What is a democratic socialist? Bernie Sanders tries to redefine the name.

[Jhhnn]

Yes. It does not mean that a move toward oligarchy means they will become Oligarchs, but its a move toward it.



Don't know. As society changes so does how it organizes itself. There was a time when democracy would have been infeasible given the constraints of the time. Now that technology has increased, democracy is now feasible. If you are asking me to break down a cost benefit chart on what to do, then you are sadly mistaken on my abilities, but thank you.

I will say that when we lean toward freedoms we tend to get more wealth along all classes, not just the top. When we limit freedoms, the wealth tends to go to the top.

Sounds peachy, but that's not what's happened over the last 35 years or so. What limitation on freedoms have we imposed in that time period that sent wealth rushing to the top?

By your reasoning, that must have happened so perhaps you can explain it in specific terms.

 

[realibrad]

Sounds peachy, but that's not what's happened over the last 35 years or so. What limitation on freedoms have we imposed in that time period that sent wealth rushing to the top?

By your reasoning, that must have happened so perhaps you can explain it in specific terms.

Sure, the freedom of choice. I cannot choose to buy a car directly from the auto manufacture because the law is that I can only buy a car from an independent dealer. That law has made the dealerships very wealthy.

Do you need more freedoms that have been taken away?

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, the freedom of choice. I cannot choose to buy a car directly from the auto manufacture because the law is that I can only buy a car from an independent dealer. That law has made the dealerships very wealthy.

Do you need more freedoms that have been taken away?

That was true decades before Reagan. It didn't change.

Do I have to repeat the question, or are you making an affirmation of faith rather than a good faith argument?

 

[realibrad]

That was true decades before Reagan. It didn't change.

Do I have to repeat the question, or are you making an affirmation of faith rather than a good faith argument?

Its a perfectly valid example as it is still a loss of freedom that benefits the top. Honestly, I did not read your question fully and missed that you wanted something from the last 35 years that was not around before then. The dealership issue is still a thing, but it was not started after. So fair enough.

TSA security contracts. This is something that is even at the federal level. Huge contracts have been paid to firms for things like equipment. When tested, the scanners were not very effective due to ability or those using them. I'm not saying this is where all of it comes from, but when you add up things like I said in my last post, or the one here, you see the path that our wealth takes to those at the top through loss of freedoms.

There is also local issues where cities sign contracts with ISPs that keep out other providers. I know you saw my points in that thread, but it seems to have died out.

I really dont know what the point of you asking for something within the last 35 years though. Can you explain that?

 

[Jhhnn]

I really dont know what the point of you asking for something within the last 35 years though. Can you explain that?

Because that's when inequality really took off causing middle class fortunes to decline.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/charts-income-inequality-middle-class-census

You're grasping at straws with your example of the TSA. On the money side, the govt paid contractors to build roads, bridges, dams, flood control, irrigation projects & all kinds of stuff long before the TSA, including enormous stocks of cold war military hardware. On the freedom side, the TSA just makes flying more of a pain in the ass for the vast majority of us w/o affecting our "freedoms" more than marginally. It certainly can't explain the ongoing divergence of wealth & income.

 

[realibrad]

Because that's when inequality really took off causing middle class fortunes to decline.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/charts-income-inequality-middle-class-census

You're grasping at straws with your example of the TSA. On the money side, the govt paid contractors to build roads, bridges, dams, flood control, irrigation projects & all kinds of stuff long before the TSA, including enormous stocks of cold war military hardware. On the freedom side, the TSA just makes flying more of a pain in the ass for the vast majority of us w/o affecting our "freedoms" more than marginally. It certainly can't explain the ongoing divergence of wealth & income.

Look, I admitted when I did not read your post fully, so maybe its time you read mine next time. I did not say the policies were the sole cause. Its also not grasping at straws to list the examples. What the american people are paying for benefits them far less then those at the companies our taxes go to. There is never going to be 1 thing that is the cause, but when taken it net, the american people are funding the rich through the government.

Further, the last 35 years and the increase in inequality can also partly be attributed to technological advancements. It used to be that a company could only reach so many people. Even if a company had a shit product, if the competitors could not afford to enter that market, the shit company would be able to make money. Today, if that same company tried to sell shit, another company could enter and take away their market share. That benefits a company and allows it to grow. Each time it grows it out competes another company and grows again. There only needs to be a few at the top of that company, so the wealth goes there instead of over lots of little companies.

