Is Larry Summers finally waking up to what we Conservative bloggers have been saying for almost 3 months now? He's NOW saying that the constant negativity about the economy is what needs to be changed? Yes, how many times have we said "Who's going to hire an employee or buy stock when Obama's out there practically saying we're on the Eve of Destruction!?" (just a little nod to Barry McGuire there, for those of you who remember!)But, here's the deal, folks: Obama and Summers GOT their 2 Stimulus Packages by us and NOW they're joining our bandwagon, right? Easy to talk about how we need to be more optimistic NOW. THEY are optimistic NOW because they've got their wish, they have their packages, their earmark paybacks, robbing the successful and promoting Socialism. They've answered Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's prayers! Why wouldn't they be optimistic!? Even relieved?
So, America's stuck with debt up to our grandchildren's necks .....This administration got their way after creating such fear we "HAVE TO PASS THE BILLS!", and now we're told to be optimistic!? Um................. WHAT?
"What we need today is more optimism and more confidence," Summers said. NOW you tell us.
(Don't you wonder what Reid WAS praying for?) ALSO: DO NOT FORGET TO WATCH GLENN BECK TODAY AT 5 EST. HIS RATINGS ARE SKYROCKETING...PEOPLE ARE HEARING SOME TRUTH...)
RE: MARK SANFORD: Does anybody think he's doing this for political reasons? Wouldn't he be MORE popular if he took all the stimulus money and promised his state the WORLD? Man, the media just can't stop spinning...this in Yahoo, of course.
z
49 comments:
Z, you are absolutely right. And I might add: NOW, Obama is talking about limiting (not anymore eliminating, did you notice?) the earmarks? Yeah, after they have exhausted the sources for pork of one generation?
Mr.Z
Once again I ask what Keynesian spending has to do with socialism.
I keep asking because at some point one of you might surprise me and show you have a clue.
Exactly, Mr. Z! (you folks DO know that we work, practically back to back in one office here and email each other, even though we chat throughout the day, too, right? Do you do that with your spouses!!?)
It's like when I'm on the phone with Heidianne or The Merry Widow and we're emailing EACH OTHER as we TALK!!! HAA!! Do you do that, too!?
ANYWAY (I digress, as usual):
Right, Mr. Z...it's so clear......he campaigned on ELIMINATING, but....now he wants to LIMIT them. Now that he got his. But, he leaves the door open still.
Man, why can't we just all be honest and forthcoming and say what we stand for and live up to it? Not that most politicians HAVE!
Barry McGuire performed that song live at a little church we were attending. Got his autograph on the CD I bought. My kids grew up to Bullfrogs and Butterflies....but I digress
all that positivity emanating from Obama has done wonders for the market eh?
Ducky, do you recognize you're a guest at my blog and it might be a nice idea if you don't continue to insult my husband or me? Just a thought.
Remind me when I insult your intelligence.
We don't want Government in our economic affairs; interventionist fiscal policies have yet to stimulate any society for any length of time and nobody really thinks it'll work now...
Keynes wasn't ALL bad, Socialism IS.
Keynes advocated the State directly controlling investment and obviously believed that everyone must have something. Guess what, some people will never have much, and that's just the way it is. In the real world, where merit is rewarded and hard work is revered, some don't have what it takes. That can't be remedied by Keynes or Obama, sadly. And, the manipulating for that goal is scary and dangerous...and DOES lead to Socialism.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production (see automotive bailout and government insistence on how banks...etc spend, invest money) and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution.
Looks 'vaguely' familiar.
Anonymous! Welcome and thanks.
Keynes advocated the State directly controlling investment and obviously believed that everyone must have something.
------------------------
I keep explaining this out of a belief that you may wish to learn.
Keynes at no time in his writings advocated for a social contract or social spending. Of major economists he was uniquely alone in never mentioning them one way or another.
He had one focus - and only one - maximize production.
Now your task would be to demonstrate that Keynesian intervention cannot achieve that goal. That would be useful but calling it socialism merely indicates that you are indulging in an emotional rant.
Those are fine but when you lose track of the difference between the rant and hard analysis then you can't very well accomplish much and you aren't likely to be able to judge just what good or ill the current economic policies are doing.
Keynes DID write that redistrubtion of some of the income of the rich go to the poor, Ducky, no matter how you care to spin it. He did not believe that low interest rates encouraged businessmen enough and it's been shown that they have.
I'm not arguing he didn't have some good points, but I and many of us will continue to use the term SOCIALISM no matter what YOU think or like, even if it is hypberolic NOW, TODAY. We're fearful enough of Obama and his bunch's desire to PAY FOR EDUCATIONS OF THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT, HEALTHCARE FOR ALL, COLLEGE EDUCATIONS FOR PALESTINIANS (DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT?), ETC ETC. all point us in a direction few Americans should embrace. It's dangerous.
If you can't afford a house: rent.
If you can't afford Yale, to to a city college.
That's all many of us are saying.
heck, Obama couldn't even respond to a plumber named JOE. And, obama had to call the NYSlimes to make sure they understood he's no socialist. geeez
Ducky, what does Keynesian spending have to do with Obama's call for a National Civilian Security Force, as fully funded and powerful as our military?
I'd appreciate an answer, and an explanation of what exactly that is? And what is it for?
Surprise me with an answer.
Pris
Pris, the thread is about economics not your paranoia that Obama is going to deputize Black Panthers to patrol your neighborhood.
Priscilla, tell me, did YOU think obama's using BLACK PANTHERS to guard our neighborhoods? I never read that you said that.
But Obama is talking about creating a new group. I'd have thought he'd use the National Guard, which is trained for that..and I'm a tad worried that he'll disarm US, if Holder has his dream come true, and arm this new group.
a great article that shows the degenerative nature of keynesian ecomics can be found here.
an excerpt: perhaps the clearest explanation of the effects of keynesian economics can be found in the writings of keynes' contemporary and socialist comrade john strachey. strachey stated that keynesian economics was "...an indispensable step in the right direction. The fact that the loss of objectivity, and the intrinsic value of the currency which is involved (i.e., inflation) will sooner or later make necessary, on pain of ever- increasing dislocation, a growing degree of social control... for the partial character of the policy will itself lead on to further measures. The very fact that no stability, no permanently workable solution can be found within the limits of this policy will ensure that once a community has been driven by events to tackle its problems, in this way, it cannot halt at the first stage, but must of necessity push on to more thorough going measures of re-organization."
it is important to realize that keynesian economic theory is nothing more than socialism-lite. additionally, we have been in the throws of keynesian policies, with centralized control over the u.s. economy a fact of life, at least since the fdr and his new deal.
today, in compliance with keynesian economic theory (see general theory v.24.ii), there is virtually NO small ownership left to compete with the large corporations. ownership of the large corporations is comprised of less than 1% of the u.s. population. then when the financial meltdown began, rather than doing as lincoln did with the homesteading act of 1862, and using the crisis as a means to open up capital ownership to ordinary people, the federal government is instead feverishlly working to install and maintain central planning and controls over our economy as a whole. it started with absolute control over money and credit, but is now branching into other areas of industry (can you say automakers? i knew you could).
in direct opposition to the findings put forth by dr. harold moulton, the formation of capital, keynes wrote that the state should control the "rate of interest" (i.e. the return to capital), the rate of investment, and "state" cooperation with industry - not to mention the total [gradual] elimination of small ownership from the economy. in an attempt disabuse people of the idea that the level of State control he advocated was socialist, keynes calmed the masses' fears first by writing in as obscure a manner as possible, then stating,
"In some other respects the foregoing theory is moderately conservative in its implications. For whilst it indicates the vital importance of establishing certain central controls in matters which are now left in the main to individual initiative, there are wide fields of activity which are unaffected. [notice that keynes doesn't list the "wide fields of activity" left to individual initiative.] The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation [i.e., manipulating the tax rate to increase or decrease disposable income as it determines to be best], partly by fixing the rate of interest [i.e., by fixing the rate of return to capital], and partly, perhaps in other ways [notice there is again no specifity]. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. [i.e., control of the banks will most likely not exercise adequate control over new capital formation] I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. [in other words, state control over who can invest and how much — which in communism is called "central planning" — will not preclude the imposition of other controls by the state, as seems expedient.] But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. [of course not — controlling who may own and how they may enjoy how much of the fruits of ownership is to exercise absolute control over the economy and the lives of individual citizens!] It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. [in all codes of law that i am aware of, ownership IS control; keynes is saying that it isn't necessary to take actual title for the state to own everything.] If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. [i.e., if the state can exercise absolute control over everything, it will have achieved its goal.] Moreover, the necessary measures of socialization can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society. (General Theory, V.24.iii)"
bracketed entries are mine. if you actually read for context it's nothing more than a blueprint for getting people to accept socialism. the general traditions of the u.s. society involving the natural law rights to life, liberty, property, as well as the capacity to acquire and develop virtue.
calling it keynesian, ducky, does not detract from the fact that it IS socialism.
Z, please don't expect Ducky to make sense. It's not ever going to happen! I doubt he's going to apologize for insulting you, either.
Our grandchildren and possibly our great-grandchildren are going to be paying for Obama's stupidity, or arrogance, whatever! It's enough to drive a person to drink, but I haven't succumbed yet.
On Karl Marx's work, Keynes wrote in 1931, "How can I accept the [Communist] doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values."
well said, gayle.
Ducky, for goodness sake, read the comments and see why many feel that Keynes is too socialist for them.
That Keynes seems to deplore Communism as much as Marxists deplore him says nothing.
Did you even bother to read Heidianne's comments?
I don't care WHAT moniker you put on Keynes or Socialism or Capitalism or Communism, most of us realize that taking from the rich to help poor who won't work isn't the way to go. All of us feel that helping the deserving around our community is a GOOD thing, so don't even try that one ... To teach children that success isn't a good thing is plain WRONG for ANY healthy society. To insult a plumber for asking question is just plain WRONG.
I'm Heidianne's crazy uncle, Old_Curmudgeon. I am a laissez-faire capitalist; however,I'm not rich. I just believe in and practice individualism and freedom, American style.
I am among the good company of all members of the Austrian School of Economics, the "Dean" of which, was Ludwig von Mises.
"Austrians" are the ultimate in free-market advocates.
Put bluntly and succinctly,
Socialism is NOT what almost every dictionary in the English-speaking world says it is: "Government ownership and control of the means of production."
It ain't that simple.
Socialism is actually ANY degree or form of governmental intervention into an economy that is not in punishment of fraud, misrepresentation, theft, and violent physical aggression.
Politicians have been extremely clever and creative in coming up with new and different names for their socialist policies.
Collectivism actually describes them all, but they have also called it communism, socialism, syndicalism, fascism, National Sozialismus (Nazism), anarchism, monarchism, oligarchy, "mixed economy," compassionate conservatism, New Dealism, New Frontierism, New Societyism,liberalism, progressivism, Keynesianism, Hooverism, Trumanism, Clintonism --- you name it.
If it isn't laissez-faire capitalism, IT IS A FORM, A VARIANT OF SOCIALISM! They ALL have the same basic goal, collective control of all individual citizens.
If you read several of the publications on The Ludwig von Mises Institute web site
[URL: http://mises.org/]
you will get a very thorough understanding of what socialism is and what it is not.
