roachboy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAQDz6m2XPk\

intergender forest elves from sweden provoked by the arrival of politics like those advocated by the tea partiers, like those advocated by the right in the states.

way more interesting to watch this than read a bunch of tired supply-side bromides.
you can swap subtitles into english by clicking the cc button.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FuglyStick

Dear God, what pretentious, laughable tripe.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

roachboy

why yes. yes it is. thanks for stopping by.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dogzilla

Socialists in Sweden are a bunch of weirdos :-)

You mean to tell me there's a move afoot to eliminate socialism in Sweden? Really? In a supposed socialist utopia?

Why on earth would I support socialism, where the state takes away what I worked for to give it to somebody they decide needs it more?

I suppose one way socialism might benefit me is if I was to quit my job and let the government take somebody else's nice stuff and give it to me because I'm such a deserving person.

Seriously, I have far more confidence that I can be successful under capitalism and buy my own nice stuff than to sit around in a socialist paradise waiting for the government to give me nice stuff.

roachboy

what's funny in your post, dogzilla, is pretty much everything.

i don't think you have the first idea what democratic socialism is.
i don't recall anyone at all having referred to sweden as a socialist paradise. not at least anyone who knows what they're talking about.

the funniest thing is that democratic socialism has worked as a political orientation for managing the swedish economy for a long time. the problems it's encountered have been either a function of being in the majority for too long or having been caught in a protracted recession which strained the full-employment priorities that shape the system (ye gods! full employment! equitable wage levels! comprehensive health care! who would want such things?)-----and it was far more successful and for far longer than the fatuous free-marketeer nonsense that you continue to repeat despite the reality of it's record.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Pretty strong for rail and oceanliners at the time. Is my point lost, or are you challenging me to find something where there would be no response?

I am going to disagree again. For example, equine industry is subject to short-term cycles and has been in a long-term decline for decades - but there has been continued investment and innovation in good times and bad. Churchill Downs where they run the Kentucky Derby recently had a multi-million dollar renovation even-though horse racing interest is nearing historic lows.

There is a difference between a manager and a entrepreneur. Managers are bound by what you describe, entrepreneurs are not. Take a guy like Ted Turner, founder of CNN. He invests everything in a 24 hour cable news channel taking a huge risk when there was no known interest in people wanting CNN. Innovation comes before demand for certain products. Often entrepreneurs create new markets, create new demand. The cycle of innovation is what fuels economic growth, and increase standards of living for all. Again, fundamental supply side stuff, it is everywhere. Ted Turner became a multi-billionaire but so did others, many many more became millionaires, and today the 24 news cycle industry is at its peak - millions benefit - and so does the government.

Correct, consumer demand and spending in 2010 is at very high levels in absolute terms. What we are really talking about is the rate of growth, and that is often how they define the health of an economy. I bet very few people in 1950 imagined the size of the world economy in 2010, and the thought that because there may have been stagnant or negative growth from 2008 to 2010 is trivial given the size of the world economy. But some, like Obama, need the fantasy of thinking they saved the world. and others, Roach, need the fantasy, that some neo-conservative plot has ruined life on this planet and that sooner or later (perhaps in the next 50,000,000) he will be proved correct. Then there is me, have government get out of the way and we will be o.k.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Are you really a moderator here?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

I nominate capitalism as the first clue.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

No, my point is that the push for a commercial aviation market was based on their being an existing market for other modes of transportation. The aviation industry didn't blossom from nothing.

You are suggesting that investors want to put money into things without first realizing the potential for a market. There are investors that might do this, but it likely happens on a small scale, because it's a huge risk.

If you look at the investing environment on a wide scale, investors don't put good money into things they don't see a market for. If strong spending isn't happening in a particular market, people won't be as inclined to invest in it.

I should probably point out that I'm referring to all investors, not just institutional or corporate investors. The average investor (which makes up quite a bulk of available capital in the U.S.) is rather shaken by what happened in 2008-2009. But even institutional investors won't put money into anything unless the fundamentals are strong, and one of these fundamentals includes market outlook. For a while now, people have been parking a lot of cash because of that. It's only when the markets begin to turn around will the average investor want to invest in them again.

I'm not suggesting that investors don't do what you are getting at, because they do. They see opportunity despite no track record. However, I don't think this kind of investing is the norm, and I don't think it drives the economy like the spending/investing balance I'm getting at.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Wes Mantooth

Yeah I've got to second that one. Wow.

