The failures of socialism

[choff]

Yes, you could tax away the holdings of the uber-rich, but unless you fix the system you allow for a repitition of the same situation within a few years time. The important thing is who controls the currency, it's creation, cost of borrowing, who has access to credit, and quantity. Why should this be in the hands of a secretive handfull of private individuals instead of the democratically elected government.

Private central bankers study Hegel in university, that's why they created socialism/communism in the first place, that's why they have people like Ron Paul push the gold standard. There is no left or right, only the corporate agenda, they create the opposition to control it.

[Schneibster]

Yes, you could tax away the holdings of the uber-rich, but unless you fix the system you allow for a repitition of the same situation within a few years time. The important thing is who controls the currency, it's creation, cost of borrowing, who has access to credit, and quantity. Why should this be in the hands of a secretive handfull of private individuals instead of the democratically elected government.

Private central bankers study Hegel in university, that's why they created socialism/communism in the first place, that's why they have people like Ron Paul push the gold standard. There is no left or right, only the corporate agenda, they create the opposition to control it.

I don't see how you claim your system will either alleviate the current cash shortage and huge hoards, or prevent them from recurring.

[choff]

Right now with QE the Private Fed banks recieve $85 Billion per month, which they trade between themselves to the complete exclusion of everybody else in the US. They have every incentive to rack up huge debts rehypothecating derivatives with each other in order to get commissions all the while debasing the currency and endangering the system. Under the credit based system they would be completely reigned in, lending to the other 99% as intermediaries to the government.

That $85 Billion is created by the government selling bonds/treauries to the banks in the first place, then loaning it back at near zero interest and picking up the banks bad bets in return. The banks also charge the government for holding unused revenue, so they actually get that $85 Billion with negative interest. Basically, the current system is a hijacking of the government by a gang of criminals, it comes down to the equal application of the rule of law if nothing else.

[Schneibster]

Right now with QE the Private Fed banks recieve $85 Billion per month, which they trade between themselves to the complete exclusion of everybody else in the US. They have every incentive to rack up huge debts rehypothecating derivatives with each other in order to get commissions all the while debasing the currency and endangering the system. Under the credit based system they would be completely reigned in, lending to the other 99% as intermediaries to the government.

That $85 Billion is created by the government selling bonds/treauries to the banks in the first place, then loaning it back at near zero interest and picking up the banks bad bets in return. The banks also charge the government for holding unused revenue, so they actually get that $85 Billion with negative interest. Basically, the current system is a hijacking of the government by a gang of criminals, it comes down to the equal application of the rule of law if nothing else.

And the Republican Congress has blocked every attempt by the Obama administration to do something about it; Dodd-Frank is the most obvious example, but refusing to appoint Elizabeth Warren was arguably more harmful and contributed more to the state of affairs you refer to in your first paragraph.

Understand that this is not a clearcut banksters vs. gummint. The banksters have infiltrated the gummint, and in fact the gummint can't exist without bankers. But what's going on now is simple blackmail, you're correct. It can't be allowed to stand; we'll be paying for it for ten thousand years. Considering they're the ones paying to deny global warming, that's probably literal.

[Jccarlton]

And here, after all the jargon and discussion about money and values is why Socialism is always a failure:
http://www.discovery.org/a/19401
Socialism attempts to capture the mind and destroy the spirit and drive of it's subjects. I've had too much contact with former victims of the Socialist countries and seen the psychic scars left behind to not sit and let everybody talk about Socialism as an abstraction. Just ask it's victims if it is an abstraction or not.

[Schneibster]

Socialism attempts to capture the mind and destroy the spirit and drive of it's subjects.

[Schneibster]

Socialism provides equal opportunity via equal education for all.
Socialism provides a living wage and the minimal means to survive to all citizens regardless of their ability to contribute.
Socialism has nothing to do with a "command economy."
Socialism has nothing to do with Nazism.
Socialism has nothing to do with communism no matter how bad the commies wannabe socialists.
Socialism provides for the acquisition of working capital either through accumulation by the workers, or by borrowing. However, the lenders can never tell the workers what to do. They're obviously unqualitied. They don't work.
Various organizations of workers, i.e. companies, would compete for the services of particularly well-respected managers, much as sports teams do today.
Workers with special skills would also command a premium. Of especial interest would be those capable of learning new things; when a new technique becomes available, these would be the first ones sent to training, to come back and indoctrinate everyone so they know what to expect. The Japanese do stuff just like this with impressive effect, particularly in technical flexibility.
The government would subsidize training for new techniques, to ensure that the nation's manufacturing keeps up with the Joneses.
The government would provide healthcare so the companies could concentrate on making things.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The above look to me like the mentioned "Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To me it's as obvious as that.

Socialism isn't democratic; it isn't undemocratic. It's a different thing than democracy. It's not about how we choose leaders but about how we choose bankers. And we should be choosing them as carefully as we choose people in the government, not just allowing them to spring up anywhere without let or leave.

[choff]

Bankers love socialism, they love international socialism, national socialism, democratic socialism. They love this type of monopoly capitalism, irregardless of whether state monopoly or private monopoly, so long as they get to control lending to it.

They don't like independent types bucking the system, its all about concentrating control of the wealth. That's also why they setup foundations and trusts and charities and transfer all their assets into them, so long as they have interlocking control of said NGO's. They get taxed on ownership, not possesion or control, plus they're immune to hostile takeover from rivals. That's also why they have the NGO's fund enviromental causes, 45 million americans have been economically displaced by conservation regs, their property taken over by the trusts.

[Schneibster]

Money is dangerous. Particularly explosive mixtures are money and sex, money and politics, and money and safety. The last two are of most concern in political science. We don't have nearly enough laws about money. That's what went wrong in 2008. The abolition of Glass-Steagall was what really opened the floodgates. Clinton should never have signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley; I consider it one of his worst decisions. It led directly to the pillaging of the stock market in 1999 and 2000, and to the pillaging of the housing market in 2008. These were planned operations that yielded about seven trillion US dollars each.

I didn't have any money on the table in 2000; my dad got out of the stock market in July 1999 and cleared half a million. I was in the property market in 2007; not in the second half of the year though. I took my quarter million and got out and counted myself lucky to only get nicked for $50,000.00 from the top of the market.

I really feel for people who didn't have the money to get into either of these markets, or who didn't understand what was going on and lost their shirts.

[Jccarlton]

A failure of Socialism:
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/05/0 ... aper-slum/
Unfortunately not uncommon in Socialist places and most cities here in the states.

[Schneibster]

A failure of Socialism:
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/05/0 ... aper-slum/
Unfortunately not uncommon in Socialist places and most cities here in the states.

If you think there is socialism in the US you are high from huffing gasoline. Or perhaps mainlining JP-8.

Please bother to learn what "socialism" means before you use it again. You obviously have no idea.

[Schneibster]

So still waiting for these supposed "failures" of "socialism" (apparently mostly because none of you seem to have a realistic idea of what either "failure" or "socialism" actually means).

Just for example, the USSR claimed to be socialist, but never actually managed it. The closest they came was a sort of feudal communism, in the country, and totalitarian oppression in the cities, without any recognizable equality and in fact gross inequality between the "workers" and the "leaders" enforced by the Party.

China at least occasionally held purges to punish the Party members who abused their positions; the Russians never did except as one enemy getting rid of another by accusing him of corruption. (Do not imagine that women were ever permitted in the Politburo; the Chinese at least permit some women cadres, and there was a woman in the Gang of Four.) But do not confuse the Chinese with socialists; at best they are feudalists using communism and the cadres to suppress organization among the populace and revolt, which they are barely managing to keep under control as it is.

I don't see any socialism there. Denmark looks a lot more like socialism than China. When they say "socialism with Chinese characteristics" they mean "Chinese nationalism with occasional nods to socialism to prevent embarrassment and loss of face."

[Schneibster]

But so far, still, no "failures of socialism."

Places where there's real socialism, seem calm, well maintained, quiet, free from major crime, prosperous, the location of production of high-tech goods.

Places that claim to be socialist and aren't, however, are no better than the democracies: medium crime, kind of loud and obstreperous, and having trouble inventing new things as their political games drag them ever downward. India springs immediately to mind. Southern Europe as well.

Socialism looks pretty much like the US Founders had in mind; and pretty much like Jesus Christ had in mind; and pretty much like Buddha had in mind; and so forth. Capitalist places smell and are full of criminals and malcontents, and maimed people who can't afford to get fixed. You're only going to be able to deny so long. Visit nice romantic capitalist Rome and get your nice romantic capitalist throat cut. Same as San Francisco or New York.

[choff]

Keeping in mind that bankers study Hegel, this collection will give you a chuckle.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/sites/defaul ... rebels.pdf

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-cartoon.html

http://www.mygen.com/users/ufo/Mao_was_a_Yale_Man.html

[Schneibster]

In fact, the banksters studying Hegel are precisely the problem.

I just posted the death of monetarism. Why are you still quoting Hegel?