What do you think is causing the inequality? Do you have an example where that market is not regulated by the government?

 

[Jhhnn]

So any move in the other direction is a move toward Oligarchy I take it.

Which direction should we go from where we are now? How do we create the balance we want between wealth & democracy?

Look, I admitted when I did not read your post fully, so maybe its time you read mine next time. I did not say the policies were the sole cause. Its also not grasping at straws to list the examples. What the american people are paying for benefits them far less then those at the companies our taxes go to. There is never going to be 1 thing that is the cause, but when taken it net, the american people are funding the rich through the government.

Further, the last 35 years and the increase in inequality can also partly be attributed to technological advancements. It used to be that a company could only reach so many people. Even if a company had a shit product, if the competitors could not afford to enter that market, the shit company would be able to make money. Today, if that same company tried to sell shit, another company could enter and take away their market share. That benefits a company and allows it to grow. Each time it grows it out competes another company and grows again. There only needs to be a few at the top of that company, so the wealth goes there instead of over lots of little companies.

What do you think is causing the inequality? Do you have an example where that market is not regulated by the government?

I have to draw your attention back to my original question you've dodged quite desperately.

We're currently reaping the rewards of 35 years of more economic freedom for the financial elite. Mere fact. To that, you implied that more freedom is the answer & I can't figure out why you'd say that if you were looking at it squarely.

 

[realibrad]

I have to draw your attention back to my original question you've dodged quite desperately.

Um, I answered that post clearly in post #272

Yes. It does not mean that a move toward oligarchy means they will become Oligarchs, but its a move toward it.

Don't know. As society changes so does how it organizes itself. There was a time when democracy would have been infeasible given the constraints of the time. Now that technology has increased, democracy is now feasible. If you are asking me to break down a cost benefit chart on what to do, then you are sadly mistaken on my abilities, but thank you.

I will say that when we lean toward freedoms we tend to get more wealth along all classes, not just the top. When we limit freedoms, the wealth tends to go to the top.

We're currently reaping the rewards of 35 years of more economic freedom for the financial elite. Mere fact. To that, you implied that more freedom is the answer & I can't figure out why you'd say that if you were looking at it squarely.

The government has set up a system where the losses at the top are socialized and the profits are privatized. We saw this with the bailout post 2008 and the savings and loan crisis. The top have used the government as their tool to get rich at the expense of those below them. I do not believe in trickle down or trickle up. I think people should only get rich if people are willing to engage in transactions.

How do you feel I have dodged your question?

You asked if any move in the other direction is a move toward oligarchy, and I said yes, but it does not mean that the country has to become an oligarchy. If you enact social policy that is opposite of collectively owned, you are heading toward oligarchy.

You then asked what direction we should go from where we are now. I said I was not sure because as the world changes, so should its social policies. I then said I prefer freedom because we do better when we have those.

The last question was how we balance democracy and wealth. I could have gone deeper here, but its a false premise. Democracy and wealth are not opposites. Democracy can foster wealth depending on the development and technologies of a society. It is still currently infeasible to poll every person for every decision that the government makes. The cost in money and resources would simply be too high. This is why we have a representative democracy.

1st question, yes
2nd question, toward freedoms
3rd question, malformed question based off a presupposition.

Do you still consider me to not be answering your question?

I am one of the few people on this forum that tries to answer people when they ask question. I think you are a person who likes to vent on here and have developed a pattern to deal with them. You are accusing me of not answering you, when there is evidence to show otherwise.

 

[zinfamous]

Fact: Anyone that confuses Sanders with a communist, much less a bolshevik, is mentally vacant and stubbornly ignorant of history.

get the fuck over to the resurgent USSR if you actually want an appreciation for what you have now, what you will never have to deal with, and absolutely nothing like what Sanders is talking about.

fucking goddamn idiots on the right these days. It's sad.

 

[realibrad]

Fact: Anyone that confuses Sanders with a communist, much less a bolshevik, is mentally vacant and stubbornly ignorant of history.

get the fuck over to the resurgent USSR if you actually want an appreciation for what you have now, what you will never have to deal with, and absolutely nothing like what Sanders is talking about.

fucking goddamn idiots on the right these days. It's sad.

Has anyone on this thread said that communism and socialism are the same? I know there are dumb people in the world, so if you are just talking about them I understand.

