, Hiram, but I think there is an alternative to your view that "unbridled capitalism" or even the regulated capitalism of post-WWII years, has inherent flaws that need government fixes.
I don't really think so now, although I once did. Up until the depression, capitalism had a financial crisis every 20 years or so. We rather arrogantly thought we were able to fix this through regulation, but our recent history has proven this not to be the case. It just took capitalism a while to develop strategies to evade those various efforts and now it has. We are now back to the boom and bust dynamic with the existential threat it presents to capitalism as a whole.
Oh well.
--Hiram
"Sure, it would be great if everybody had the "right" amount of "good food." How are you going to convince somebody to PROVIDE it?"
Sometimes capitalism provides things, sometimes it doesn't. Some people get provided with Cadillac, others aren't, and that's ok. The problem come when some people are provided with food, and others are not.
--Hiram
Something I found earlier for an MP comment...
Wiki List of Recessions
These have always occurred, and will likely continue to occur no matter which type of government we have... They are normal healthy variability, just like thunderstorms.
Here is the comment that went with it.
"See the bottom of this link for a history of recent recessions.
Now does anybody actually remember the recession of the early 2000's? Odds are that few people do because it was so minor and short. The GOP screwed around cut all of our taxes, kept rates low, started war spending and consumers /home owners pretty well spent their way through what could have been a big recession. I mean the tech stocks had bombed and Americans were scared, but no the government let us keep and spend more money than ever.
The downside to this is that home owners started to think that home values only go up faster than inflation... And man they bought and inflated the market ever faster. I mean why not, it was like printing money and you could live in a really nice house to boot. (ie over expand) Then when the natural correction occurred, everyone cried foul." G2A
Oh, for cripes, not again.
So what is your explanation why American Consumers continue to build bigger and nicer homes? Back in the 1960's the homes were 2 or 3 bedroom, with 1 or 2 bathrooms, and a 1 to 2 garage (often detatched)
Is this another case of the rich and powerful controlling us?
Did someone force all these people to upscale their homes in the 2000's?
I have been driving to the dog park in NW Plymouth lately and was just amazed at the 1,000's of big homes they are building... How dare those big evil corporations force those citizens to take on the HUGE debt load...
New Homes Twin Cities
Not going down that rabbit hole again.
You could probably turn a discussion of the infield fly rule into a rant against poor people.
So what is your explanation why American Consumers continue to build bigger and nicer homes?
The people who build bigger and nicer homes, do it because that's what they want. Economic decisions are not made collectively, they are made individually. Economics is the study of the cumulative effect of a lot of individual choices.
Is this another case of the rich and powerful controlling us?
It can be if they are using their market power to control prices. There was a time when individuals did control markets but that isn't much of a factor any more.
"I have been driving to the dog park in NW Plymouth lately and was just amazed at the 1,000's of big homes they are building.."
I have spent a lot of time in neighborhoods, and the overbuilding was huge. Rows and rows of town homes which couldn't be sold in the past and are below water now. The notion that the financial crisis was caused by families who bought too much home to live in, or who borrowed too much against it, isn't really my experience. What is my experience is seeing a lot of over building of residential homes. Excessive expansion is something we see a lot. We built too many shopping malls, opened too many Gap stores. Found good things and had too much of them. This is a natural thing for capitalists to do.
--Hiram
There are enough builders, material suppliers and existing homes / condos. I highly doubt any one could control that huge market. People just wanted big nice homes, and with low interest rates and rapid appreciation it seemed like a no brainer to them. And other than a few year drop, they are probably back in relatively good shape.
Everything built up to ~2007 was sold before it was built. That is why the prices went up so consistently. However you are correct that there is always a slight delay before supply slows down to match demand. Just as supply is slow to increase when demand spikes.
There are enough builders, material suppliers and existing homes / condos. I highly doubt any one could control that huge market.
Control was the issue you raised. What happens in a boom is that money becomes easy, and those willing to use it become aggressive. Suddenly every town house, and mall is greenlighted because people think the economy will expand forever. This is classic capitalist boom thinking. And it works right up to the time it doesn't.
--Hiram
"And it works right up to the time it doesn't."
To me this statement implies that you envision a "working system" where there is slow steady growth with no up/down cycles. Whereas I see boom/bust cycles as an economy working great.
If something gets too hot, it cools down. If something gets too cool it heats up.
Capitalism like Democracy may not be the perfect system, but it is by far the best. History has proven over and over that an economy is far too complex to be "central managed".
"Economic decisions are not made collectively, they are made individually." - Hiram
Theoretically that is true and best. Unfortunately government can seriously distort that free market, say by giving a home mortgage interest deduction, low down payment requirements, "free" money to the banks, failing city schools to encourage parents to move to the suburbs, etc.
Post a Comment