The Democratic Party's "Socialist Revolution"

[IMPress Polly]

A month ago, a random 28-year old Latina named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unexpectedly defeated a sitting Democratic incumbent in the party's primary contest to represent the 14th Congressional District of New York (which includes parts of Queens and the Bronx in New York City), the significance of which lay in that the defeated incumbent, Joe Crowley, had held the seat since 1999 and run unopposed in each of his primaries since 2004 was considered a potential replacement for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Crowley spent $1.5 million on the contest and enjoyed the full support of the Democratic Party machine, which he heads as chair of the Queens County Democratic Party and vice chair of the House Democratic Conference. Ocasio-Corez, by contrast, refused to take corporate campaign donations and spent just $301,000 on the election: less than one-tenth her opponent's expenditure and instead garnered the support of such institutions as Brand New Congress (a political action committee organized by former staffers for Bernie Sanders), Sanders' own Our Revolution group, the Justice Democrats (I will resist the urge to insert a DC Comics-oriented punch line here), and, of course, most famously, the Democratic Socialists of America. Ocasio-Cortez wound up with some 58% of the vote and is considered likely to defeat her Republican opponent for the seat in the fall. But that is not all. Not by a long shot.

Since her upset primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez has gone on to become really the face the more progressive, left-leaning faction of the Democratic Party nationwide, stumping for more or less similar Democratic candidates in other states, for example. This is considered to be potentially a moment in the history of the Democratic Party as an institution; one in which the party (re)opens itself in a much fuller way to the kind of economic populism that, up until the galvanizing presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, had been largely relegated to the past of thought of as a relic of earlier times. At least by the leaders of the Democratic Party anyway. The mere mention of Ocasio-Cortez's name and the very fact that her campaign exists and has become this popular, causes the anchors of Fox News daily meltdowns in-between commercials for gold, Nutrisystem, and testosterone. She clearly terrifies the conservative members of this message board more than any other candidate for public office at this time, being as her campaign has generated the largest volume of (invariably disapproving) commentaries here. I find it all very satisfying really.

Is this actually what the proverbial crisis actors of the corporate elite are suggesting though? Is this actually the start of the transformation of the Democratic Party into a SOCIALIST (you experience chills here) organization? No. No, it is not. Much drama has been made of the fact that Ocasio-Cortez received the enthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, as are a slew of Democratic candidates this year. Little attention, in comparison, has been paid to what the actual politics of the DSA are. What does the DSA actually mean when they call themselves democratic socialists? The platform that got Ocasio-Cortez her victory (https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-platform-on-the-issues-2018-6) is informative in this connection. It calls for...

...a $15 an hour minimum wage, indexed to the rate of inflation,
...national ownership, and free provision of, of health insurance (i.e. "Medicare for all"),
...tuition-free access to public colleges, universities, and trade schools, accompanied by universal student debt forgiveness,
...expansion of tax credits for the purchase of private homes, as well as permanent funding for the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund,
...the Green New Deal, as it is called: a World War 2-scale public works program that aims to see America employing 100% renewable energy by 2035,
...guaranteed employment for all (perhaps to be achieved through the aforementioned Green New Deal),
...guaranteed, paid child care and sick leave for all workers,
...the reversal of the infamous Citizens United ruling on the scale of corporate campaign contributions that are legal,
...the abolition of ICE,
...an end to the "war on drugs",
...the demilitarization of police departments,
...and the abolition of for-profit prisons.

I have no doubt that the above seems like a revolutionary program to many people. It was billed as one. But such a program only passes for revolutionary due to how far to the right our politics (particularly around economics) have moved over the last several decades. The above program, particularly in the area of economics, would not have been considered radical or "socialist" 40 or 50 years ago, but rather the sort of standard-issue platform positions that Democrats often embraced at the presidential level. None other than Franklin Roosevelt called for things like a second Bill of Rights that would constitutionally require the provision of full employment, health care, education, housing, and other rudiments of life to all. That was in 1944. Back then the Democratic Party was calling for the establishment of a top marginal income tax rate of no less than 100%; essentially an income ceiling beyond which all wealth would be redistributed. These are bold ideas, but they are not new and they certainly fall short of qualifying as socialist. In point of fact, many aspects of the above are present law in most Western European countries, and most especially across Scandinavia.