__________________

dksuddeth

so basically, what you're saying, is that you have to defame the entire group as a collective to avoid having to deal with the real intellectuals of the group. In other words, you're full of shit.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

no, but you certainly can embellish them. small government? GW Bush nearly doubled this government. Obama is increasing it more. Less taxes? how do we pay for this large government, excuse me, size handicapped government.

bottom line, neither of your republican or democrat policies are working. they are both flawed and destined to destroy us.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

You had me along with your argument until I found out it was this:
While I'd buy an argument that either sets of policies aren't working, I have to roll my eyes just a little bit at that nice piece of hyperbole at the end.

How would either sets of policies "destroy" you? Are you talking about certain states going independent, or maybe nationwide rioting until a police state?

I can't for the life of me figure out what the Dems or Republicans are doing that would destroy the U.S. directly. I can only think of indirect ways.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

really? when destruction happens, is it really a big deal if it's direct or indirect? really?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dogzilla

This article states that the number of millionaires in the US was up 8% in the past year. I've seen similar articles over the last few years. I'll take 'destruction' of the middle class by capitalism like this over a socialist agenda any day.

Survey: Number Of U.S. Millionaires Increases : NPR

This too

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

The millionaires’ club in the U.S. grew by 16 percent in 2009, following a 27 percent decline in 2008.

Families with a net worth of at least $1 million, excluding primary residences, rose to 7.8 million in 2009, an increase from 6.7 million a year earlier, according to a survey of high- net-worth U.S. households conducted by Spectrem Group.

Derwood

so more millionaires at the expense of the middle/lower class = successful system in your eyes? are you for real?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dogzilla

Yes I am for real. I much prefer a system that rewards the ambitious and successful over one that penalizes them.

roachboy

so you'd be good in the radically class stratified context that policies based on your way of thinking has created. the only flaw in your argument, really, is that you have a pollyanna view of how class works. you seem to actually believe this whole bootstrappy horatio alger thing. that's hopelessly naive. but it's an enabling naivete for folk who think as you do, because it allows you to see in class stratification a reflection of virtue. but that's absurd.

it also enables your "be a dick" approach to questions like poverty. the poor are poor because they deserve it.

at least you don't shy away from just how ugly your political worldview is.
and that i have to hand you.
i'm just glad you are nowhere near power
(none of us are. we're posting here. q.e.d.)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

FuglyStick

Nope, no hyperbole here.

---------- Post added at 07:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

"I have more serfs than you."

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Wes Mantooth

People should be allowed to reap the rewards of ambition and success and we always have to be careful not to discourage people from working hard to get ahead but I simply don't buy the right wing argument that people are being penalized for either. The multi billionaire that invents life like hologram porn is going to have no problem going out and buying a posh mansion, a yacht and a new high end car to drive for every day of the week.

The rewards we get for our hard work and ambition is the success we may or may not find on the other side. If I'm able to get to the top of the ladder in my field I certainly wont expect a gold star from big daddy government for the amount of work I put into it (YAY!!! You won the game of American life enjoy all the 100% completion rewards for your success), the financial security and comfortable living will or should be enough.

__________________

ratbastid

Haven't seen any. Been looking. So far, been disappointed.

Seaver

How is this binary?

Honestly how can you say that 4% changes someone from innovating ideas to make money to sitting unemployed doing nothing?

No business can predict the income they make during startup, hell if they could even predict within 10% of actual income they'd classify as psychic. You can't tell me that this minuscule amount would prevent people from making money.

If you honestly think this, why is the economies of Germany, England, and Canada already almost entirely recovered with MUCH higher tax rates while ours sits idle?

$10 million income is fine, but if it drops to $9.6 million I'm taking my ball and going home!

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Wes Mantooth

Yeah that blows my mind too Seaver.

"God damn taxes!!!! I could have bought that $400,000 yacht this year when oh when will I be able to reap the rewards of my hard work!!! I'm burning my blue prints for lifelike hologram porn and going to go drive my jet ski around our olympic sized pool and sulk about it for a while."

Seriously its not like there is some government mechanism in place that just steals people innovation and leaves them penniless in the ditch for the greater good of society.

__________________

Derwood

I wonder what % of millionaires are wealthy because they inherited their wealth from their parents/family? What did THOSE people to earn their money?