Ludwig von Mises goes into this very thorougkly in a a thin, little book he wrote entitled: "Planned Chaos." For those who have not read it, it is available for free download at
URL: http://mises.org/books/plannedchaos.pdf
Basically, Mises proves that even "just a little bit" of government intervention gradually ends up with full-fledged collectivism/socialism/fascism/etc.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the direct opposite of socialism.
[Laissez-faire (from the French,) means approximately "leave us alone."]
Laiseez-faire capitalism is a politico-economic system in which the government has no role whatsoever other than to punish proven fraud, misrepresentation, theft, and violent physical aggression.
As far as Lord Keynes goes, I thought everyone knew that he was a thoroughgoing collectivist/socialist.
What else could he be with his advocacy of such horrendous intervention into the economy?
Where does he get the money he plans to spend? Out of thin air? If he gets it out of thin air, then it ain't money. It is a money-substitute called fiat currency, which in the long run is worthless.
[That's a little play on Keynes's retort to those who objected to the horrendous price-rises and degradation of the purchasing power under his planned inflation.
When objectors said that inflation would ruin the economy with runaway price-increases, he said essentially: "Who cares; in the long run, we are all dead!"]
Read Ludwig von Mises and all his economic "descendants." Get the truth about economics, laissez-faire capitalism, the ONLY politico-economic system that is based entirely upon individual freedom and private property rights.
Ducky has a rare affliction commonly known as crap for brains. He fervently believes, along with most democrats in Congress, that the average person is much too stupid to organize his or her own personal or financial affairs—the government must do this for him. He thinks, for example, that charity must fall within the purview of government, rather than within the hearts of concerned citizens. He believes that labor unions protect the rights of American workers, and oblivious to the deleterious impact of these organizations on quality and competitive pricing of goods and services, and the ultimate destruction of American productivity.
I keep explaining this out of a belief that socialists may wish to learn. At no time do they serve the genuine interests of the people; it primarily serves the interests of a totalitarian state and politicians who enrich themselves by fooling people into believing otherwise. In the socialist mindset, government must prevent people from achieving a higher standard of living because if they can accomplish that, socialists perpetuate the myth of their own value to society. If there is one lesson that socialists do not want the people to learn, it is that the state is the single worst blight upon human kind throughout recorded history.
I keep reminding people that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit government; but this isn’t the agenda of socialists like Ducky, or those dens of thieves we collectively call Congress. And the simple truth is that were it not for these politicians, who devote themselves to the creation and maintenance of an unwieldy state, they would turn to crimes for which they are not immune from prosecution. If there is to be any hard analysis, the only rational conclusion is that socialism doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. None.
And now to my friends who ever expect common sense from Ducky—don’t hold your breath.
Old Curmudgeon, thank you so much for coming by and giving us such good information (Now I know where your Heidianne gets HER big brains!)
You said this: "Basically, Mises proves that even "just a little bit" of government intervention gradually ends up with full-fledged collectivism/socialism/fascism/etc."
That resonates with most of us, very strongly. It taught me a lot as I was writing to Ducky, to tell you the truth; suddenly, the realization that what we CALL these things (Socialism, marxism, communism) isn't as important as recognizing that socialism doesn't start without 'creeping' socialism..and that that should worry us all. If Keynes didn't promote that, I didn't learn correctly about Keynes. Sounds like you agree.
QUESTION FOR YOU: We've had about two generations of American taught that it's better to go to the government than to do for yourself; that the illegals need help and have American rights; that we're wicked for feeling everyone should work for his living; that government's better to go to than Faith-Based groups AND we've pretty much created a world where that might pretty well be the truth, considering that the economy's slump is impacting all of us who WOULD help if WE had (including our churches) anything left.
Do you think that we can get back to the American who would do anything he could to avoid going to the government, like my relatives and, probably, most of those who read this blog??
is it possible, or does the Ducky mentality prevail so much that we have to face a very different America?
Again, thanks so much for coming by.
z
MUSTANG, thanks for that.
I believe everything you say is true.
It's as if something broke in America forty years or so ago; that, very suddenly, we have a person now more invested in entitlements than his own portfolio!
CAN we change this? And think of what we have going against us these days: a mindset of so many Americans who feel illegals deserve to be here and live off of us. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? And how do we cure that?
Was it WE who promoted this kind of thinking when we didn't nip embracing illegals in the bud? And, did our supposedly needing farm workers, etc., promote this kind of behavior? Was it only when OUR INDOCTRINATED STUDENTS started thinking less of this country that illegals started taking advantage, too?..slipping through the cracks of our own liberal-provoked weaknesses and turning the tables on us??
The feds will be after me for this:
Blow up the whole system and start over I say.
There are some people in some states talking secession I hear.
Hmmm...
BEDIG
Absolutely right indeed!!
BEDIG, and imagine the SHOCK the Left would have if they read that?
The British press is already trying to humiliate Glenn Beck viewers who are manning together to fight what's going on as "Right wing groups around the country.." They follow Alinsky Rules, too.
They'll scream and whine and cry and demean because they don't LIKE IT!!
"everybody MUST agree with us!! Everybody MUST follow THE ONE!"
Rubbish. We DO not. and we WILL not!!!
Screaming Conservative...thanks for coming by! Glad you enjoyed the exchange.
"THEY are optimistic NOW because they've got their wish, they have their packages, their earmark paybacks, robbing the successful and promoting Socialism."
Nailed it Z.
"Pris, the thread is about economics not your paranoia that Obama is going to deputize Black Panthers to patrol your neighborhood."
Ducky, first of all, you brought up the Black Panthers not me, do you know something we don't know?
"Once again I ask what Keynesian spending has to do with socialism."
This was your question. If spending money on a National Civilian Security Force isn't spending on a classic socialist agenda, what is it?
Frankly the kind of spending it is doesn't matter. It's paying for a socialist agenda. It's a dumb question you ask.
Furthermore, nowhere in Z's piece is Keynesian spending mentioned.
And no, it isn't merely about economics, you asked about socialism.
So, ignoring your usual bait and switch tactic, I'll ask again.......
Ducky, what does Keynesian spending have to do with Obama's call for a National Civilian Security Force, as fully funded and powerful as our military?
I'd appreciate an answer, and an explanation of what exactly that is? And what is it for?
Well, Ducky? I can hear you clucking again, you cowardly little fowl.
Pris
Just a follow-up about Lord Keynes.
He was most active in the early 1900s and came into prominence around 1920.
FDRoosevelt adopted Keynes's policy as the official policy of the US government after he became president in 1933.
Every president since then has gone along with it.
First, some definitions and blunt statements.
We need to define:
"currency,"
"medium-of-exchange,"
"money,"
"money-substitutes,"
"inflation,"
"fiat-currency,"
"convertible,"
"redeemable,"
"unbacked,"
1. Currency is the name given to the medium or media (plural) of exchange that circulate in commerce in a given society.
2. Medium-of-exchange is anything that is used as an intermediate trading-step in commerce rather than "direct exchange" as with barter.
2. Money is first and foremost a COMMODITY that has valuable uses in addition to its most valuable use as a medium of exchange in commerce. Gold and silver both have valuable uses as ornamentation, jewelry, and many varied industrial uses.
2. Since about 1000 AD the word "money" has meant a SPECIFIED WEIGHT of a precious metal commodity --- WORLDWIDE!
3. Silver and gold have gradually been established as the two commodity-monies of choice by universal-acceptance by everyone in the marketplaces of the world over a period of thousands of years.
4. HENCEFORTH, MY DEFINITION OF MONEY IS: A specified weight of the precious metals silver or gold. ANY AND ALL OTHER items used as currency are termed "money-substitutes."
5. Currency is defined as either money or money-substitutes or both that are in general circulation in the commerce of a society.
6. A common money-substitute used for small transactions is base-metal (copper, zinc, pot-metal, etc.) coins.
7. Paper-currency (in the USA, FRNs -- Federal Reserve Notes -- Promissory Notes)is a money-substitute, NOT MONEY!
8. Gold and silver coins (money) can be used as currency, but every type of currency is not necessarily money. Only gold and silver coin or bullion is money.
9. Fiat-currency (usually paper-currency) is used in commerce ONLY because government (by means of "legal-tender" statutes) has mandated that citizens must accept such currency in commerce "or else!" [Fiat is pronounced FYE-att. FEE-otts are Italian autos.]
10. Fiat-currency that can be exchanged for gold or silver coin at "face-value" is said to be "convertible or redeemable."
11. Fiat-currency that is NOT convertible or redeemable at "face-value" is said to be "unbacked" by gold or silver.
12. Inflation is the process of the government's issuance of fiat-currency that is "unbacked" (not convertible or redeemable in gold of silver.)
13. Inflation is NOT the rise in the general price-level that is the INEVITABLE RESULT of inflation.
14. MOST IMPORTANT: Money is the medium-of-exchange that has been chosen by all the people and traders in a free market; therefore, MONEY IS WHATEVER THE FREE MARKET SAYS IT IS!
15. Money is NOT "whatever government says it is." CURRENCY is whatever government says it is.
Even so-called "free-market advocates" such as Milton Friedman advocated Keynesianism.
Neither Friedman nor any other Keynesian actually believes in a free market for money. Keynes advocated a steady, controlled, increase in the currency of an economy so "there would be enough liquidity so as not to impede commerce."
Those who do not believe in a free-market in money are therefore collectivist to a degree. Even the vaunted Milton Freidman therefore, was collectivist (to a significant degree.) Having studied a number of his "positions," I find him to be collectivist on more than just the "money-issue."
Friedman advocated a steady inflation rate of 3% to 5% per annum.
If you examine the purchasing power of the U$Dollar between the years of 1933 and 2009, you will find that today (2009) purchasing power is 1/40th (0.025) of the purchasing power in 1933 when the U$Dollar could have been exchanged for 1/20th ounce of gold.
Today the U$Dollar is worth only about 1/900th ounce of gold.
Gold has maintained its purchasing power. The USDollar has not.
This is the DIRECT RESULT of the collectivist/socialist Keynesian policy of government-controlled inflation (degradation) of the USDollar.
*******************************
Call it Keynesian , call it socialism, I do not care, it is just baby stepping us down the road to something we are not supposed to be.
It means taking more of the money I earn, intruding into my life.
Mother may I...over every little aspect of my exisitence.
Playing word games to feel superior, well, whoop dee doo.
Wrong is wrong.
Ok, I will settle this..just call it Baby Social Kenynesian .
It does not work out in the end.
I think the whole stimuless thing was a con to rape the treasury and pay off everyone who helped old Obama into office.
WVDOTTR
Z -- Thanks for your response.
If you have read Albert J Nock, then you may have heard of "The Remnant."
If you haven't, then I commend to you the following story by Nock, entitled "Isaiah's Job."
URL: http://mises.org/story/2892
And for a short biography of Nock, I commend to you the following:
URL: http://mises.org/pdf/whois/nock.pdf
Nock was a true radical. He was not content with conserving the status quo. He wanted to go back to the principles of early America.
That, too, is my goal: to live by PRINCIPLES that are fair, honest, and good for me, my family, and my fellow like-minded man.
We should not waste time trying to "move the masses." I think we must educate those who want education in the life of a free person.
Laissez-faire capitalism is NOT just about economics. It concerns itself with ALL the actions of a free and independent individual and his society. We freedom-lovers must learn that laissez-faire capitalism is NOT a four-letter word, but the ultimate goal of a free society, even though it's hard to shake-off the stereotypes that have surrounded us all our lives.
Old_Curmudeon
You know where I live we have; city police, county police, state troopers, county marshalls, and sheriff's dept.
Why in all that is Holy do we need a National Civil Security Force? We even have the National Guard and on top of that I have my PitBulls.
I think we're pretty covered down here in Atlanta, anybody beg to differ with me? I'll introduce you to Scheeba and Bishop.
Blessings.
OC,
What a breath of fresh air you are. My economics professor would take issue with you concerning the pronunciation of fiat, but that is small stuff.
I would like to read what you have to say about communism v. socialism. I think most get the two mixed up. Socialism is communism to an extent, without the class warfare. Socialism, I think is more of an economic system while communism is more of a economic/governing system. Communism is a system whereby the government controls all aspects of the lives of its people. Socialism controls the economic lives of it people, medical care, etc. Of course, most of us would say that if you control economics you control people's lives, but that is an argument for another day.
I don't think the government controlling almost any part of people's lives is a good thing. Collectivism to any extent is asking for problems. I would think that spreading government power as thinly as possible is what you would strive to achieve.
When you concentrate power in too few hands you are asking for trouble. That is why the basic structure of republicanism is sound. The execution of it is problematical. But isn't that as it should be? Please continue to post, OC. You are great to read.
As for Keynes, deficit spending is tough to justify. I had a great problem with Bush about this. When you deficit spend which by the way, FDR mainstreamed, you put the government, or whoever is forced to pay the bill, in an untenable position. Spending money or wealth you don't have is not a place you want to be.
I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul, but the gold standard doesn't look too bad from here. What's wrong with having wealth to back your notes? I try to spend within my means. Don't you?
Law&OrderTeacher:
First, tell your professor to look it (fiat) up. Americans say FYE-att. Those who are pronouncing in Latin (and Italian) say FEE-ott. Take your choice.
I've never seen much difference between communism and socialism. Both are variants of the generic collectivism. The word "Communism" was first widely-used by the Bolshevik Russians in 1917.
I think any distinction is small. The most recent examples in history began around 1900, just prior to the Russian revolution (1917.)
They called themselves Socialists and the name of their party was the Social Democratic Party. Their goal was to overthrow the Czar and "power to the people!"
Even within this party, there were two major factions, (1) the minority faction, the Mensheviks, wanted sort of a "peaceful" revolution with only a "moderate, reasonable" amount of bloodshed, and (2) the majority faction, the Bolsheviks, had absolutely no qualms about extreme violence.
Alexander Kerensky, the Menshevik leader became Prime Minister of Russia after the fall of the Czar; he lasted only a few months until the Bosheviks, led by Lenin, overthrew the Kerensky government and renamed the party the Communist Party. Kerensky was later murdered here in the USA after he was driven into exile.
They called their country the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republic.) NOTICE: they think of themselves as socialists.
So, if there is a difference, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion)it is only in the communists' embrace of ruthless, terrible physical violence.
I think the rest of your questions and statements can be answered clearly and completely if you will only read the little booklet, "Planned Chaos" by Ludwig von Mises.
It is available for free download at
URL: http://mises.org/books/plannedchaos.pdf
Please read it. It will answer many, many questions and give you MANY things to think about.
Old_Curmudgeon
As a South Carolinian I can tell you that Mr. Sanford elicits mixed emotions from his constituents. Locally, he intervened in a project involving Clemson University, BMW and a private investor that resulted in the expulsion of the private investor and a loss of an excellent opportunity to create jobs in the Upstate region of the state. The project, an automotive research complex, is up and running, but without some components that would have probably attracted another auto maker (non union) to SC.
On the national level, Mr Sanford is correct in his assessment that accepting the stimulus bucks will likely result in the state being stuck with expanded entitlements once the money is used up. A hallmark of liberalism.
Personally, I don't think Governor Sanford is presidential material; however, he's at least as qualified as the Marxist clown currently occupying the oval office.
Ducky: I see your comments in various places, and you are surely a broken record that should be trashed. As Iv'e encouraged you before, start your own blog and defend your idiocy there instead on littering this (and other) sites with your pitiful defense of the indefensible. Peace out homey.
You people have to stop being so hard on Ducky. It's not his fault he lives in Taxachusetts. He only has people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Duval Patrick as role models. Please cut him some slack.
Average American
Is Ducky stoned? He has all the "earmarks" so I guess he's a Scamocrap.
Everything you guys write seems to go sailing clear over his head with nary a ripple of recognition.
Is he conscious or just an automaton spouting out Scamocrap talking points from a random-phrase-generator. Makes as much sense.
Just ignore and he will go away. Anything he writes will serve as fodder for good laughs and derision.
Old_Curmudgeon
Hi, Old Curmudgeon, and thanks again for coming by!
Ducky's okay...he's just LOST!
His main premise, one which I'm not positive is wrong, is that we've got so far from capitalism that we might not find ourselves back there again...I think he kind of means that sometimes....
And I, too, wonder how we can get Americans back to our roots?...how can we get the masses who've come here for the land of milk and honey and leach off of us, or those Americans who want the same thing (cradle to grave financial protection), from overpowering? I don't see how.
Z & Ducky:
Is THAT'S what Ducky's been trying to say: "That we've gotten so far from capitalism that we might not be able to get back." ? ? ? What's all that crap about Keynesian spending? ? ? I DON'T GET IT.
I DO agree that we've gotten a very long way from capitalism. I DO NOT think we can never get back.
