Welcome, comrades, to the United Socialist States of America! While everyone was warning us of the dangers of socialized medicine, they missed the lurking threat of socialized financial institutions.
This is way too complex for your humble blogger, even after reading numerous articles from experts. From what I understand, we are going to have to borrow money (fortunately, Bush has China & Saudi Arabia on speed dial), to buy - not property - but nebulous derivatives and investments in over-valued mortgages. Here's a link to Paul Krugman's blog that does a good job of explaining the financial 'shell game' that we are tossing $700,000,000,000 at: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=Paul%20Krugman%20blog&st=cse
As a liberal that has been accused of being a socialist, I'd like to say that I believe it would have been much cheaper to force the lenders to re-write the loans that were being defaulted upon, than to help the banks that bought securities secured by those loans. But, why help people today, when we can help business tomorrow?!?!?
On the plus side - there always has to be a silver lining - those of us who want Single Payer Health care now have another weapon in the 'socialized medicine' arsenal. Plus, health care actually helps people, doesn't cost us Buh-buh-buh-billions of dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
My dear hostess, you labor under the delusion that our leaders' thinking is internally consistent in its logic. Au contraire. Just like animals, some socialism is more equal than others. Socialism that helps out Bush's banking buddies (and wannabees) is inherently better than socialism that helps out the ordinary Joes across the country, didn't you know that? If the BBBs lose their money, they won't be able to hang onto their help, and that will be the end of our economy as we know it.
More scholarly leftists may take this opportunity to assail my credentials, but here goes:
I don't think propping up capital is socialist at all. It's government intervention to ensure capital remains in control I think it's akin to the Fascist economic model, but that was confused in itself and I'm no economic historian. (Winking Tiger had some very interesting things to say about Nazi Germany's economy, on an earlier thread, the first time I brought this up.)
Socialism generally, I think, aspires to classless equality through common ownership and vast collective partcipation in both the economic and political spheres.
That's pretty vague and there are actually many different types of socialism. But what we're seeing in the U.S. now ain't it.
Nationalization of a means of production (or service) in the U.S. is usually half-ass and, apparently designed to ensure mediocre or poor performance. For example, Amtrak or the US Postal Service. Wouldn't want folks to get the wrong idea, you know.
Fer Chrissakes, people, read Anthem. It's a tiny book and doesn't take long.
No thanks, Gina, I've read a lot of Ayn Rand, I don't need any more of her fantasy world. Her view of reality is as out of whack as any Marxist's.
Ayn Rand. Perfect. And now for something different:
I had some interesting dealings with an entrepreneur making great high-tech medical products (software and hardware systems that brilliantly improved MRI images). He complained about competition from Scandinavian companies. The socialist institutions in those countries (health care, among other things) left the executives free to take daring business risks. (Essentially no fundamental retirement worries.) They kicked butt in the marketplace.
res ipsa loquitur, as dsg might say.
Wouldn't it be great if our country were as small as any Scandanavian one and also as homogenous?
Think of what we could accomplish!
Don't a few of them still have monarchies in place?
O'Rourke's Eat the Rich has an interesting chapter on Sweden in his tryptich of economic studies. He concluded that Sweden was mortgaging its future to achieve present results. Sound familiar?
Maybe we've all been duped. Maybe they're attacking us from the right and the left, and we don't even realize it.
Divide and conquer.
Don't discount the possibility of class war.
How about this dsg: 12,21,2012.
Maybe that's what LaSalle was talking about in his book 'the Event'.
Jesus, you can't make a buck in this market. The country's going to hell faster than when Roosevelt was in charge. Too much cheap money sloshing around the world. Worst mistake we ever made was letting Nixon get off the gold standard.
Ah, you ardent capitalists. You remind me of the sweatshop workers in Manhattan who listened to a guy running for state office who proposed slashing inheritance rights as a means of redistributing wealth. If you have more than $10 million when you croak, give some back, or something like that.
The sweatshop workers got irate.
What do you mean? If I had $10 million, under your plan I couldn't leave it all to my kids?
But you don't have $10 million.
But if I did, you'd take it away from me?
Ah, well.
lefty, you refer to "ardent capitalists" on your last post. I've read this thread and, forgive me, but I'm not sure which post or posts this refers to. Or maybe it doesn't.
Unless you're referring to the one sentence "you can't make a buck in this market."
Was that it?
Again, sorry. Amusing anectdote just wasn't sure how it applied to what anyone else wrote.
Me not smart. Me need enlightment.
Thanks
ted,
I was joking and trying to make a point.
But seriously, I'm annoyed that more people don't understand the real thrust behind socialist politics: Every person deserves to be more than a wage slave. To start, it's a matter of free time; but also important is a recognition that everyone has a life to live, a right and obligation to engage in running things and a right to explore things other than work and politics -- whatever that might be for each person.