Ocasio-Cortez has not proposed so much as the establishment of exclusively public funding for election campaigns or committed to any proposal for a top income tax rate, let alone has she called for public ownership of industry, finance, transport, telecommunications, energy, etc., or workers' control over production. That is what socialists (like yours truly, for example) advocate. In point of fact, in the 19th century, socialism was a term that was used to describe shared ownership of ALL property. In the course of the Cold War, it came instead to mean simply the aforementioned. Today it increasingly is seem to mean just the establishment of a more mixed economy rather than one that leans so heavily in a capitalistic direction as ours does at present; a kinder, gentler variety of capitalism, not the abolition of the profit system. The DSA's vast expansion of its membership (from some 6,000 before the 2016 election to some 45,000 today) is owed to this change of program from radical to reformist, as well as to the last, particularly bad recession.

The real concern of the corporate aristocracy that indisputably rules this country, and of their various shills, is simply that a political program similar to that of the Green Party is no longer as consigned to marginal institutions like the Green Party as it might have been in the recent past.

[Lummy]

Rip that party apart, you bet!

[Green Arrow]

Democratic socialism has always been what I call “compromise socialism” - using the principles behind socialist thought (protection of workers and such) as chains to restrain the nastier aspects of capitalism. I view it as an excellent starting point but ultimately falls short for the reasons you stated.

[Chris]

Ocasio-Cortez has youthful exuberance going for her, and that's about it. She is not very experienced or knowledgeable--just listen to interviews of her.

The platform she runs of is not socialism but leftwing populism, much like Sanders.


Like the other day when you used 10 words for overgeneralizing, here too your verbosity is hard to swallow. Example, all you really mean by "the proverbial crisis actors of the corporate elite" is Fox News. I guess it allows you to slip in your old Marxist agenda against capitalism.

Corporations do not run the country but by means of collaboration with the big government favored by the left. Our government is more than will to exchange political power for monetary wealth. And you, Polly, advocate bigger government every arguement you make. That will only increase the target for rent seekers.

[MMC]

Maxine Waters: 'The Democratic Party is not a socialist … (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/maxine-waters-the-democratic-party-is-not-a-socialist-party.html)CNBC
5 days ago · "The Democratic Party is not a socialist party," California Rep. Maxine Waters said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood on Wednesday. Waters is a frequent target of President Trump, whom she wants impeached.


It appears Maxine disagrees.

[Chris]

One thing I have to give Democratic Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez is, whether I agree with them or not, at least they stand for something. Democrats generally these days don't, but only stand against Trump with TDS.

[barb012]

Socialism is just another lie to make people give more money to the government based on promises to give it back to the people when in reality the government will use that money to expand their own agendas. Considering all of the money they took from social security and medicare since its inception, why would anyone in their right mind trust them with more social programs?

[MisterVeritis]

Socialism is just another lie to make people give more money to the government based on promises to give it back to the people when in reality the government will use that money to expand their own agendas. Considering all of the money they took from social security and medicare since its inception, why would anyone in their right mind trust them with more social programs?
The solution is to either return to the Constitution or abolish it.

We don't follow it. We might as well declare it dead and be honest with ourselves. We love tyranny.

[Ethereal]

A month ago, a random 28-year old Latina named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unexpectedly defeated a sitting Democratic incumbent in the party's primary contest to represent the 14th Congressional District of New York (which includes parts of Queens and the Bronx in New York City), the significance of which lay in that the defeated incumbent, Joe Crowley, had held the seat since 1999 and run unopposed in each of his primaries since 2004 was considered a potential replacement for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Crowley spent $1.5 million on the contest and enjoyed the full support of the Democratic Party machine, which he heads as chair of the Queens County Democratic Party and vice chair of the House Democratic Conference. Ocasio-Corez, by contrast, refused to take corporate campaign donations and spent just $301,000 on the election: less than one-tenth her opponent's expenditure and instead garnered the support of such institutions as Brand New Congress (a political action committee organized by former staffers for Bernie Sanders), Sanders' own Our Revolution group, the Justice Democrats (I will resist the urge to insert a DC Comics-oriented punch line here), and, of course, most famously, the Democratic Socialists of America. Ocasio-Cortez wound up with some 58% of the vote and is considered likely to defeat her Republican opponent for the seat in the fall. But that is not all. Not by a long shot.

Since her upset primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez has gone on to become really the face the more progressive, left-leaning faction of the Democratic Party nationwide, stumping for more or less similar Democratic candidates in other states, for example. This is considered to be potentially a moment in the history of the Democratic Party as an institution; one in which the party (re)opens itself in a much fuller way to the kind of economic populism that, up until the galvanizing presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders, had been largely relegated to the past of thought of as a relic of earlier times. At least by the leaders of the Democratic Party anyway. The mere mention of Ocasio-Cortez's name and the very fact that her campaign exists and has become this popular, causes the anchors of Fox News daily meltdowns in-between commercials for gold, Nutrisystem, and testosterone. She clearly terrifies the conservative members of this message board more than any other candidate for public office at this time, being as her campaign has generated the largest volume of (invariably disapproving) commentaries here. I find it all very satisfying really.

Is this actually what the proverbial crisis actors of the corporate elite are suggesting though? Is this actually the start of the transformation of the Democratic Party into a SOCIALIST (you experience chills here) organization? No. No, it is not. Much drama has been made of the fact that Ocasio-Cortez received the enthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic Socialists of America, as are a slew of Democratic candidates this year. Little attention, in comparison, has been paid to what the actual politics of the DSA are. What does the DSA actually mean when they call themselves democratic socialists? The platform that got Ocasio-Cortez her victory (https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-platform-on-the-issues-2018-6) is informative in this connection. It calls for...

...a $15 an hour minimum wage, indexed to the rate of inflation,
...national ownership, and free provision of, of health insurance (i.e. "Medicare for all"),
...tuition-free access to public colleges, universities, and trade schools, accompanied by universal student debt forgiveness,
...expansion of tax credits for the purchase of private homes, as well as permanent funding for the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund,
...the Green New Deal, as it is called: a World War 2-scale public works program that aims to see America employing 100% renewable energy by 2035,
...guaranteed employment for all (perhaps to be achieved through the aforementioned Green New Deal),
...guaranteed, paid child care and sick leave for all workers,
...the reversal of the infamous Citizens United ruling on the scale of corporate campaign contributions that are legal,
...the abolition of ICE,
...an end to the "war on drugs",
...the demilitarization of police departments,
...and the abolition of for-profit prisons.

I have no doubt that the above seems like a revolutionary program to many people. It was billed as one. But such a program only passes for revolutionary due to how far to the right our politics (particularly around economics) have moved over the last several decades. The above program, particularly in the area of economics, would not have been considered radical or "socialist" 40 or 50 years ago, but rather the sort of standard-issue platform positions that Democrats often embraced at the presidential level. None other than Franklin Roosevelt called for things like a second Bill of Rights that would constitutionally require the provision of full employment, health care, education, housing, and other rudiments of life to all. That was in 1944. Back then the Democratic Party was calling for the establishment of a top marginal income tax rate of no less than 100%; essentially an income ceiling beyond which all wealth would be redistributed. These are bold ideas, but they are not new and they certainly fall short of qualifying as socialist. In point of fact, many aspects of the above are present law in most Western European countries, and most especially across Scandinavia.

Ocasio-Cortez has not proposed so much as the establishment of exclusively public funding for election campaigns or committed to any proposal for a top income tax rate, let alone has she called for public ownership of industry, finance, transport, telecommunications, energy, etc., or workers' control over production. That is what socialists (like yours truly, for example) advocate. In point of fact, in the 19th century, socialism was a term that was used to describe shared ownership of ALL property. In the course of the Cold War, it came instead to mean simply the aforementioned. Today it increasingly is seem to mean just the establishment of a more mixed economy rather than one that leans so heavily in a capitalistic direction as ours does at present; a kinder, gentler variety of capitalism, not the abolition of the profit system. The DSA's vast expansion of its membership (from some 6,000 before the 2016 election to some 45,000 today) is owed to this change of program from radical to reformist, as well as to the last, particularly bad recession.

The real concern of the corporate aristocracy that indisputably rules this country, and of their various shills, is simply that a political program similar to that of the Green Party is no longer as consigned to marginal institutions like the Green Party as it might have been in the recent past.
As I've noted before, the sheer size of the USA precludes the implementation of genuine, Scandinavian-style social democracy. Denmark, for example, has a population of only 5.7 million people and is relatively culturally homogeneous. As much as it may pain you to admit it, those things matter a great deal in terms of a policy's underlying democratic character. The sort of reforms that Cortez advocates for would require top-down, centralized planning, so her ideology is definitely socialist, but it's far from democratic. As for whether or not her ideology is radical or just a revival of traditional Democratic party thought is neither here nor there, in my opinion. All that really matters is: Is it truly democratic? And the answer is clearly no.

[ripmeister]

One thing I have to give Democratic Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez is, whether I agree with them or not, at least they stand for something. Democrats generally these days don't, but only stand against Trump with TDS.

I'd have to agree with this. The Dems need to be putting forth constructive ideas and policies. Just running on an anti Trump basis won't be good enough.

[Chris]

As I've noted before, the sheer size of the USA precludes the implementation of genuine, Scandinavian-style social democracy. Denmark, for example, has a population of only 5.7 million people and is relatively culturally homogeneous. As much as it may pain you to admit it, those things matter a great deal in terms of a policy's underlying democratic character. The sort of reforms that Cortez advocates for would require top-down, centralized planning, so her ideology is definitely socialist, but it's far from democratic. As for whether or not her ideology is radical or just a revival of traditional Democratic party thought is neither here nor there, in my opinion. All that really matters is: Is it truly democratic? And the answer is clearly no.


The Scandinavians have been backing away from socialized welfare for some time now, returning to more conservative, capitalist ways that made them prosperous to begin with. The socialization of services got out of hand and EU's forcing them to accpt immigrants killed the trust needed for that type of system.

[Captdon]

Her opponenet spent 15,000 dollars on the campaign. He refused to debate her. He tried the Hillary Election Method.

This woman is stpid and can't even make her points. She is easily confused when asked follow up questions. i hope she , and those like her, do become the Democratic Party. Their dead then.

Your post is just a mish-mash of socialism at it's worst.

[MMC]

The Scandinavians have been backing away from socialized welfare for some time now, returning to more conservative, capitalist ways that made them prosperous to begin with. The socialization of services got out of hand and EU's forcing them to accpt immigrants killed the trust needed for that type of system.


That is correct.....and as Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with Socialism is, eventually the money runs out.

[IMPress Polly]

Democratic socialism has always been what I call “compromise socialism” - using the principles behind socialist thought (protection of workers and such) as chains to restrain the nastier aspects of capitalism. I view it as an excellent starting point but ultimately falls short for the reasons you stated.

I'm denoting three distinct stages of popular meaning behind the term "socialism".

1) Originally, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the term was used synonymously with communism, referring to shared ownership of ALL property, including socially-planned production.

2) In the course of the 20th century, but especially over the course of the Cold War, in response to the establishment of the Soviet Union, the prevailing meaning of socialism was transformed into instead public ownership of the major means of production.

3) In the 21st century, here in the post-Soviet era, socialism has come to refer not even the second thing, but simply to a New Deal-style program of reform, a la the Scandinavian-style "socialism" of Bernie Sanders that doesn't seek out a general system of social ownership of social management, but instead simply seeks to regulate the existing, capitalist system and call that revolutionary change. I'm not sure why we should even call this socialism, really. It wouldn't have been up to now. It's what I'd consider a positive program and a step in the right direction, but a revolutionary program it is not.

[Chris]

I'm denoting three distinct stages of popular meaning behind the term "socialism".

1) Originally, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the term was used synonymously with communism, referring to shared ownership of ALL property, including socially-planned production.

2) In the course of the 20th century, but especially over the course of the Cold War, in response to the establishment of the Soviet Union, the prevailing meaning of socialism was transformed into instead public ownership of the major means of production.

3) In the 21st century, here in the post-Soviet era, socialism has come to refer not even the second thing, but simply to a New Deal-style program of reform, a la the Scandinavian-style "socialism" of Bernie Sanders that doesn't seek out a general system of social ownership of social management, but instead simply seeks to regulate the existing, capitalist system and call that revolutionary change. I'm not sure why we should even call this socialism, really. It wouldn't have been up to now. It's what I'd consider a positive program and a step in the right direction, but a revolutionary program it is not.


Economists from between the World Wars started defining it as central planning. I believe it was Henri de Saint-Simon who is credited with coining the term. He was a devout central planner. All socialism ends up in central planning, where it has historically always failed. But like Dracula it rises time and again.

[Mister D]

Why would latter day "leftists" want a revolutionary program when they freely admit the benefits of the capitalist system and seek, pardon the pun, to capitalize on them?

The contemporary left has given new meaning to the phrase "lost in the wilderness".

[Chris]

Why would latter day "leftists" want a revolutionary program when they freely admit the benefits of the capitalist system and seek, pardon the pun, to capitalize on them?

The contemporary left has given new meaning to the phrase "lost in the wilderness".


They don't, actually. Mises challenged them with the economic calculation problem. Socialists believed they could simply disregard prices and centrally plan the economy. The Soviet Union began to fail economically. So the socialist decided to use the market prices of the free West as inputs to their decision making. That too failed because it fails to take into account local differences in people, land, production. The Soviet Union collapsed. The socialist conceded the economic calculation problem in the 90s. They have generally accpted exactly what you said , to "admit the benefits of the capitalist system and seek, pardon the pun, to capitalize on them." Robert Reich said it succinctly in The Answer Isn’t Socialism; It’s Capitalism that Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://robertreich.org/post/22542609387).

It's mainly postmoderns who reject empiricism and truth that hold out hope that what has always failed will miraculously succeed this time.

[donttread]

That is correct.....and as Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with Socialism is, eventually the money runs out.


Seems to happen with all systems except maybe China's hybrid

[Chris]

Seems to happen with all systems except maybe China's hybrid

Well, so far the basic value exchange of free-market capitalism keep generating wealth.

[Chris]

https://i.snag.gy/lFsBAx.jpg?nocache=1533075463912

[IMPress Polly]

Maxine Waters: 'The Democratic Party is not a socialist … (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/maxine-waters-the-democratic-party-is-not-a-socialist-party.html)

CNBC
5 days ago · "The Democratic Party is not a socialist party," California Rep. Maxine Waters said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood on Wednesday. Waters is a frequent target of President Trump, whom she wants impeached.
It appears Maxine disagrees.

Do you even read my posts before replying to them?

And what is with the conservative obsession with Maxine Waters these days?

[The Xl]

One thing I have to give Democratic Socialists like Ocasio-Cortez is, whether I agree with them or not, at least they stand for something. Democrats generally these days don't, but only stand against Trump with TDS.
That's certainly true. And and I think that's part of her appeal tbh

[Chris]

That's certainly true. And and I think that's part of her appeal tbh

And why I refer to her as a populist, a left populist to Trump's right populism.

[The Xl]

And why I refer to her as a populist, a left populist to Trump's right populism.

Populism is going to be the next political wave, because people want to support independent people that stand for something. Case in point, I supported Trump, Sanders, Stein, and Johnson over Clinton and the corporate right last Presidential election, despite them all being politically inept, because they stood for something and were their own man.

[Chris]

Populism is going to be the next political wave, because people want to support independent people that stand for something. Case in point, I supported Trump, Sanders, Stein, and Johnson over Clinton and the corporate right last Presidential election, despite them all being politically inept, because they stood for something and were their own man.

I was thinking similarly after posting, the populism could rise to crush the two-party system.

[Peter1469]

Populism is not a political position. It is a tactic. It is appealing to the masses.

[Chris]

Populism is not a political position. It is a tactic. It is appealing to the masses.

Ok, a tactic that could undo the duopoly.

[Bluenami]

That is correct.....and as Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with Socialism is, eventually the money runs out.
Is that who coined that gem? Anyway it's incorrect.

The irony is that it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money.
Socialism is redistributive and the constant recycling of wealth prevents the supply from dwindling, but the lack of redistribution under capitalism necessitates constant creation of money (through debt) in order to enrich the rich.
If the rich get richer, then either someone is getting poorer or money is being created. Common sense right?
That's why republicans always expand the debt; the money has to come from somewhere in lieu of redistributive taxation.

[Chris]

Is that who coined that gem? Anyway it's incorrect.

The irony is that it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money.
Socialism is redistributive and the constant recycling of wealth prevents the supply from dwindling, but the lack of redistribution under capitalism necessitates constant creation of money (through debt) in order to enrich the rich.
If the rich get richer, then either someone is getting poorer or money is being created. Common sense right?
That's why republicans always expand the debt; the money has to come from somewhere in lieu of redistributive taxation.

That makes no sense.

Under capitalism, exchange generates wealth, it's win-win, even if some win more than others.

Socialism has no way to generate wealth, redistributing wealth doesn't generate wealth, and there are bureaucratic and opportunity costs lost. Socialism is win-lose.

[MMC]

Do you even read my posts before replying to them?

And what is with the conservative obsession with Maxine Waters these days?

Yes I read them.....I at least give you that much attention.


Did you need a couple of others in the Demo party talking about how they aren't going Socialist. Waters was the latest to get in front of the cameras to make her point known.

[Bluenami]

That makes no sense.

Under capitalism, exchange generates wealth, it's win-win, even if some win more than others.

Socialism has no way to generate wealth, redistributing wealth doesn't generate wealth, and there are bureaucratic and opportunity costs lost. Socialism is win-lose.

How do you "generate wealth"? Generate = create = print = debt issuance. If the rich get richer, tell me where the money is coming from.

1955

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

Today:

2% GDP
4% unemployment
Massive debt.
20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

What part doesn't make sense? When taxes were high, growth was robust, unemployment was low, debt was low, and a man could support a family on one income.

[Chris]

How do you "generate wealth"? Generate = create = print = debt issuance. If the rich get richer, tell me where the money is coming from.

1955

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

Today:

2% GDP
4% unemployment
Massive debt.
20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

What part doesn't make sense? When taxes were high, growth was robust, unemployment was low, debt was low, and a man could support a family on one income.


How do you generate wealth? Already answered. By exchange. Say you and I exchange something, anything. What you give to me you value less than what you get from me, and vice versa. We both therefore gain in value. That's wealth.

If the rich get richer, the money is still coming from exchange. The rich get richer by offering you sodmething you value. Only way.

Well, unless you bring the government into it and they collude with the rich and so on. But that's closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.


What part doesn't make sense is you think the market doesn't fluctuate.

[MMC]

Is that who coined that gem? Anyway it's incorrect.

The irony is that it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money.
Socialism is redistributive and the constant recycling of wealth prevents the supply from dwindling, but the lack of redistribution under capitalism necessitates constant creation of money (through debt) in order to enrich the rich.
If the rich get richer, then either someone is getting poorer or money is being created. Common sense right?
That's why republicans always expand the debt; the money has to come from somewhere in lieu of redistributive taxation.

Yes she was just one of many.....and she is correct. Once the wealthy leave the country. Then there is no more money. And that is exactly what happens. Even with the Scandinavian countries, the wealthy started to leave due to the Taxation. Oh and the winter weather.
Chris is correct in what he is telling you concerning capitalism.

[Bluenami]

If the rich get richer, the money is still coming from exchange.
So the rich get their money from the exchange which means the people exchanging their money no longer have the money, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too, so likewise you can't spend your money and still keep it.

It's no secret the wealth divide has been increasing, so the rich are getting richer which means someone must be getting poorer. Right?

Or it means that money must be created in order for the rich to get richer without making the middle class poorer. Right?

And if money is being created, then it means the middle class is getting poorer via inflation of the money supply. Right?

Either way, the rich are siphoning the money from the lower classes through profit and interest. There is no escaping that conclusion.

And therefore we are running out of other people's money to enrich the rich. The turnip is tapped.

[Captdon]

Do you even read my posts before replying to them?

And what is with the conservative obsession with Maxine Waters these days?

Maxine is the joke de jour. How anyone that stupid can serve in Congress is really funny.

[Bluenami]

Yes she was just one of many.....and she is correct. Once the wealthy leave the country. Then there is no more money. And that is exactly what happens. Even with the Scandinavian countries, the wealthy started to leave due to the Taxation. Oh and the winter weather.
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128) is correct in what he is telling you concerning capitalism.
That's only because there is somewhere else to go. Of course the rich would leave socialism to seek capitalist shelter, but if no shelter exists, they are stuck.

[Chris]

So the rich get their money from the exchange which means the people exchanging their money no longer have the money, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too, so likewise you can't spend your money and still keep it.

It's no secret the wealth divide has been increasing, so the rich are getting richer which means someone must be getting poorer. Right?

Or it means that money must be created in order for the rich to get richer without making the middle class poorer. Right?

And if money is being created, then it means the middle class is getting poorer via inflation of the money supply. Right?

Either way, the rich are siphoning the money from the lower classes through profit and interest. There is no escaping that conclusion.

And therefore we are running out of other people's money to enrich the rich. The turnip is tapped.


I already explained exchange: "How do you generate wealth? Already answered. By exchange. Say you and I exchange something, anything. What you give to me you value less than what you get from me, and vice versa. We both therefore gain in value. That's wealth."

I already said while everyone gets richer some get richer more than others. Thus the wealth divide.

No, it doesn't mean anyone is getting pooer just because others are getting richer.

You're stuck on looking at the economy as a fix pie where when one wins others must lose. Go back to my explanation of exchange.

No, the richer only get richer by providing others what they value--unless the government get involved.

No, if wealth is being generated by exchange then we're not running out of other people's money. That's socialism.


I don't feel that you're interested in listening. That you just want to repeat yourself. Too many on the left are that way. Allows them to go on believing socialism, which has always failed, will succeed next time. Good luck.

[Captdon]

Ok, a tactic that could undo the duopoly.

Not if there are only Dem and Rep choices. Trump isn't really a Rep but he owns the party. Just putting a leftist populist up by the Dems isn't going to get it done. We need a Ross Perot/ George Wallace vote share to get it going.

[Captdon]

Is that who coined that gem? Anyway it's incorrect.

The irony is that it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money.
Socialism is redistributive and the constant recycling of wealth prevents the supply from dwindling, but the lack of redistribution under capitalism necessitates constant creation of money (through debt) in order to enrich the rich.
If the rich get richer, then either someone is getting poorer or money is being created. Common sense right?
That's why republicans always expand the debt; the money has to come from somewhere in lieu of redistributive taxation.

