Discussion in 'Politics' started by wegs, Jun 10, 2020.
Where is the company that does his ads? You gotta wonder...
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
America's lousy health care system is a major source of instability, both political and economic, in this country. It's a handicap and obstacle of the same order as the systemic racism that touches off riots every few years, just a bit quieter and less intrusive in the public sphere.
In your earlier post you declared unions were a "socialist approach". Now you are identifying non-market allocation with socialism or an "issue" with socialism or some wtf cluelessness - keep that up and the only issue left on the table will be your motives.
Government regulation of an economy, government allocation of whatever you were talking about, etc, has almost nothing to do with socialism. Non-market allocation is not the issue here, even if this thread were somehow deflected into real world economics.
Non-market allocation characterizes many non-socialist systems, including several varieties of capitalism - cartel capitalism, monopoly and monopsony capitalism, mercantile capitalism, and so forth. Meanwhile, many socialist organizations are regular and enthusiastic participants in market allocations of one kind and another - not as many in the US as when the US was younger, but still a few; and more common in other regions. Not merely socialist but flat out communist communities often manufacture or produce for a free market, surviving in America (when they do) despite the hostility of the rightwing authoritarian governments typical in this country (America's governments coddle and subsidize and protect even the most abusive of capitalist corporations).
That's not true. People who get the majority of their income from returns on invested capital are not "workers", for example - the return to labor is not the same as the return to capital.
This is very basic, elementary, economics and politics. If you can't distinguish the return to labor from the return to capital in an industrial economy you are a lost ball.
My problems? At least this time the yahoo didn't spend three pages trying to guess what my problems were.
The only problem I have that this guy knows anything about is the extra typing required to correct the more flagrantly mistaken of their occasional relevant posts. Since Seattle like the rest of the Tribe will never learn to not post when pig-ignorant, that problem has no immediate solution.
Fortunately, they speak with one voice - for an entire political faction of Americans whose influence pervades and degrades all public discussion of political matters in America - so I'm not put out much: as we have seen in this country, that line of bs needs to draw continual overt opposition from anyone who wants to avoid another 1984 or 2004 disaster redux, and this is as convenient an opportunity as any.
Meanwhile: We lefties are long resigned to the politics of a country with an active and increasingly well-rooted fascist movement - it's been forty years or more since an American voter had an excuse for indecision when facing the prospect of a Republican president.
i don't know. why are do you like it?
that you think it is that simple just shows at best you are too ignorant to be a legitimate part of the conversation.
I think you just like to complain.
I said that I agree regarding the health care system and yet you continue to drone on like a broken record.
The form of government can be distinct from the organization of the economy. That's not particularly onpoint in this discussion. Unions that demand a wage outside of market forces is a socialistic concept.
You make too much of that distinction. There is nothing sacred about the "worker". Most people have jobs and are therefore "workers". If they invest at some point they can strictly be investors but most start out "working".
There is no need to place more importance on one than on the other. This is like arguing that a donkey is more important than a machine or any other scheme that is productive.
The boilerplate diatribe that they always end with.
You did not agree.
They don't mix and match at random. You can't have a fascist government and a socialist economy, for example.
No, it isn't.
It's a confused and essentially meaningless concept, starting with you not knowing what a "market" or a "market force" is, and continuing through your ignorance of the meaning of the word "socialism".
Unions demanding wages are normally (in most theoretical circumstances, and definitely in all US historical circumstances) engaged in market negotiation within a capitalist economy - fully aligned with "market forces" in a capitalist economy. American labor unions represent labor, and historically (up until recently, when only a couple of oddball ones remain) they have negotiated with the representatives of capital, which owns the means of production and hires the labor - that's called "capitalism".
The word has a meaning. It applies to some people and not others.
Those who get their income from return to capital are not "workers". Workers get their income from return to labor.
There is no such "they" - as you would discover if you tried to identify them.
Because there is no such "they", the word "boilerplate" does not apply - if you had restricted the reference to me, you might have had a shot.
And that post is not a "diatribe", as you would discover if you consulted a good dictionary.
Which illustrates: Although I appreciate the repeated and emphasized flattery implied by your frequent attempts at imitation, aping my form and/or vocabulary will not cover your ass - you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. English does not generate relevant meaning automatically.
Get a good dictionary (you need a "prescriptive" one, such as the American Heritage or Oxford - avoid anything with "Webster" in its name). When you have typed a word of three syllables or more in your post, look it up in the dictionary before posting it. If your usage does not match the definition, use a different word (that's the important step - insisting the word means whatever you want it to doesn't work).
How's that new tractor working out?
sorry you dislike dealing with the ramifications of your ideology
Quoted in its entirety:
They will never learn to not post when ignorant.
The interesting question for this thread is whether these guys can be, somehow, manipulated into not voting when ignorant.
You know how they be.
If Americans chose not to vote in their elections , in November , then they will suffer the consequences .
Separate names with a comma.