Poll: November elections

[IM2]

My saying that is not an endorsement of communism.

And this is what I said.

Capitalism enables, endorses ands supports greed. Communism does not, nor does socialism. I’m not talking about totalitarianism either. Sure all will have imperfections because  they are man made systems, but we need to remove ourselves far away from any system that says the goal is to gain as much capital or acquire as much capital as possible to be considered a success in that system.

I think that when someone is quoted perhaps the whoile quote should be posted. because i am not niave enough to have said that communism is perfect, because no man made system of economics is goingto stop those who want to circumvent the system. Greed is a factor in a communist system just as much as it is in a capitalist one. Its just that the stated objective of communism is not to acquire as much capital as you can.

Then you say this:

 I do think that people who still believe in these systems are naive, and I think they've been demonstrated to not work.  

This is incorrect. Tribal  societies have been communal for centuries and have survived. And you have not heard any complaints about economic hardships from the members of these tribes either. They may not be as rich cumulatively as we are, but none of them are sweating the loss of housing, food, or jobs.

Our own system has elements of both, of course.  It isn't pure capitalism, because that doesn't work either.  We have to have a hybrid system in order for it to function for very long.  The debate is in to what degree the mix should be.  

I agree with you here SC.

Although communism received a bad rep during the Cold War, I don't automatically identify communists as despicable people, or anything like that.  So as far as I'm concerned, at least, you don't need to worry too much about being intellectually honest - either with me or with yourself.  I used to be a communist myself when I was younger.  Now, I just view communism/socialism as alternative economic and social models.

I don't think that what was called communism was communism. It was totalitarianism. I have never really been a communist, but I cannot say I am a capitalist either, not by belief, mostly by force of living here. I simply mentioned communism AND socialism as competing economic philosophies and cited that  we need to move away from a system that endorses greed, because we are sittig here right now in a morass economically because of greed itself. You took that as an endorsement of communism. So thats on you, not me.

So, after typing that, perhaps we would just differ over the degree to which socilaistic elements should be incorporated into our system.  But you should begin by realizing that we do not have a pure capitalist system now - far from it.  In such a system, the logical final result would be one single giant monopoly that controls everything.  We have safeguards in our system to prevent anyone from "winning the game", exactly so that such a result can never happen.

And this is why I always say that  government does have a role and sets the conditions for how the market operates

[SpaceCadet]

My saying that is not an endorsement of communism.

And this is what I said.

I think that when someone is quoted perhaps the whoile quote should be posted. because i am not niave enough to have said that communism is perfect, because no man made system of economics is goingto stop those who want to circumvent the system. Greed is a factor in a communist system just as much as it is in a capitalist one. Its just that the stated objective of communism is not to acquire as much capital as you can.

Ok.  I just quoted the part that I thought was relevant.  I don't see how having the rest of it changes anything.

Then you say this:

This is incorrect. Tribal  societies have been communal for centuries and have survived. And you have not heard any complaints about economic hardships from the members of these tribes either. They may not be as rich cumulatively as we are, but none of them are sweating the loss of housing, food, or jobs.

I think it works in small tribal societies because they are small and everyone knows each other.  In that sort of situation everyone more naturally works for the good of his fellow, and for the society overall, because it is a small close-knit group and they realize they are all in it together.  They all prosper or perish together.  In a society that is large and far-flung enough for people to be divorced from that reality, that no longer works and there must be some other motivation.  Some element of appealing to greed simply exploits a built-in characteristic of human beings for motivational purposes.  It just has to be regulated so that it doesn't get out of hand or produce intolerable results.

I agree with you here SC.

Whew!   

I don't think that what was called communism was communism. It was totalitarianism. I have never really been a communist, but I cannot say I am a capitalist either, not by belief, mostly by force of living here. I simply mentioned communism AND socialism as competing economic philosophies and cited that  we need to move away from a system that endorses greed, because we are sittig here right now in a morass economically because of greed itself. You took that as an endorsement of communism. So thats on you, not me.

Ok, you're not a capitalist.  We'll leave it at that.  I'm really not trying to force you into a category as some kind of "undesirable" so that I can take shots at you based on that.

And this is why I always say that  government does have a role and sets the conditions for how the market operates

Of course it does.  But that's a long way from saying "there is no economy without government".  There would almost always be some sort of economic activity, regulated or not.

[IM2]

SC,

Ok.  I just quoted the part that I thought was relevant.  I don't see how having the rest of it changes anything.

Kinda because it would show that I do not really endorse communism.

I think it works in small tribal societies because they are small and everyone knows each other.  In that sort of situation everyone more naturally works for the good of his fellow, and for the society overall, because it is a small close-knit group and they realize they are all in it together.  They all prosper or perish together.  In a society that is large and far-flung enough for people to be divorced from that reality, that no longer works and there must be some other motivation.  Some element of appealing to greed simply exploits a built-in characteristic of human beings for motivational purposes.  It just has to be regulated so that it doesn't get out of hand or produce intolerable results.

I was going to add that to what I was saying, and I do agree with you here also. Except for the greed and motivational purposes part. Perhaps I misunderstand that though. Shouldn't matter how large the society, greed ends up creating failure.

Whew!

Yeah, like you really needed my affirmation. 

Ok, you're not a capitalist.  We'll leave it at that.  I'm really not trying to force you into a category as some kind of "undesirable" so that I can take shots at you based on that.

I know you are not, I am just trying to define my position.

Of course it does.  But that's a long way from saying "there is no economy without government".  There would almost always be some sort of economic activity, regulated or not.

In the case of the USA right now, if not for the govenrment the economy woudl be dead. Sometimes the government must step in and revive a dying patient(economy). Your view is to let it die and rebuild, which at this time given that we are supposedly expanding into more intense global competition, we cannot afford to let our economy die and rebuild.

[Velleity]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

This was a great explanation that aired on NPR a while back.

Here's another one:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/365/another-frightening-show-about-the-economy

A follow-up to the first one:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/390/return-to-the-giant-pool-of-money

Finally, this one you must listen to.  If you onlyhave time to listen to two of these, listen to the first one and this one.  It documents just one of the cases of massive financial misconduct that helped get us into this mess:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/405/inside-job

These seem to be fine explanations of the financial crisis but you still don't tie that to the underlying problems in the economy. While the two are not unrelated, they are still separate matters.

[SpaceCadet]

You must eat and rest properly SC. Those are the actions you must take. Your natural defenses do not work right if you do not.

To continue this metaphor, I came down with a cold the night before last, as it happens, overnight, and also didn't get much sleep that night.  I went to work both yesterday and today.  I suspect that I'll still get over the cold in about the same amount of time I would have, had I stayed in bed all day every day.  It may take slightly longer, but it will happen without the economic impact that would have occurred if I had chosen to stay in bed to help it along.  Not only will I hopefully get something of value done for my employer during this time, but I also won't suffer the impact of a loss of income.

 

[IM2]

SC,

Did you take any cold medication SC? Did you eat?

I am willing to bet that you did not just let he cold run its course. And regardless if you did, the rules that make the ecoomy go are made by governemnt.   You can sell cocaine, but if you are caught selling it, you go to jail, and that economic activity is stopped.

So again, given the nature of our system, your government should stay out and things will heal itself approach is not feasible. Ask Alan Greenspan since you don't seem to wish to agree with me. He let it happen just as you wanted it to, and it is part of the reason why we sit here today in a huge hole.

[SpaceCadet]

SC,

Did you take any cold medication SC? Did you eat?

I am willing to bet that you did not just let he cold run its course. And regardless if you did, the rules that make the ecoomy go are made by governemnt.   You can sell cocaine, but if you are caught selling it, you go to jail, and that economic activity is stopped.

So again, given the nature of our system, your government should stay out and things will heal itself approach is not feasible. Ask Alan Greenspan since you don't seem to wish to agree with me. He let it happen just as you wanted it to, and it is part of the reason why we sit here today in a huge hole.

I haven't yet taken any cold medication.  If I did, it would only accomplish a temporary masking of the symptoms, in much the same way something like a "cash for clunkers" program could temporarily mask a downturn in auto sales, without really accomplishing anything in the longer term.

Yes, government sets rules that determine HOW economic activity happens, and it can even have an effect on how much activity happens, but as we see right now, there is only so much positive effect that the government can have on it.  It can have a very large negative effect, however.  Economic activity, of some kind, occurs as long as I have something someone else needs or wants and someone else has something that I need or want, such that we see fit to make an exchange.  The role of government is to regulate how those exchanges occur.

[IM2]

SC,

If not for the stimulus and other government interference, we would be in a real bad way right now. The fact that you can sit here  making your declarations is proof of that. Because if times were 1930's depression hard, you would be looking to the president and congress for help.

haven't yet taken any cold medication.  If I did, it would only accomplish a temporary masking of the symptoms, in much the same way something like a "cash for clunkers" program could temporarily mask a downturn in auto sales, without really accomplishing anything in the longer term.

The cash for clunkers programs helped the auto industry, but the reality is that it helped more the moms and pops stores surrounding those  factories.

Again, your philosophy did not work. Allan Greenspan will tell you if you ask him.

[SpaceCadet]

In spite of the differences I've expressed with some of the things the Dems have done, I voted for Dems for everything except my state AG.  Although I haven't been happy with a few things the Adminstration and Congress have done, I in no way want to go back to the Rs. 

But I am not a partisan, and if things are not significantly better in 2 years, I'll likely be voting against Obama then.  I can't say so absolutely, since I'll have to wait and see who's running against him.  If the other choice is Palin, for example, there's no way I could do that.

[Coke]

I'll be bold enough to answer this question. I refuse to believe the american people are stupid enough to buy the snake oil republicans are selling. I just refuse to believe that we are so damn stupid that we are willing to re elect the same people with the same policy that created the mess we are in now into the majority to try it again, thinking that we will get a different result.

Unfortunately, they are stupid - more than you think.  The Republicans cut funds for education, fed the masses a poor diet of junk food and bombarded them with propaganda on AM talk radio and TV -- with the result being their desired outcome: sheepish masses that will fight for their causes.  Instead of wasting your time trying to rationalize with these wingnuts, reach out and call your neighbors, friends and family and educate them and most of all get them to go vote on Nov 2nd.