Socialism has to be paid for like anything else. Only people who work have any money. Socialism removes the incentive to work. Why work if you can get everything for free. Why work so the government can take most of it and give it to someone else?

People getting richer doesn't take a dime off anyone else. Wealth isn't static. It grows. Read a book about life just a hundred years ago. There are fewer poor today than then. Not a little less, a lot less. From about 60% to maybe 15%.

[Bluenami]

I already explained exchange: "How do you generate wealth? Already answered. By exchange. Say you and I exchange something, anything. What you give to me you value less than what you get from me, and vice versa. We both therefore gain in value. That's wealth."

I already said while everyone gets richer some get richer more than others. Thus the wealth divide.

No, it doesn't mean anyone is getting pooer just because others are getting richer.

You're stuck on looking at the economy as a fix pie where when one wins others must lose. Go back to my explanation of exchange.

No, the richer only get richer by providing others what they value--unless the government get involved.

No, if wealth is being generated by exchange then we're not running out of other people's money. That's socialism.


I don't feel that you're interested in listening. That you just want to repeat yourself. Too many on the left are that way. Allows them to go on believing socialism, which has always failed, will succeed next time. Good luck.
You're accusing me of what you're doing.

I asked a simple question: if the rich are getting richer, then where is the money coming from?

Either someone loses money to the rich.

Or

Money is created.

There is no other way.

The solution you offered is magic: "Exchange creates wealth for everyone."

If I give you a dollar for a burger, you have my dollar and I ate my burger, so now I have nothing. The "exchange" did not increase my wealth; only yours.

[Captdon]

That's only because there is somewhere else to go. Of course the rich would leave socialism to seek capitalist shelter, but if no shelter exists, they are stuck.

Then where does the money come from? You can only steal it once. What kind of freedom do you believe in? Freedom to take my money and give it to someone else.

[Captdon]

I already explained exchange: "How do you generate wealth? Already answered. By exchange. Say you and I exchange something, anything. What you give to me you value less than what you get from me, and vice versa. We both therefore gain in value. That's wealth."

I already said while everyone gets richer some get richer more than others. Thus the wealth divide.

No, it doesn't mean anyone is getting pooer just because others are getting richer.

You're stuck on looking at the economy as a fix pie where when one wins others must lose. Go back to my explanation of exchange.

No, the richer only get richer by providing others what they value--unless the government get involved.

No, if wealth is being generated by exchange then we're not running out of other people's money. That's socialism.


I don't feel that you're interested in listening. That you just want to repeat yourself. Too many on the left are that way. Allows them to go on believing socialism, which has always failed, will succeed next time. Good luck.

Mamooth.

[MMC]

That's only because there is somewhere else to go. Of course the rich would leave socialism to seek capitalist shelter, but if no shelter exists, they are stuck.

Which on this planet.....there is plenty of places for them to go. Also, they could even seek shelter with dictators willing to cover them.

[Chris]

Mamooth.

Same cloth.

[Chris]

https://i.snag.gy/4LSfqJ.jpg

[Captdon]

If I give you a dollar for a burger, you have my dollar and I ate my burger, so now I have nothing. The "exchange" did not increase my wealth; only yours.

Don't be deliberately be obtuse. It's not always a one on one exchange. I don't just sell to you and you don't just buy from me. You were offered a simplified example of how it works.

The proof is that there is more wealth today than has ever existed in this country. There are fewer poor now than ever. I was never out of work a day in my life. Not one day. I always had some way to make money. That has never happened before.

If you don't understand something say so. You don't understand how capitalism works. Either accept what your told by people who know and have experience or remain ignorant of how your own economy works. Your choice.

[Captdon]

How do you "generate wealth"? Generate = create = print = debt issuance. If the rich get richer, tell me where the money is coming from.

1955

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

Today:

2% GDP
4% unemployment
Massive debt.
20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

What part doesn't make sense? When taxes were high, growth was robust, unemployment was low, debt was low, and a man could support a family on one income.

Your post fails the history test. Our economy was great then because the Europeans were still trying to rebuild after WWII. They barely had an economy. My father was stationed there, as it turns out, in 1954-55. and my parents bought valuable thing by trading cigarettes, coffee and meat at pennies on the dollar. My father paid a $1.11 a carton because of no taxes on them. He traded one carton for a clock worth $20.