Not every wealthy person is wealthy because they built themselves up for nothing

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Pearl Trade

Don't forget the people who are awarded thousands and millions for frivelous lawsuits.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

Shadowex3

This is basically the fundamental base of all the current american right-wing economics arguments. Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve to be rich, and interfering with either of those in any way is somehow just immoral because of some intangible divine mandate.

I do have one question for you though: Have I missed an academic-specific term or something because reagan started off the neoconservatives and you keep saying neo-liberal.

__________________

Wes Mantooth

Well it goes back to the old days when it was much easier to make your way in the world, the problem is as the world changed the philosophy didn't. I just can't go out into the frontier, stake my claim for some land and start building a farm, the world just doesn't work that way anymore. Sure ambition and hard work can go a long way and some people are where they are right now because of it but conservatives need to start realizing that getting by in the world isn't that cut and dry anymore.

I've always wondered the same thing Derwood, how can somebody who comes from a wealthy family and gets the benefits of attending the best schools and a huge inheritance be held up as an ambitious, hard worker.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

With all this talk about the growing millionaire class and its robustness even during a severe recession, it seems to me there isn't a problem with the current taxation in America.

That's not the point. I asked you how it would possibly happen. I can't picture it based on your original claim. Give me some scenarios. Demonstrate how it would go down in your view.

I don't see it. I don't see how the Democrats or the Republicans are leading to the destruction of America.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dogzilla

I support the capitalist approach because it has worked for myself and others I know. When I started working I had no assets, my pay wasn't much more than minimum wage, and I lived in marginal neighborhoods because that was what I could afford. I managed to find my way out of that situation without any government help, just going to work every day and working hard. I managed my finances conservatively and still avoid debt like the plague. So now I live comfortably.

I've helped others who wanted to improve their lifestyle as well, but the responsibility to improve themselves was their responsibility, not mine.

I've seen others do well in similar circumstances. In particular, I've respected Asians because I've seen so many of them start from little and manage to become successful.

Why wouldn't I support a system that has worked for me? Why on earth would I want to support a system which provides no incentive for people to work hard and which penalizes those who are successful?

Derwood

So if you were to lose your job, dozilla, you would NOT apply for unemployment? Are you going to turn down Social Security and Medicare?

In other words, will you walk the walk, or are you just flapping your gums?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

dogzilla

I'd be willing to give up unemployment since I haven't paid much into it. However, since the government has been confiscating some 12% of my salary for 35 years, that's a substantial amount of money that I will not give up. Bumping eligibility requirements a few years as has been proposed to keep Social Security funded would not bother me.

Medicare, again, some 3% of my pay over 35 years, so no, I'm not giving that up.

aceventura3

The above point is the key point where we diverge, and if we can not get past this, we will never understand each other.

Investors put money into things without first realizing the potential - yes, yes, yes. The people who do this change the world. In the next 60 seconds if you look around your surroundings, virtually everything you see, will be based on some person at some point in time investing into something without realizing the potential.

Take something like the internet. Sure, the folks who developed it saw potential - but what they saw was narrow compared to the fully realized potential as we experience it today - no human anticipated the internet. No human knows where it will be 100 years from today. However, people invest.

My gut tells me, I could give a list of 1,000 examples and it would not matter to your way of viewing this issue. But, one final comment - think of human history in terms of ages - prehistoric age, bronze age, dark ages, golden age, etc. and think of what these ages had in common and what triggered them. In each case I think we can point to humans "investing" without first realizing the potential. And in each case it was based on the initiatives of individuals.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Ace, I'm not saying that that type of investing doesn't happen. What I'm saying is that's not the type of investing that drives most of the economy.

For most investors, "the gut" isn't a good financial advisor.

What you're talking about is often the lure for speculative investors who probably aren't interested in long-term holds. They're the guys looking for short-term explosive growth before selling off and seeking out the next thing. These guys aren't the norm; many of them are contrarians. You don't see that kind of investing taking up a high proportion of the portfolios of retail investors. Heck, I could probably point out a number of institutional investors who don't do that kind of investing.

