Opinion Bill Barr could not deny that Trump said I want to assinate.....

[PEB]

What Barr an others don't want to talk about the elephant in the room oil. What gives OPEC an Russia leverage over Governments an Political parties.

Why Democrats talk about heat pumps, replacing old washers an alternative energy. This is not because they want to push for socialism but to give a middle finger to Russia an OPEC.

Even nuclear power has ties to Russia with uranium an many nuclear power companies get uranium from Russia hopefully in the future we can cut those ties.

If we spent time working towards this instead of fighting amongst ourselves we could greatly reduce world dependency on OPEC. Benefits is we could call the shots on pricing of oil because we cut 30 to 50 percent of their production capacity.

Instead of dealing with constant wars an terror acts that are funded by terror states mostly by oil money. The world would deprived them of the leverage they currently have over Governments. We increase our production capacity as well as Mexico an Canada oil industry could reduce their reliance on OPEC an Russia.

This is not socialism but common sense hard ball way to deal with OPEC.

 

[Dalarna3]

What?

 

[PEB]

What?

Russian troll spotted.

 

[panamaican]

The issue with mixing those two is eventually the government gets bigger and bigger as the people will never vote to have less “free” things provided by the government.

That's one perspective. I don't know that it's necessarily as true as I used to think. People might not vote for less "free" things but lots of programs simply die because they cease to be updated in accordance with changing needs. For example -- the government subsidizes the creation of medical doctor residencies. 50 years ago, the number they subsidized probably made sense but since they haven't increased the number in proportion with the population, the amount of "free" residencies has decreased in relative terms. I think from 1980-2005, the population increased by 70,000,000 but the med school graduates stayed at ~16,000 annually.

Or anything that the government implemented at a dollar figure and then didn't consistently increase in line with inflation.

And governments may not vote for fewer free things but they certainly write additional regulations that affect access to those things. Welfare is an obvious one where in the 1990s they added additional restrictions on access to a variety of social welfare programs. The programs didn't disappear but accessing them became more stringent.

Another example is Texas top 10% program that granted guaranteed to admission to Texas students in the top 10% of their class. At some point, Texas adjusted the program so that access to the U. of Texas - Austin required students to be in the top 6%. Program still exists but it's more restrictive for Texas's flagship university.

To me, this has me less concerned with "free things" so long as those things are narrowly tailored for a specific concern. If that's the case, eventually the program ceases to be relevant as society adjusts.

 

[Rob Battisti]

That's one perspective. I don't know that it's necessarily as true as I used to think. People might not vote for less "free" things but lots of programs simply die because they cease to be updated in accordance with changing needs. For example -- the government subsidizes the creation of medical doctor residencies. 50 years ago, the number they subsidized probably made sense but since they haven't increased the number in proportion with the population, the amount of "free" residencies has decreased in relative terms. I think from 1980-2005, the population increased by 70,000,000 but the med school graduates stayed at ~16,000 annually.

Or anything that the government implemented at a dollar figure and then didn't consistently increase in line with inflation.

And governments may not vote for fewer free things but they certainly write additional regulations that affect access to those things. Welfare is an obvious one where in the 1990s they added additional restrictions on access to a variety of social welfare programs. The programs didn't disappear but accessing them became more stringent.

Another example is Texas top 10% program that granted guaranteed to admission to Texas students in the top 10% of their class. At some point, Texas adjusted the program so that access to the U. of Texas - Austin required students to be in the top 6%. Program still exists but it's more restrictive for Texas's flagship university.

To me, this has me less concerned with "free things" so long as those things are narrowly tailored for a specific concern. If that's the case, eventually the program ceases to be relevant as society adjusts.

Couldn’t you argue that those programs were curtailed due to that fact they were social benefit programs in a non-socialist economy/government?

This is why mixed economies are the most prosperous. When you tip the scale too far to one side, you get more of a runaway effect.

 

[Natural Order]

View attachment 1041625

/thread

 

[Sinister]

Couldn’t you argue that those programs were curtailed due to that fact they were social benefit programs in a non-socialist economy/government?

This is why mixed economies are the most prosperous. When you tip the scale too far to one side, you get more of a runaway effect.

Democratic socialism IS a mixed economy.

 

[Scerpi]

TS moved on from posting fake news from TYT to posting fake news from this stallion of a man. At this point you could give an accurate police sketch of these losers with no information other than the titles of their youtube videos. It's either the younger antifa ones who don't shower, or the skinny fat over 35 ones who all have the same glasses and look like 6 lbs of shit stuffed into a 5 lb duffel bag.

Guarantee there's several photos with this douche showing his gaper face...

And lol at that gyno

 

[blaseblase]

Why is some dumb YouTuber reaction video being linked instead of the interview itself? Here is the full interview with a link to the relevant section:

This annoys me to no end. Quote the source people.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Democratic socialism IS a mixed economy.

So we’re currently a democratic socialist country?

What’s the difference between democratic capitalism and democratic socialism then?

 

[Sinister]

So we’re currently a democratic socialist country?

What’s the difference between democratic capitalism and democratic socialism then?

This economy leans HEAVY to the capitalists, with legislation that favors the capitalists and a political system that gives them leverage due to the workings of campaign finance. Capitalist needs dominate most conversations of why we dont have this or that, and they're efforts are heavily subsidized by the Government because of how much private ownership of the means of production there is.

Democratic socialism would have much more balance towards the workers, with more robust unionization, campaign finance that didnt egregiously empower the wealthy, greater de-commodifying of resources, better progressive taxation, and more robust social safety nets.

 

[Rob Battisti]

This economy leans HEAVY to the capitalists, with legislation that favors the capitalists and a political system that gives them leverage due to the workings of campaign finance. Capitalist needs dominate most conversations of why we dont have this or that, and they're efforts are heavily subsidized by the Government because of how much private ownership of the means of production there is.

Democratic socialism would have much more balance towards the workers, with more robust unionization, campaign finance that didnt egregiously empower the wealthy, greater de-commodifying of resources, better progressive taxation, and more robust social safety nets.

So let’s break it down.

What % are we balanced between capitalism and socialism in our current economy?

What would be a better balance in your eyes?

In what ways does a more progressively growing economy happen when you disincentivize capitalism?

 

[panamaican]

Couldn’t you argue that those programs were curtailed due to that fact they were social benefit programs in a non-socialist economy/government?

This is why mixed economies are the most prosperous. When you tip the scale too far to one side, you get more of a runaway effect.

I'd argue that those programs are examples of socialism (production of doctors, college graduates, etc.) within a democracy, ie. democratic socialism. And, yeah, the benefit of democratic socialism is that the democracy can always reign in the socialism or expand it.

Which is why I no longer have a problem with people voting for "free" stuff (which was your earlier concern). Eventually, it expires or they vote to manage it.

 

[Sinister]

So let’s break it down.

What % are we balanced between capitalism and socialism in our current economy?

What would be a better balance in your eyes?

In what ways does a more progressively growing economy happen when you disincentivize capitalism?

Your asking for what percentage laws and systemic practices favor capitalists? I'm not sure that's measured that way.

A better balance, in my eyes, would be much less corporate concentration happening which is monopolizing markets. Much less subsidization of already billion-dollar companies, while simultaneously reducing their taxes, as opposed to continued talk of forever cutting social programs. Less talk of disinvestment in public schools as opposed to programs designed to funnel public money into private companies for education, which is largely pushed by moneyed-interests, I mean there are tons of things that create better balance and almost all of them point in that direction.

Perpetual economic growth is not something I'm sure is sustainable. What I'd argue is that it's better for an economy to be healthy and adaptive than it is for it to continue growing. But you could easily call the adaptation growth

 

[Jack V Savage]

Homogeneity of culture allows for more common goals and aims and when paired with smaller populations, these commonalities can make a socialist country feasible.

In what way? I'm not seeing how, for example, a big SWF or, say, a gov't pension would have any connection to common cultural practices (food, dress, religion, or whatever you're referring to). The whole point of liberalism and the left is to separate culture in the older sense from governance (basing governance on reason).

A larger country has more to worry about to put it plainly and when paired with a less homogeneous cultural demographic, the focus of government becomes less clear.

Again, that's pretty fuzzy. It's not clear at all that having "more to worry about" makes left/liberal policy more difficult. It could just as easily go the other way (e.g., with more to worry about, gov'ts can be more focused on big-picture stuff).

You can be communist in a 20 person commune. You can be socialist in a 5 million person country. When there are too many competing aims, you lose focus. Which, for example, is why it’s strange when you see pacifist LGBTQIA2S+ siding with fundamentalist Islamists. Those are two completely opposing viewpoints culturally. You mix that in with 20 other groups all with competing agendas, the wheels come off.

I think that to a large extent, LGBT people "siding with fundamentalist Islamists" is imaginary. Unless you just mean support for freedom of religion, and one can certainly see why they'd favor a live-and-let live society.

I am for a mixed economy and believe that social programs are needed. If you don’t believe that we have incredible amounts of waste already I don’t know what to tell you. To make government even bigger when we spend 1T every 100 days is a bad idea.

This doesn't have anything to do with the preceding discussion, and arguments of the form "big number = bad" are kind of below the level of thought that governance should be based on.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Perpetual economic growth is not something I'm sure is sustainable. What I'd argue is that it's better for an economy to be healthy and adaptive than it is for it to continue growing. But you could easily call the adaptation growth

I would agree but that’s not the way global economics works. When you have a perpetually growing money supply you need a perpetually growing economy.

It’s not that I’m against social spending. I’m for it.

For example, New Jersey ran a program in the early 2000s that would pay for the top 20% of highschool graduates to go to community college and then if they kept a certain GPA it would pay for a transfer to a 4 year college.

Essentially, free college for the top students to stay in state. The program only lasted 4 years.

We could do that nationally for the top 10% of students if you imagine only 20% take advantage of the program at a cost of 13 billion a year. You can have 50% of that be federal and 50% be state for participating states.

Seems like a great program idea IMO.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So we’re currently a democratic socialist country?

What’s the difference between democratic capitalism and democratic socialism then?

Some people think "socialism=good/capitalism=bad," and some people think the opposite. So the terms just get changed or used to maintain that, as necessary. Lots of the most left-wing economies (with lots of common ownership and strong safety nets) also have strong protections for markets, and a lot of people like the results so they attribute good outcomes to one or the other aspect of the system.

The labels don't really matter. What I think is ideal is allowing markets to work where they can, regs to fix where they don't, and policy to account for the fact that market economies don't distribute do a good job income to a large portion of the population (kids, the elderly, the disabled, the unemployed).

 

[Sinister]

I would agree but that’s not the way global economics works. When you have a perpetually growing money supply you need a perpetually growing economy.

It’s not that I’m against social spending. I’m for it.

For example, New Jersey ran a program in the early 2000s that would pay for the top 20% of highschool graduates to go to community college and then if they kept a certain GPA it would pay for a transfer to a 4 year college.

Essentially, free college for the top students to stay in state. The program only lasted 4 years.

We could do that nationally for the top 10% of students if you imagine only 20% take advantage of the program at a cost of 13 billion a year. You can have 50% of that be federal and 50% be state for participating states.

Seems like a great program idea IMO.

I dont know, the myth of perpetual growth can be demonstrated to have done more harm to economies than good. It can lead to bubble economies that inflate very quickly, then collapse because of one unforeseen event...like a pandemic. Except that WAS foreseen. A lot developing Countries were in track for very good economic growth, then the tourist industry stopped, or global trade collapsed. Adaptation is different than perpetual growth and I definitely think the latter is better than the former.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I dont know, the myth of perpetual growth can be demonstrated to have done more harm to economies than good.

I didn’t say it was a good thing to have perpetual growth. It is just necessary in our current monetary system.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Perpetual economic growth is not something I'm sure is sustainable. What I'd argue is that it's better for an economy to be healthy and adaptive than it is for it to continue growing. But you could easily call the adaptation growth

It's better for a human beings to live in a place with a growing economy.