Capitalism is not acceptable. It's what we've got. It's what allowed me to make myself and my family prosperous. But it depends on exploitation of the weak and the uneducated. So jokes about socialism don't sit well with me.
Lefty, if it seems I'm being arguementative (sure I spelt that wrong and not even sure if it's a word), I'm not. It's just that you post, at least what it appears to me, conflicting views so I get confused at what point you're trying to make. You state it was the jokes about socialism that didn't sit well with you. Yet you also state capitalism is unacceptable and yet it's what has made you and your family prosperous.
I don't get the arguement. Again, not trying to be rude or anything, but are you saying you would feel morally more innocent or whatever if you and your family were *not* prosperous?
That doesn't make sense so obviously I'm missing something.
Again...me stupid. Please enlight.
BTW, (PARANOIA ALERT): before I get attacked again, I am merely asking for a clarification of what read to me as a dichotemy.
`
Please read this disclaimer:
I have neither advocated nor chastised any position, capitalism, socialism, communism...hell, any ism.
Me? I'm all for Plato's government.
And if any of my words have hit hard on anyone's personal experiences, again...my apologies.
No need to tell me what a horrible person I am. I understand already I am a horrible, selfish, heartless person who doesn't understand the pain of anyone else as I haven't been through it being the trust fund baby that has no need to have any worries ever in their life and only have my septic tank company due to the riches and investments of my family and friends and therfore, my opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh, and I apologize to all the trust fund babies who have been insulted by this apology as well.Okay...moving on.
;-)
Love *you* ferretthead. Just covering my bases bfeore I'm attacked.
ted,
give it a rest.
We'll all move on.
OK?
lefty.
With all due respect, I have no idea why you're upset with me. These are your words.
"Capitalism is not acceptable. It's what we've got. It's what allowed me to make myself and my family prosperous. But it depends on exploitation of the weak and the uneducated."
These are *your* words.
Is there a problem with something that allowed you to make yourself and your family prosperous?
Hey, if there is. Fine. I'll stay out of it. If I touched a nerve, I apologize. I was merely asking for a clarification of your own sentence that appeared to be a dichotemy.
That's all.
Sorry.:
PLEASE SEE MY EARLIER DISCLAIMER
tedspe - I am very offended by your apologies. ;-P
lefty - actually, I wasn't joking about socialism. The government has taken over ownership of these financial institutions...wasn't group ownership part of your definition? I like that the Dems are insisting upon the government having some stake in these organizations. We are capitalists when it comes to gains, and socialist when it comes to losses, regarding the bail outs of these corporations.
I saw Johnathan Alter and Paul Krugman on Rachel Maddow's tv show on Friday night, and they were both talking about how the fact that we had taken a huge step towards socialism was being lost in the day's news. Certainly you don't think I got those ideas on my own, do you???
j.m. ferretti,
I apologize for my apologies. I shall now endeavour to make statements that no longer warrant apologies and if I mistook your post on my apologoes... I...well, you know
;-)
WHO LOVE'S YA BABY!!??!!
(if that last comment was offensive, I apologize)
But, seriously, I still am a little confused by lefty's last dichotemy between socialism and capitalism.
But...me stupid. Me not know much.
I can't speak for Lefty, but there is an irony inherent in Capitalism: no one can be 'rich' without someone else being 'poor.' Keep in mind that there's always someone better off than you, and worse off, in such a system as well - it fosters classism by it's very existence.
The only way everyone on Earth (not just the U.S.) could attain a high standard of living would be for the Whole World to be Socialist (not just a few countries), sharing all the world's resources (the Star Trek model). This was the fear of the Cold War, Creeping Communism, because people who truly understood it knew that for it to work, the whole world would have to be involved: agricultural, industrial, fuel-producing nations, everyone. Looks good on paper, but these are human beings we're dealing with... *sigh.*
This unprecedented bank bailout could actually be a REAL form of trickle-down economics, if it really helped forestall foreclosures on your average mortgage-holder. In which case FH is right in a way: this is a form of socialism where the Government holds your mortgage (shudder). I think it might be closer to what DSG said in his first post though; a case of the rich helping each other.
It puts me in mind of the rather arrogant sounding ad Freddie Mac put out when they first set up shop: "We're better than the average bank because we don't lend money to home-owners, we lend money to the banks that lend money to home-owners..." ecch...
I'm always hesitant to have the government be more involved with people's everyday lives...because they seem so inept at all they try their hand in. That could just be the current administration, of course!
winkingtiger, I totally agree with you.
I just wasn't sure if "lefty" was being ironic or not. You seem to assume so but it's hard to tell when simply reading and again, I apologize if I came off rude.
You know, perhaps I should simply apologize immediately every time I post.