The German Mark was worth 25 cents then. It's worth 60 cents now. Remember, it doesn't matter what the dollar is worth now compared to then. The mark has gone from one-fourth to 3/5 of a dollar.That's why your numbers are true but misleading. It's an old trick. Bear in mind you are talking to people who know things.

You can make numbers mean anything you want.

[Hoosier8]

If I give you a dollar for a burger, you have my dollar and I ate my burger, so now I have nothing. The "exchange" did not increase my wealth; only yours.
Of course you can raise your own cattle, wait for maturation, buy freezers to store the meat, and make your own burgers, or you can just exchange a very small amount of the fruits of your labor for a burger that someone else bought and prepared for you.

You appear to not recognize that money is just a convenient form of barter.

[Chris]

...

1955

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

Today:

2% GDP
4% unemployment
Massive debt.
20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k.

What part doesn't make sense? When taxes were high, growth was robust, unemployment was low, debt was low, and a man could support a family on one income.


Let's assume the data are correct. Based on it you conclude that wealth had been lost. GDP went from 7% to 2%. But that's not loss. It's less gain. A rise of 2% is less wealth generation than 7% of course, but it's still a @5 rise in wealth.


The post-war years were a boom period, as Captdon has already explained. In addition, the administration at the time wanted to keep the economy on a war footing, that is maintain tight control of industry--you know how politiians are lothe to relinquish power. But Congress said no and deregulated everything, and that, too, contributed to the boom.

[Mini Me]

The solution is to either return to the Constitution or abolish it.

We don't follow it. We might as well declare it dead and be honest with ourselves. We love tyranny.
"We love tyranny" That is what we will end up with Trumpism. It will be a new style of fascism that people have never experienced before. The frog in the boiling pot, so to speak. It will come in increments!

[Mister D]

New style of fascism that we have never experienced...lol We can add this to "dog whistle" and "disparate impact".

The left is amusing.

[Chris]

"We love tyranny" That is what we will end up with Trumpism. It will be a new style of fascism that people have never experienced before. The frog in the boiling pot, so to speak. It will come in increments!




Oh these worn out dysphemisms, tyranny, fascism, frogs!

[Chris]

New style of fascism that we have never experienced...lol We can add this to "dog whistle" and "disparate impact".

The left is amusing.


Well, they're always introducing a socialism that's never been experienced before, yuk yuk

[Mister D]

Lol

[Peter1469]

Don't be deliberately be obtuse. It's not always a one on one exchange. I don't just sell to you and you don't just buy from me. You were offered a simplified example of how it works.

The proof is that there is more wealth today than has ever existed in this country. There are fewer poor now than ever. I was never out of work a day in my life. Not one day. I always had some way to make money. That has never happened before.

If you don't understand something say so. You don't understand how capitalism works. Either accept what your told by people who know and have experience or remain ignorant of how your own economy works. Your choice.
Chris probably has this save: a graph of poverty dropping in history with a great spike of wealth after the Industrial Revolution.

[Peter1469]

"We love tyranny" That is what we will end up with Trumpism. It will be a new style of fascism that people have never experienced before. The frog in the boiling pot, so to speak. It will come in increments!



Did you say you never graduated high school, or was that someone else?

[Chris]

Chris probably has this save: a graph of poverty dropping in history with a great spike of wealth after the Industrial Revolution.


https://i.snag.gy/iSk9mO.jpg

From A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark. As he documents, it wasn't just incomes, but lifestyle, wealth, prosperity in general.

[MMC]

NOT REAL SOCIALISM: Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro admits socialism has failed.....


Well, you can officially add Venezuela to the long list of failed socialist experiments throughout history.


President Nicolas Maduro conceded in an address to congress (https://www.dailywire.com/news/33901/venezuelas-democratic-socialist-president-our-james-barrett) that his socialist economic policies have failed. Considering that there is a widespread food shortage, a lack of medicine, and nationwide poverty, it’s a case of too little too late.



“The production models we’ve tried so far have failed and the responsibility is ours, mine and yours. Enough with the whining… we need to produce with or without (outside) aggression, with or without blockades, we need to make Venezuela an economic power,” he said to lawmakers.
“No more whining, I want solutions comrades!”



That doesn’t mean he is abandoning his socialist streak in favor of free markets. Maduro will maintain the hallmarks of socialism: nationalization of industry, price controls, and fixed currency manipulation.


So, what does Maduro plan to do? Ramp up oil production to six million barrels per day (bpd) by 2025......snip~


http://economiccollapsenews.com/2018/08/02/not-real-socialism-venezuelas-nicolas-maduro-admits-socialism-has-failed/



The Democrats future. Failure....same as it ever was. :laugh: