US Presidential Election 2016: Sidney's Victory Lap

Current Affairs
1724

No it isn’t. Socialism is completely unsound because it ignores human nature and motivation. Just like any animal, humans respond to incentive, remove incentive and humans become lazy, good for nothing parasites. A small example, look at the rise of obesity in western societies as they become more socialist. The socialist solution to obesity is to treat it as a disease, so provide more food stamps, free health care, free medicine, more free stuff so people can eat more crap and “feel good”. Then the state spends billions trying to keep the fat cunts alive as long as possible, so they can continue to feed at the trough.

The solution to obesity is to stop eating, talking personal repsonsibility for your own life and health, and stop behaving like a fat pig. It’s a good metaphor for the socialist mindset, fat pigs dining on the fruits of other’s labors.

Capitalism is the only economic system in the history of the human race that has given rise to economic prosperity and freedom. All western scoieties are based on capitalism. There isn’t one example of a country that has adopted socialism as it’s economic model that had a successful outcome, in fact the opposite, socialism always leads to misery and totalitarianism. The USSR and China are the best examples of socialism at work in that they actually implemented socialism as envisiged by Marx, with disasterous consequences. Socialist love to run away from tehse examples, becuse they weren’t “real” socialism, when in fact they are the best examples of socialism in action, rather than in theory. Theorizing that it could have worked out better is pie in the sky ideology, because fundamentally humans are greedy and put them in a position of power and they get more greedy. Look at Venezuela ffs, one of the most prosperous countries in South America and now an absolute shithole after Chavez and his socialist experiment.

The beauty of a free market unfettered by government medding is that it encourages innovation and hard work. Yes, there are benefits, but again humans respond to incentive. If the incentive is there humans will work hard to better themseleves and their offspring. Remove the incentive and they become fat lazy pigs looking to the grubbermint to feed them. Crony capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers, destroys the very basis of what makes capitalism successful. It reduces competition and innovation and removes incentive, much like socialism.

Capitalism with sensible government oversight is the only economic system that works.

1 Like
1725

:grinning:

Where do you even start

4 Likes
1726

Labane you sound like a fanatic, with a completely unbalanced assessment of any political alternative and a dogmatic obsession with your own.

If you can’t acknowledge the propensity of markets to fail, to create systemic inequality, injustice, and impoverishment, then you are a fanatic. Similarly, people who can’t acknowledge the incredible power of markets to create wealth and drive innovation are fanatics.

Every prosperous society, as opposed to a society with a prosperous elite and impoverished multitude, is some combination of ‘market’ and ‘socialist’ policies. It is a pragmatic and morally legitimate system. The truly dangerous people are those who try to moralise the disastrous consequences of their ‘pure’ ideologies by simply blaming its victims for their own misery. That is a criticism that applies equally to the Neoliberals and the Leninists.

8 Likes
1727

What a load of absolute bollox. 45% of Americans pay no federal or state income tax (many states have no income tax, and if you pay no income tax you are likely to pay no state tax). What fucking tax do people who aren’t working pay? Sales tax using the food stamps they get from the government?

I agree with you there should be limits on inherited wealth, but the concept of a wealth tax is again unsound, as it punishes those that actually work hard for a living, innovate and build businesses (the only thing that drives economic growth) and favors the fat lazy bastards who want to sit on their holes demanding more free stuff.

There is no shortage of jobs in the US, lots of them in fact for those that want to work. As long as the government provides incentive not to work though, there will be plenty who avail of it.

1728

I’ve been calling it for months, the guy is the biggest WUM on here by a mile.

1 Like
1729

Free market capitalism of the libertarian variety you favour is what fundamentally misunderstands human nature, whereas socialism understands it. Without proper regulation and a genuine redistributive element and genuine social safety net, wealth accumulates in the hands of the few, markets will always fail and society will always suffer. The Randian notion of capitalists as altruistic super heroes is a laughable fantasy. Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” sums it up.

The solution to obesity is not to stop eating, it’s to eat healthier.

Look at Somalia. The ultimate “small government” state. And an utter dystopia for anybody who lives there.

“Socialist Europe” as you call it is the ultimate proof that a strong socialist element in the way a state is run is best for everybody.

“Sensible government oversight”, ie. people with a genuine commitment to public service and willingness to intervene for the public good as opposed to the gilded few. Like, say Sweden did with banks. Isn’t that socialism?

You now seem to advocating for stronger regulation having the spent the last few days railing against it.

As has been said, the basic template for successful economies is a strong market element combined with a strong social element. Freedom of opportunity allied to better equality and a proper social safety net leads to stronger societies. History bears this out.

1730

I am anything but a fanatic. I am in favor of sensible government, including funding programs that benefit society like education, health care and taking care of the elderly and those who cannot work because of physical or mental ailments (laziness doesn’t count).

Markets fail mainly because of government intervention. The Fed and other central bankers are part of government and are the primary reason for the great market colapses of the 20th and 21st centuries. Interfering in the normal business cycle and trying to prevent recessions by artifically keeping interst rates low encourages speculative gambling and creates bubbles that inevitably pop. Interest rates should be left at a level that encourages businesses to invest in growth and innovation.

The inequality that is growing in western societies is precisely because of central bank intervention in markets. It has stifled innovation and healthy risk taking (starting and building a business), and rewarded chasing yield in speculative assets. When the markets inevitably crash everyone gets burned, except for the big banks who at this point are almost indistinguishable from the central banks.

1 Like
1731

The fact that the only country you can come up with as an example of small government failure is Somalia sums up your argument. We are discussing the merits of capitalism versus socialism as an economic model. Name one country that adopted the principles of actual socialist economics, and not watered down democratic socialism, and had a successful outcome.