 

[MagickMan]

Fact: Anyone that confuses Sanders with a communist, much less a bolshevik, is mentally vacant and stubbornly ignorant of history.

get the fuck over to the resurgent USSR if you actually want an appreciation for what you have now, what you will never have to deal with, and absolutely nothing like what Sanders is talking about.

fucking goddamn idiots on the right these days. It's sad.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like he's being promoted and endorsed by the CPUSA.

Oh wait...

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...major-political-party-can-you-guess-which-one
http://cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution

Hell, if he gets the nomination, they're not even going to run their own candidate, something that hasn't happened in >40 years.

So, I guess that makes you the "fucking goddamn idiot", sparky. :\

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like he's being promoted and endorsed by the CPUSA.

Oh wait...

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...major-political-party-can-you-guess-which-one
http://cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution

Hell, if he gets the nomination, they're not even going to run their own candidate, something that hasn't happened in >40 years.

So, I guess that makes you the "fucking goddamn idiot", sparky. :\

So the people who mistake Sanders for a communist are - the communists? lol

Communism is merely socialism taken to an extreme.

 

[realibrad]

So the people who mistake Sanders for a communist are - the communists? lol

Communism is merely socialism taken to an extreme.

Not really. communism uses socialism as a means to an end. Socialism is the transition structure that allows a society to go from capitalism to communism. Real communism does not have a state that owns anything where as socialism does.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like he's being promoted and endorsed by the CPUSA.

Oh wait...

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...major-political-party-can-you-guess-which-one
http://cpusa.org/bernie-sanders-political-revolution

Hell, if he gets the nomination, they're not even going to run their own candidate, something that hasn't happened in >40 years.

So, I guess that makes you the "fucking goddamn idiot", sparky. :\

Donald Trump has been endorsed by numerous white supremacists. Does that make him a white supremacist?

 

[werepossum]

Not really. communism uses socialism as a means to an end. Socialism is the transition structure that allows a society to go from capitalism to communism. Real communism does not have a state that owns anything where as socialism does.

In theory, but in practice since "the people" can't actually own everything, in anything above a commune the government has to step in and own it for us - in our name, of course.

 

[MagickMan]

Donald Trump has been endorsed by numerous white supremacists. Does that make him a white supremacist?

Maybe? Wouldn't put it past the bastard.

 

[realibrad]

In theory, but in practice since "the people" can't actually own everything, in anything above a commune the government has to step in and own it for us - in our name, of course.

It could work in a society where resources are unlimited, but yeah we have never really had a communist state.

 

[Jhhnn]

So the people who mistake Sanders for a communist are - the communists? lol

Communism is merely socialism taken to an extreme.

Not really. Democratic socialists eschew revolution, work within the system to create change. Communists preach revolution as do more than a few right wing "Patriot" groups.

And then there's the freedom caucus who pervert democratic means to serve non-democratic purposes.

 

[Spungo]

What do you think is causing the inequality? Do you have an example where that market is not regulated by the government?

Inflation. Lots and lots of inflation. Peasants are paid in dollars which lose value every year. Gentlemen are paid in stock - legal claims on tangible assets.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Median wages have been flat for the past 15 years. Jobs that paid 60k in 2000 are still getting paid about the same amount. During that time, what has happened to the value of stocks, which are the primary form of compensation rich people receive? The stock market has more than doubled since 2009. Are entry level computer programmers getting paid double? Nope.

 

[adamantine.me]

Does anybody here with such a cocksure attitude about their stance actually study politics...?

 

[BoberFett]

Inflation. Lots and lots of inflation. Peasants are paid in dollars which lose value every year. Gentlemen are paid in stock - legal claims on tangible assets.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Median wages have been flat for the past 15 years. Jobs that paid 60k in 2000 are still getting paid about the same amount. During that time, what has happened to the value of stocks, which are the primary form of compensation rich people receive? The stock market has more than doubled since 2009. Are entry level computer programmers getting paid double? Nope.

Thank god they saved the economy... :sneaky:

 

[fskimospy]

Inflation. Lots and lots of inflation. Peasants are paid in dollars which lose value every year. Gentlemen are paid in stock - legal claims on tangible assets.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Median wages have been flat for the past 15 years. Jobs that paid 60k in 2000 are still getting paid about the same amount. During that time, what has happened to the value of stocks, which are the primary form of compensation rich people receive? The stock market has more than doubled since 2009. Are entry level computer programmers getting paid double? Nope.

Nice selective time frame there, haha.

 

[realibrad]

Inflation. Lots and lots of inflation. Peasants are paid in dollars which lose value every year. Gentlemen are paid in stock - legal claims on tangible assets.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Median wages have been flat for the past 15 years. Jobs that paid 60k in 2000 are still getting paid about the same amount. During that time, what has happened to the value of stocks, which are the primary form of compensation rich people receive? The stock market has more than doubled since 2009. Are entry level computer programmers getting paid double? Nope.

The question was for him to give an example of a non-regulation that was causing inequality. The currency in the US is regulated by the government and the FED, so inherently its government regulated.

2nd, inflation would not be the cause of inequality. The way we measure inflation is fucking stupid. As I have already explained in this thread the median cost is a horrible way to track inflation if the median goods are not comparable. The median size of homes has gone up and yet we say homes are more expensive because the median price has gone up.

Also, the stock market is very much regulated, so not a great example for what I asked for. You are correct about it being a major factor though, as investment will compound wealth much faster than income growth for many.

 

[Spungo]

Nice selective time frame there, haha.

I always pick 2000 because most economic indicators point to that year as being the peak of America. Labor participation was at an all time high, wages were good, house prices were reasonable. It seemed like we had such a bright future ahead of us. Here we are, a decade and a half later, and we seem to be declining.

Here's how Americans feel about the situation:

There was a time when 1 man could feed a family of 6. Today, people with two incomes struggle with just 1 kid. Millennials live with parents at age 30. Everything has been financialized. Companies like IBM spend more money buying back stock than they spend on capital investment. Offshoring jobs is a national sport. Some parts of the economy have too much regulation, and other parts don't have enough regulation (high frequency trading). The stock market was once a great social program where commoners would buy shares of companies to get a part of the profits. Today, people just see it as some kind of casino. People are honestly shocked that Valeant's stock crashed. It's a company trading at 55x earnings, pays no dividend, and about 90% of its cash comes from financing rather than operations. That is what financialization looks like. People didn't buy it to own part of a business. People were buying on it because they thought they could flip it. We live in a country where nobody wants to produce anything and make an honest profit.

This even came up recently in an ATOT thread about investing. I threw out the most basic idea imaginable - buy companies that pay dividends because that's a whole point of owning a business. The very next post said my opinion was wrong, and the correct approach was to flip stock because the taxes are somehow lower. What the hell. Is that really how Americans feel about business? I can't even say it's wrong. Wasn't Snapchat purchased for about $1B? The company had no profits from producing or selling anything, but there was a lot of money to be made from selling the company to a greater fool. Basing our entire economy on credit expansion has twisted the way Americans view business and investment.

 

[OverVolt]

I always pick 2000 because most economic indicators point to that year as being the peak of America. Labor participation was at an all time high, wages were good, house prices were reasonable. It seemed like we had such a bright future ahead of us. Here we are, a decade and a half later, and we seem to be declining.

Here's how Americans feel about the situation:

There was a time when 1 man could feed a family of 6. Today, people with two incomes struggle with just 1 kid. Millennials live with parents at age 30. Everything has been financialized. Companies like IBM spend more money buying back stock than they spend on capital investment. Offshoring jobs is a national sport. Some parts of the economy have too much regulation, and other parts don't have enough regulation (high frequency trading). The stock market was once a great social program where commoners would buy shares of companies to get a part of the profits. Today, people just see it as some kind of casino. People are honestly shocked that Valeant's stock crashed. It's a company trading at 55x earnings, pays no dividend, and about 90% of its cash comes from financing rather than operations. That is what financialization looks like. People didn't buy it to own part of a business. People were buying on it because they thought they could flip it. We live in a country where nobody wants to produce anything and make an honest profit.

This even came up recently in an ATOT thread about investing. I threw out the most basic idea imaginable - buy companies that pay dividends because that's a whole point of owning a business. The very next post said my opinion was wrong, and the correct approach was to flip stock because the taxes are somehow lower. What the hell. Is that really how Americans feel about business? I can't even say it's wrong. Wasn't Snapchat purchased for about $1B? The company had no profits from producing or selling anything, but there was a lot of money to be made from selling the company to a greater fool. Basing our entire economy on credit expansion has twisted the way Americans view business and investment.

Dividends are taxed near income rates (like 45%) and capital gains rates are 20%. Buy and hold is best.