;)
Funny you brought up the "rather arrogant sounding ad Freddie Mac put out when they first set up shop"
Just finishing the NEW YORKER dated Aug 25, 2008, and the ad on the back page is from AIG with their motto:
"The strength to be there"
Yup.
Too many jokes.
Sad jokes. But, what else we got now but jokes?
Can die poor. But refuse to stop laughing.
=)
"Is there a problem with something that allowed you to make yourself and your family prosperous?"
Yes. Now for the roadside imagination test: Keep those two opposing thoughts in your mind at the same time, stand on one foot, and gaze into the future.
I first heard that we have "socialism for the rich" in this country about 30 years ago. It's sarcasm. Now even congressional committee members are trumpeting the term. Ridiculous, irresponsible use of the term. But, hey, it's the USA. Ignorance thrives.
Group ownership is only part of a socialist project, as they say. In this case, you have the government propping up capital. Nothing socialist about it. What "means of production" are they nationalizing? Securitization? (One of my kids heard that term on the radio yesterday and asked, Is that really a word? Yes. It means dividing debt into chunks that you then can sell.) The people who get rich doing nothing but buying and selling plundered the real estate market and ruined the econcomy. Now the government has to help them. (Of course, they get to keep the loot they took during the boom.)
The big bailout is an emergency measure. Wall Street dialed 9-1-1. The ER is full of seriously damaged financial firms. They'll survive. They'll move on to the ICU in due time. Then they'll begin to recuperate. Before you know it, the guvmint proudly will discharge them home, to the "free market" they love. They'll be back on the Street, securitizing like crazy again.
You know, it wasn't Jesus who overturned the money changer's tables. It was Joseph. He thought he was at Planned Parenthood and was simply pissed when they told him that not only could he not procure an abortion for his girlfriend there, but that if he thought she was really a virgin, they had a great low rate ARM to offer him on a sweet oasis-side loft with three mangers.
toosense! Where ya been?
Under the weather and over the rainbow. ;)
TooSense...you forgot about the donkey that the girlfriend rode into town...the braying ass needed his oats or he refused to cooperate.
Was he taken care of too?
You make a good point, gina. In fact, I eat oatmeal every morning for precisely that reason.
I always make excellent points. Whether people acknowledge them or not is their problem...
Roughage is very important to asses, too...how else would men like tedspe make their wealth in a socialist society?
Everyone would be wealthy in a good socialist society, gina. (Except acolytes of Ayn Rand. They'd remain poor and unfulfilled. For the poor we have with us always.)
How (if at all) do the three wise guys fit into this time warped biblical fable?
No, dear, the dissenters would be very happy having all of that pro-creative sex that the rest of you good socialists want to shun.
I don't know where the Larry, Moe and Curly would fit in the fable, but I'm sure I could work them in somehow...just give me a little time--I'll figure it out sooner or later.
Roughage is very important to asses, too...how else would men like tedspe make their wealth in a socialist society?
September 23, 2008 6:26 PM
**
Wow. I see.
So that's an acceptable post? Man, if I wrote that about someone else who posts here, I would have been ripped a new one.
I actually have no wealth but occasionally, because I thought the idea of this blog was to stir up "intelligent" conversations on contraversial subjects and I hoped there would be, I brought up new, arguementive thoughts, whether I agreed with them or not, so we could go at it in an interesting way.
I've yet to attack any individual on this blog but have been accused by the same person who just attacked me("Oh come on. Can't you take a joke?") Can you? From my experience..no. You can't. But if I wrote what ginag did about me, I'd have been ripped a new one. But for whatever reason...she wasn't.
Gee, thanks for the double standards.
Meanwhile:
To our lovely hostess and anyone else interested, they're attacking Bobby Kennedy on SFGate. I'm in the middle of an annoying arguement with a real jerkoff. on the SFGate political blog.
Have fun. I love ya guys. Most of you. So please join me there. These idiots need to be put down. But, here? I'm done. I lack the virtuousness of our graceful host.
No tact, I. No tact.
Lact Tact. Wish I had it. But apparently don't.
;)
Just came back to say nevermind.
My last post on SFGate obviously bored everyone so much, they gave up.
In the words of our distiguished leader:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
For now.
See ya in the funny papers
;)
tedspe - I'm sorry you feel attacked. I thought gina was referring to your profession in the septic industry...poor humor aside, I didn't think it was offensive to you so much as to toosense, as he was the one discussing eating oats.
gina - please resist the urge to score points off of your fellow posters. Sometimes, it's so easy to type the snarky zinger, we forget to consider how it will read to others. I stated my defense of you in the foreclosure discussion, so I hope you don't feel picked on, but please remember to be considerate of your fellow posters.
I don't mind, ferret. After all, the points gina scores get recorded in red.