I have written that collectivism is a generic term that includes not only socialism, but also fascism.
Socialism is collectivism and fascism is collectivism. There is, however, a technical difference.
Under complete socialism, there really is no such concept as private property.
Under a totalitarian socialist system, the state (government) owns absolutely EVERYTHING.
You don't even own you own body and soul.
This was the case under "Communism" --- the Bolshevik brand of totalitarian socialism in Russia.
Other, non-totalitarian socialist regimes allow private ownership of trivial items such as clothing, furniture, toothbrush, comb, etc.
The depth of the degree of socialism is measured by the types and amounts of private property that is allowed.
Real estate -- land and improvements -- are usually the last thing socialists want you to own. But tools, furniture, bicycles, pets, domesticated animals, maybe cars and trucks --- but not too large now!
The fascists, however, are a little smarter. They permit "private ownership" of all kinds of property.
Individuals "hold title" to land, factories, businesses, machinery, tools, vehicles, aircraft, all sorts of things under fascism.
But the "kicker" is they tell you exactly what you can do with "your" property.
You may make certain decisions so long as you get their prior approval.
You can make a profit, but only what they allow you to make and keep.
You can set prices for your labor and products, but only with approval of the state.
Fascists have also been accused of being brutal and racist.
The Fascist Hitler killed 6 million (I think it was) Jews.
The Socialists ("communists") Lenin and Stalin killed 60 million of those they considered THEIR OWN PEOPLE according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn -- author of "The Gulag Archipelago."
It seems to me that 60 million is 10 times greater than 6 million. Ask yourself, "Who is more brutal? Or does it really make any difference?"
The USA IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) is drifting closer and closer to full-fledged fascism.
With each new regulation and control that the state -- federal, state, county, municipality -- mandates, you lose another "slice" of your private-property ownership.
For example, SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) handed down the Kelo versus New London CT decision that allows local governments to condemn one person's property and transfer it to another person who promises to bring in more tax revenue to the county-government coffers. Does that not fit the definition of fascism above?
State and county governments have been imposing planning and zoning ordinances on real-estate owners for years.
These regulations are becoming ever more sophisticated. Property owners must pay large fees, hire expensive engineers and attorneys, endure long procedural delays, endless public hearings, and many times public humiliation in order to get approval to use their own property.
The "collective" must approve before you can do anything. Does that not fit the definition of fascism above?
Berkeley County WV, where I live, just passed an "Excessive Noise" Ordinance. It sets a day-time noise level upper limit of 60deciBels. The night-time limit is 50dB.
Little do they care that normal conversational speech clocks-in at around 70 dB. In fact, your refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, and TV could all be under arrest. You may "own" it, but WE tell you how to use it! Fascism.
The solution?
Education and exposure of fascist foolishness. Stand up and be counted.
Speak out and make fools of the petty tyrants.
Get mad as hell and refuse to take it anymore!
Old_Curmudgeon
Old Curmodgeon, you said "Berkeley County WV, where I live, just passed an "Excessive Noise" Ordinance. It sets a day-time noise level upper limit of 60deciBels. The night-time limit is 50dB."
In better days, who would EVER think of blasting music at night?
Today, there's a car stopped at a red light next to you BLARING Rock music and if you dare look at them like "could you just lower the music?" you get the 1 finger salute or they scream at you.
It's a silly analogy, probably, but you see my point? People have changed SO drastically that I am not sure we can get to kindness and politeness again. And, in a strange way, I see this reflected on the following subject, too:
Maybe we can get to less greed in corporations, but CAN WE REALLY? (is this why the administration feels we need to legislate that, too!? They're even calling for setting a cap on corporate salaries now!! HA!).......
Capitalism can't work without people on the top at least caring about the people below, right? I don't think so! This is what happened to terribly threaten capitalism TODAY!
Old Curmudgeon, I'm having a conversation thru emails tonight with a friend and we're questioning if the Fall's economic disaster was 'planned' or precipitated by some powers that be.....are you much on that kind of conspiracy theory stuff? Haven't you thought "Things SURE moved fast here!"
Your information here is SO good to read.........
I keep thinking "Wait, the Left always calls conservatives FASCIST and kids in universities BELIEVE this! Don't they READ, don't they KNOW the definitions!?"
it never ceases to amaze me.
Also, I"m not sure I represented Ducky well.
And, I'm not sure he WANTS to get back to capitalism..he seems to disdain it.
To Z or not to Z:
You have posed some excellent questions. It may take a rather lengthy reply in order to make a couple of convoluted points.
Human society is so extremely complex and EVERYTHING in the universe seems somehow to be connected. There are so many factors and elements to be considered that no one can know everything or even approach universal knowledge.
I forget who made the analogy, but someone once said that
Knowledge is similar to a woodsman chopping away in the center of a vast, "endless" forest. The more he chops, the larger grows the circle (of knowledge); but the more he chops, the more the trees (of knowledge) are exposed to be chopped. Can he ever make it to the end?
FIRST: Conspiracy Theories: In my callow youth, I believed in conspiracy theories. They seemed so "plausible" and "explained" so much.
Now that I have lots more exposure to the world and experience living in it, I think that lots of things happen coincidentally and they just seem like they could be conspiracies.
I firmly believe that conspiracies are unnecessary in order to explain how "highly-coincidental" things happen..
According to estimates, there are about 6,700,000,000 (6.7 billion) people in the world. Maybe half are mature enough to think for themselves; that is 3,350,000,000 (3.35 billion.)
Who knows how many are actually consciously engaged in life and not running around in a stupid frenzy?
Those who are running around in a stupid frenzy most likely deserve the appellation, "sheeple."
Just off the top of my head, I say about one-tenth of one percent of the conscious-half are "with it" enough to make a difference in the world; that is 3,350,000 (3.35 million) --- fifty-thousandths of one percent of the total world's population (0.00050) --- 500 parts in a million.
That's still a whole lot of "movers and shakers" spread all over the world.
Because of the explosion in communications over the last half-century, more people know more things, more quickly than anyone could have possibly imagined a century ago.
Communications includes not only telephone, radio, facsimile, television, digital cameras and telephones, internet, satellite, laser, radar, but also newspapers, magazines, roads, autos, aircraft, fast ships, fast rail, etc. There are now many ways of getting information, goods, and people from here to there in very short time-periods.
[NOTE: Just to rub it in, all these advances took place solely because of entrepreneurial capitalism even though it was severely hampered, not because of Social Democratic collectivism --- that did the hampering.]
As a consequence, more people know more and more about what is going on in the world than ever before.
With the internet's ability to spread images and text world-wide in mere seconds, it's almost impossible to keep anything secret.
SECOND: I am firmly convinced that there may be such things as "collectivist genes" and "individualist genes." In my observations of people and their behaviors, it seems that a majority have a tendency toward collectivism and a minority have a tendency toward individualism.
Although genes do not control human behavior in a "hard-wired" manner such as with the lower animals, they do theoretically exert strong influences on the way people act.
However, thinking people can recognize the consequences of their actions and self-direct to counteract strong "urges" if they so desire. [It's called "free will."]
THIRD: It seems to me that there is a pervading influence in the world toward collectivism.
EurAfrikAsia (the rest of the world) has been collectivist since the first "Alpha-male" caveman-leader clubbed the others into submission.
America was the first society to break almost completely out of the ancient and longstanding pattern when they declared Independence in 1776.
Early Greek and Roman thinkers gradually introduced some of the ideas of individual freedom onto the scene, but as they say: Might Makes Right.
The overwhelming predominance of collectivism seems to be the "natural" condition of societies in general.
FOURTH: I think it is self-evident that our "Eastern Establishment Institutions of Higher Learning" are staffed with faculties that are EurAfrikAsian-philes.
They are "in love " with the collectivist cultures of the rest of the world and they deplore the "red in claw and tooth, survival-of-the-fittest" capitalist turmoil of the US of A.
They advocate and have foisted upon our youth (and their parents who bankroll them) the collectivist ideas of EurAfrikAsianism.
Their vision is a "mixture" of the "best from capitalism" with the "best from socialism" in order to achieve "the best of all possible worlds" with the compassion and "level playing fields" that are absent from laissez-faire capitalism.
FIFTH: The faculties of almost all the other colleges and universities in America are filled with the products of the Eastern Establishment universities.
Almost all the graduates have the same collectivist ideas in their heads. Almost all seem to think the same thoughts in the same way.
I suggest, however, that there is no conspiracy. There is just a bunch of like-minded, non-thinkers who can't make good observations and draw rational conclusions on their own.
They have been taught that capitalism, competition, entrepreneurism, free markets, individualism, private property, self-governance, and self-responsibility are concepts that are brutal, disrupting, stressful, uncaring, unfair, and aimed only at that "four-letter word" profit.
AND THEY BELIEVE IT! NO SKEPTICISM!
SIXTH: Albert Einstein, an "Eastern Establishment" academic spent the last 23 years of his life at Princeton University. He is reputed to have said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. But even so, he was a thoroughgoing socialist.
I wonder why collectivists don't recognize that the entire world has been immersed in collectivism for its entire history, with only a little bit of capitalism that has been allowed to flourish from time to time! Even Einstein didn't get it!
I have a copy of his little booklet entitled "Why Socialism?" It was first published as the lead article in the first issue (1949) of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review.
In it, he cites the source of all the world's problems as capitalism, private property, and profit. He thought these things caused all the wars and misery in the world.
Monthly Review is still available free, on-line as MRzine at URL: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/]
If you hurry, you can catch one of Jon Stewart's video rants in this months issue.
SEVENTH: Americans made huge strides forward toward freedom with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But the "Founding Fathers" did not completely throw-off some of the main ideas of collectivism, vestiges from the days of monarchies and tyrants.
They valiantly tried to limit the powers of the United States (federal government) with the concept of "enumerated powers" in the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
It worked for a while; however, they failed to anticipate the maneuvering of creative, greedy, power-lusting, self-aggrandizing, skillful, sneaky lawyers, politicians (most of whom were lawyers), and judges who gravitate to government "service."
EIGHTH: The Tenth Amendment sort of gives the states carte blanche with the words "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I guess most people would read this and conclude that the States were considered to be "sovereign" with all sorts of imaginable powers. Only those "enumerated powers" were denied to the States in addition to specific prohibitions such as making ". . . any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . ."
Unfortunately, almost everyone has interpreted these words as meaning the States can enact statutes that compel or prohibit almost any conceivable human action.
It seems that there is nothing to prohibit States from intervening totally in the private and business affairs of the citizenry. This is the source of the creeping fascism that has sneaked up on us today.
Sadly, two-and-a-quarter centuries later we have ample confirmation that no government in the long history of the world has ever been "limited" by words on paper. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance of the government.
NINTH: Can the present state of affairs be reversed?
Certainly, but only by massive education efforts, mainly by quietly and unobtrusively setting examples of high moral character, impeccable, straight-forward integrity, honesty, and probity in all relations with others. Leading by example!
*************************************************************************
i wonder if environment of home life factors in more than genes, though. as you well know, oc, we (those in my generation of the family) grew up surrounded by people who make up that 0.00050 of the population you mentioned. we had personal accountability and responsibility drilled into us from the time we were old enough to breathe.
we were taught to honor our family and respect the flag and all who protected us even before we could possibly understand. we were taught that collectivism is bad and that we should strive to stand apart from the crowd.
and look, the largest part of those in my generation of the family (as well as most of the next generation) have chosen the path of the individual. this seems to defy the odds, or is it that those who come from collectivist families - even only marginal collectivist families - are that much more unlikely to stray from those proclivities?
oh, and z, i disagree that any help is needed from the government because of greedy corporations or inconsiderate people on the planet.
placing a law on the books for "noise control" doesn't actually control the noise. and it certainly doesn't make people more considerate. it merely places a more expensive burdon on the taxpayers for things that can only be regulated AFTER the fact. well unless you're going to start legislating radios that don't go above the noise limits or forcing people to wear somethign to limit the dbs of their voice, etc., etc., etc.
if the car next to you is too loud, and they give you the one finger salute when you ask them to turn it down, just rest happy in knowing that what goes around comes around. it does, always.
in the old days, if a corporation were too greedy they went out of business due to competition. now it's somehow the governments responsibility to make them into a "nice" corporation? huh? seems like all that's happening at that point is the goverment is helping businesses to stay afloat that would be better off (for society and the economy) to go out of business.
ties into the whole bailout mentality. if we had not authorized the tarp funds and those banks had gotten no "public funds" what would have happened? pain - but fast pain like ripping a bandage off. those banks would have closed down and tomorrow new, more efficient banks would have opened.
the way the idiots in congress and our wh have chosen to go at it, we'll still have that pain that we would have initially felt. and then some. we have reached the point of titration and none, but possibily that 0.00050 of the population see that the only way to de-saturate is to get back to the basics of the constitution. WITHOUT all the phoney-baloney stuff we've been being saddled with for years...
Old Curmudgeon, thanks VERY much for this comment...great things to ponder.
YOu said this at the end:
"Certainly, but only by massive education efforts, mainly by quietly and unobtrusively setting examples of high moral character, impeccable, straight-forward integrity, honesty, and probity in all relations with others. Leading by example!"
Well said, very encouraging! But, how much of a factor do you think FAITH is in this kind of 'high moral character, etc ..' and do you see how America's media is so subtly and ably chipping away at people of faith? (one minister's indiscretion is carried on the news for days, there are constant subtle swipes in films and television, people who don't celebrate gay marriages are supposedly homophobes, pro life seems now to be an unkind, nasty 'overly religious' choice only made by 'Christian right wingers' who don't think of the mother...etc etc........) You know what I mean.
Any discussion of, let alone implementation of, 'massive education efforts' are thwarted by a media and a new administration who only see the virtues you describe above in the Leftist "progressive"....only by pushing people, through what the left thinks is KINDNESS and GIVING, into a belief that America OWES us a living, a car, healthcare, etc...that's MORAL and CONSCIENTIOUS in their minds, you know that.
So, what then? I want to somehow figure out how the media can get back to HONESTY and not disrespecting the feelings of half of America...That's the only way, I think! But, HOW?
Did I say this?
"oh, and z, i disagree that any help is needed from the government because of greedy corporations or inconsiderate people on the planet."
I only bemoan that people aren't considerate, not taught this at home anymore, that's what I meant. NO, I do NOT think laws are good for that! It's sad some communities DO NEED them. Because, trust me, they do, sadly. I don't THINK they should..
And yes, it has to start AT HOME...but, with the people in America educated like OC correctly points out, HOW? Our profs are taught to teach their convictions, not the truth! I never KNEW my profs' opinions, not really! NEVER.....They taught us to THINK, to WANT THE TRUTH!
I remember when ESPECIALLY the journalism kids were taught to be OBJECTIVE, above ALL!...to JUST DELIVER THE NEWS, the WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE AND WHY, not THEIR opinion. If it was an opinion, it was on the editorial pages..today, it's on the first pages and they even blow state secrets at large papers these days! ANYTHING to suit THEIR AGENDA, to back THEIR FEELINGS, THEIR STORY
oy!!
sorry, z, that was my take on your comment; however, in re-reading it i see i was wearing my feelings on my sleeve. i still disagree that ANY community needs that - they may want it thinking ti pre-empts issues, but they certainly don't NEED it...
as for the education, it's going to have to come from the home until the movement is large enough to overflow into the mainstream. we have to stop trying to "support the new president because he's our president" and start challenging them every step of the way.
rush gets this. glen beck gets this. michael steele - and the rest of the leaders - of the gop does not get this.
You're right, Heidianne...most of the gop who can DO anything is more concerned about their political positioning.....too afraid to STAND UP for the American people.
You're right..and so is your uncle, OC.....we have to teach them at HOME so they schooling is challenged by our kids. I know my sister's kids have challenged their lib profs when they could..and I KNOW other kids do, but not in big enough questions...the Ivory Tower is there and in action; indoctrinating AMerica out of our kids. BUt, if the kids go to school ARMED by their folks, maybe we have a chance!?
WE've got to get to the PARENTS and I think this is what Glenn Beck's planning....I hope it works! XX
Z & HEIDIANNE:
To yield to the temptation of "reaching the masses" is futility of the highest order.
Albert J Nock is a man worth emulating and learning from.
Please read "Isaiah's Job" and then read Nock's short biography.
URL: http://mises.org/story/2892
And for a short biography of Nock, I commend to you the following:
URL: http://mises.org/pdf/whois/nock.pdf
I think it will give you insight into what I think is the correct way to "save the country."
It'll take forever, but the journey is worth it.
Old_Curmudgeon
Thank you, OC..I just printed these both out and will look forward to studying them..thanks!
WINDY in here, isn't it?
WHEW!
Post a Comment