1732

Ah your views on capitalism are as blinkered as your views on socialism. The markets were given lots of freedom a decade ago and look at the shit storm that ensued. They needed socialism (the people to bail them out ) There has never been a fair and honest capital system in history. Same as a socialist one. Backhanders bribes and cronyism are ten a penny and government is needed to keep it in check. How does capitalism police itself. It can’t. Unfettered it would and is eating itself. The prosperous nations of the world were built on screwing other countries over (and they still are ) and the citizens of those countries screwing their countrymen over. The rich get richer and laugh at the poor as they are manipulated in to turning on each other. All the while being told work hard and you can be rich like us. Which for the vast majority is nonsense. The middle class is shrinking rapidly Workers rights are constantly being eroded and inequality is on the rise. The most viable solution going forward is finding a middle ground taking the best of capitalism and socialism and stopping the elite amassing fortunes and the rest squabbling over the scraps. It’s called social democracy at at the moment is the only sensible solution to the way the world is going.

1 Like
1733

[quote=“alf_stewart, post:1732, topic:19437, full:true”]
Ah your views on capitalism are as blinkered as your views on socialism. The markets were given lots of freedom a decade ago and look at the shit storm that ensued. They needed socialism (the people to bail them out ) There has never been a fair and honest capital system in history. Same as a socialist one. [/quote]

You are buying into the myth that free market capitalism caused the financial crisis. It didn’t, the financial crisis had multiple causes, but the ones that matter were all government intervention. I hope we can agree that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the root cause of the 2008/9 collapse. The whole concept of sub-prime, at least in the US, was caused by the government’s insane push to increase home ownership. From 2002 government agencies (and there are dozens of them, not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and congress (both parties) went on a crusade to increase home ownership to 70% of households. Mortgage lenders were not just encouraged by the government to loosen their lending standards, they were threatened into doing so. A booklet circulated from the Federal government called it “arbitrary and unreasonsble” to expect people to put 20% down, have a good credit score, a record of paying their bills on time, or to even have a fucking job. That’s what led to the term NINJA loans, no income, no job or assets. Mortgage lenders were threatened with fines and jail terms if they practiced discrimination.

Where the big banks were at fault was in seizing the opportunity and creating novel new products (financial weapons of mass destruction) to package up NINJA loans and convince regulators that when you make a pile of shit big enough, it ceases to be shit. That’s the one area the government should have been regulating as it represented the real threat to the financial system, and they failed utterly. Sub-prime in and of itself was no threat to the financial sysetm, it could have been easily contained, it was the blow up of CDOs that led to Bear Stearns and Lehman collapsing and making all other big banks insolvent… and what did the wonderful government do? Allowed mortgage firms who were following the governments own laws fail , or be absorbed by the big banks, and bailed out the cunts who took advantage of the situation to make a killing.

Are you being serious? Do you live in Ireland? Backhanders, bribes and cronyism are a feature of government, how the fuck could they keep it in check when they instigate most of it?

Capitalism polices itself by the strong surviving and replacing the weak. Look at the technology sector now compared to 2000, almost all the big names are gone, replaced by newer ones. That’s the way a free market should function, the Tech sector is the closest thing we have to one, mainly because the government doesn’t understand it so can’t interfere with it.

1734

Socialsm is for losers with the paw out.

2 Likes
1735

So the US government were responsible for the crash! The same govt full of politicians in the pocket of big business donors who lobbied and got their guys to loosen regulation. Can you point out an example of the banks saying “hold on guys this seems like a terrible idea!!”

1 Like
1736

As I said there were a myriad of reasons for the crash. The root cause though was sub prime and the US government’s crazy drive for home ownership was 100% the cause of sub prime. The mortgage lenders were complaining but nobody wanted to hear about it, and remember they were under the threat of jail by not complying.

I absolutely agree with you on the incestuous relationship between the big banks like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, etc. and the governnment, but again this is an example of the government interfering, picking the winners and losers. The government created the moral hazard of too big to fail, there should be no such thing as too big to fail, that’s exactly when the government should step in and prevent it, rather than encouraging it.

The wrong people were bailed out. The people who should have been bailed out were the mortgage lenders and small banks who were following the law, and consumers whose property values were destroyed by the crash. The big banks should have been broken up and a lot of the cunts at the top jailed.

1 Like
1737

huh?

Western societies are successful due to the capitalism
obesity in western societies is down to socialism

1738

Massive inequality is the inexorable outcome of a liberal economic system. Not a healthy middle class. It’s a structural feature of capitalism, not an incidental one. John Locke and Adam Smith could acknowledge this but not @anon7035031

1 Like
1739

Those are good points you make. :+1:

1740

I have to pull you on this.you’re saying its government that are to blame here even though politicians are at the beck and call of their donors in the US. The system is in bother alright but it’s the corrupting influence of big business that’s the problem and how it’s allowed impact on government policy not the other way around. That’s why your Murdoch’s and redacted’s of the world have such large media holdings around the world. They are trying to control the narrative. And they are the epitome of capitalist corrupt fucks.

1741

Jesus, that’s the mother of all clampings.

1742

Get to fuck you dirty Clare cunt.[quote=“Steven_Naimsith, post:1741, topic:19437, full:true”]
Jesus, that’s the mother of all clampings.
[/quote]

1743

You’ve spent most of the last six months calling Europe “socialist”.

Now you’re calling it “capitalist”.

You can’t now have your cake and eat it when it suits you.

And you haven’t addressed the fact that you’ve spent all of those six months talking about how poor the lot of ordinary Americans is, while at the same time advocating for policies that would make their lot worse.

Name one country that adopted unfettered free market libertarian capitalism and prospered.

I bet you can’t.

You seem really rattled by the fact that nobody agrees with you. Your opinions are fringe and taken seriously by extremely few people, zealots perhaps.