Tedspe...please don't leave on my account. I'm heading out next week, anyway. Where I'm going is in the middle of nowhere, and I don't even know if I'll even get fast enough computer service to log on and have the time to post.
Sorry, ferret.
j.m. ferretti,
I'm responding to your post on another blog cuz, I feel I owe ya..
Think J.T. Snow.
It didn't seem to be the correct forum to respond there so I'll respond here because I love you, sweety, and never want to offend you personally..
I'm obviously a prima donna. Thing is, I can take an insult but, by my nature, usually respond with another insult. A worst one. And that flows against the grain of the virtuous nature of your blog.
And the sad thing is, what I was angry about, having re-read, really wasn't that big-a-deal.
So no, j.m. ferretti, to answer your question from the other blog, I ain't gonna quit on you.
I'll, of course continue to read.
And learn. From the truly inspired folks that contribute here.
At least most of them.
(damn!! did I really write that?!!)
Here is my friend and mentor, Bernie Sanders, making FH's point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkqb1pQrCcg
Even Sarah Palin will be able to evade the "socialism" attack.
"This isn't socialism, IT'S INVESTMENT. The taxpayers will EARN money when the markets rebound. And they will."
Onward to better (and sooner) debates.
And the effluvia continues to flow freely....
gina, I'm not sure which effluvium you mean, but if you're targeting the Bernie Sanders clip, I have to disagree. He's always worth paying attention to. And seeing him taunt a conservative antagonist was fun. But he's very smart guy (and he knows a whole lot more than I do about socialism), and I think his understanding of the bailout is no doubt very sophisticated. The "socialism" tag, I believe, is just superficial rhetoric.
That's my view, and by gosh I'm sticking to it.
I was referring to the Big Greek prima donna of Capitalistic sewage treatment...
Bernie Sanders is the example I use whenever people trot out the canard that Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate... I say "Really! More liberal than Bernie Sanders?" That usually gets a blank look and a bit of 'humina humina'. I've used it to shut up more than one poster on SFGate... They may try to say that Obama is a Socialist, but I know one when I see one.
Yogi - do you listen to "Brunch with Bernie" on Friday mornings on the Thom Hartmann show? I think it's awesome that Bernie Sanders takes calls directly from the listeners - that's a true public servant, one that understands he serves the ENTIRE nation, not just people in Vermont.
gina...
FH, yes, I listen to Bernie every week. He's mellowed out quite a bit since he became a senator. I'm only sorry I wasn't living in Vermont for that election.
He used to live in the apartment above me in a house in Burlington. One day, he opened his window and yelled out to me that he had just filed to run for mayor. Of course he didn't have a chance against the local political machine, or so I thought. The best party I've ever been to, was the night he won that election by ten votes. Because I know for a fact I got at least eleven people to vote for him, I'm under the delusion that I can actually make a differnce in the world.
Vermont also has Patrick Leahy, the most important member of the Senate, in my opinion, a great patriot, and a throw back to our founding fathers. If you factor in Howard Dean, Vermont has contributed a lot to progressive politics. Even the former Republican senator, Jim Jeffords, served the cause well. The coolest thing about living in a small state like Vermont is that I've met all of them, with the exception of Dean, who became governor after Richard Snelling(another good Republican) died just a few days before I moved to Ca.
My memory is playing tricks on me again. Richard Snelling died several months before I moved from Vermont, so Dean was my governor, but I honestly have no impression of him before the 2004 presidential election.
A Vermonter? That explains a lot. ;)
As for Patrick Leahy, he'll always have a warm spot in my heart for provoking Dick Cheney to obscenity. It's a shame that reciprocating that greeting to Cheney will likely get you arrested, or worse.
I'm sorry to stray into the Ak. woods again, but is anyone keeping track of the VP candidate blunders? I'm tempted to call them Palindumbs, but that doesn't really hit the right note. Also, Biden's biting his foot pretty regularly, too.
Just a thought.
Lefty, I call her gaffes, Palindromes. They make as much sense if you read them backwards.
DS, like Bernie, I'm a New Yorker, that explains even more.
Who, Moi?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Even my big Greek boyfriend says I'm a Royal Pain in the Arse...he seems to think I'm worth it,though.
Dynamite with a laser beam.
I'm ignoring that last post by NoooSense.
I was referring to the Big Greek prima donna of Capitalistic sewage treatment...
September 25, 2008 12:46 PM
**
Did I really mention I was Greek on this blog as well? Did I? Forgot that.
Anyways, my thoughts are...actually...I have none. I'm not sure where this thread has gone.
Is there still a point? Please help me catch up.
Thanks
http://tinyurl.com/3jcd3n
Thanks, TooSense, I had that video on my faves, but it was 'removed'. Glad to see a new copy up at YT. Might just be my favorite band ever....
That's entertainment, winkingtiger. :)
Post a Comment