Besides, I think much of the speculation going on these days is in resources, not tech, and much of that action happens outside of the U.S. I could be wrong. Either way, speculative investing isn't what drives most of the economy. The average investor is more interested in funding the expansion of existing companies rather than hoping for some nobody to be the next big thing.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Pearl Trade

What about all the bad and average investments? For every world-changing, life-altering investment, there are hundreds and probably thousands or millions of bad/average investments. The law of probability says your investment won't do a whole lot for you. Especially in a tough economy, less people are willing to take that risk.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

aceventura3

The economy will be stagnant (sure there is organic growth due to population, etc., but that is not what we are talking about), unless there is something that causes it to grow. Investment causes the economy to grow. Investment is the cause of change. Investment is the cause of productivity gains. Investment is the cause of quality of life improvements. Investment leads to the surplus' that feeds government.

I am not necessarily talking about investing in stocks and bonds. For example Facebook isn't public, but the founder invested in the company. The founder had an idea, that is now worth billions and has had a major impact on the world before anyone on Wall St. will be able to buy a single share of stock.

I am talking about guys like Hewlett and Packart who started HP in their garage.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

Who was it, who had 99 failures for each success - was it Edison. We simply need an environment where people who can change the world have an opportunity to do so. We need to celebrate success, not punish it.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Wes Mantooth

Didn't Edison steal most of his successful ideas from other people?

Anyway how are we not celebrating success in this country? Anybody who puts the work into a billion dollar idea is still allowed to reap the rewards of that work on the other side if its successful. Nobody is being left penniless, the government isn't confiscating the vast majority of everybody's wealth or possessions, nobody is being forced to hand over his innovative idea over to Uncle Sam for the greater good. Sure we aren't allowed to keep 100% of our money and barriers exist beyond simple risk and reward, but we certainly aren't punishing people for their success.

I think we'd be hard pressed to find any other country on Earth friendlier to success the US.

__________________

Derwood

capitalism!

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Wes Mantooth

YAY!!!!

Its fair game when I steal somebody else's innovation and leave them penniless, that's just capitialism at work. But when the feds ask me to pay taxes on it then I'm being victimized.

__________________

Baraka_Guru

Ace, startups in people's basements aren't going to be the main fuel behind the recovery.

Patents and copyrights are just two amongst many of the jagged teeth in the jaws of the socialist menace!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Pearl Trade

Losing all your money because you invested in an automatic ass scrubber (you thought everyone would buy it) isn't punishment, that's just a terrible investment on a bad idea.

Edison was also one man, not an entire economy. Nobody will keep making losing investments 99 times before they finally obtain a positive investment.

__________________

Our revenge will be the laughter of our children.
Give me convenience or give me death!

roachboy

there are so many problems with these supply side fictions that it's almost impossible to know where to start. you can't say that capital is unimportant in a capitalist setting, but it's lunacy to think of capital as all that matters, particularly given that capitalism stands in for a social system and not just a bunch of simple-minded hydraulic relations and simple-minded graphs. what's obviously a problem with these sycophantic milty freidmany supply-side fictions is that there's no account---at all---of production. it doesn't matter to the narrative. if you exclude production then on one side you fetishize the movement of capital. there's likely some hayeky backdrop to this (arguments about the opacity of a firm to itself)..but what has happened in the hands of the supply-side nitwits is that the history of commodity prices as an index of firms' relative performance has been replaced with the history of the performance of various financial devices---in a context wherein this circulation is more and more autonomous. running in another direction, the exclusion of production is of a piece with the wholesale exclusion of the social world from neo-liberal stories. which is a condition of possibility for hilariously fatuous bromides about ethics and/or virtue and/or responsibility coming from people whose economic viewpoints correspond to policies that are an unmitigated disaster for most people.

but because the main characters in supply-side fictions are investors, the social consequences of supply-side policies are erased.

again....again.....again, what i do not understand is why anyone takes this horseshit seriously after 30 years? obviously the right is reality-impaired at the level of conceptual accounts of the world and so cannot be expected to suddenly be able to offer a rationale for policies that would promote anything namby pamby like full employment or an equitable distribution of wealth or social justice. no no, what we get from these clowns is class war and a militarization of class relations. but i digress.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Charlatan

Dogzilla, your capitalist orthodoxy is, simply put, not the reality in which we live and breathe. Nor is your belief that the dreaded scourge of socialism is what's wrong with the world.

Pure capitalism would be a nightmare.
Pure socialism would be a nightmare.

The most successful economies in the world exist somewhere on a spectrum between the two. Getting the mix right is the difference between liberty and equality is the key. Too much of either is not a good thing.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

roachboy, with the rationalization of capitalist dilemmas, the social aspect is a deviation, not a part of the equation. Production isn't tied into the social; production is an expense to be managed.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot