Pocahontas's Bold New Attack On Economic Liberty

[Revoltingest]

By the way, I only just noticed this was in the Capitalist Only section. Sorry if I presented arguments and statements that stirred the pot. I don't think they were appropriate given the forum.

I've noticed that we've a socialist or two here in the thread.
But under RF rules, this is acceptable. RF considers socialism
to include "state capitalism", ie a command economy wherein
the people control the means of production.
Thus socialists can be "capitalist", but apparently not vice versa.
I don't understand it, but hey....this place is what it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Edit: "Means of production" excludes human capital for a reason, that being that they should be included in capitalism, not excluded.

I can understand the desire to redefine "capitalism" as something else.
But for workers who eschew raising capital to run their own companies,
& instead choose employee status, ie, providing labor in exchange for
pay, then this is their role. Getting a job assembling carburetors doesn't
get one the right to run the company which someone else owns.
Companies with all chiefs & no indians just don't fare well.

 

[Willamena]

I can understand the desire to redefine "capitalism".
But for workers who eschew raising capital to run their own companies,
& instead choose employee status, ie, providing labor in exchange for
pay, then this is their role. Getting a job assembling carburetors doesn't
get one the right to run the company which someone else owns.
Companies with all chiefs & no indians just don't fare well.

Excluding labour as "services" is precisely uncapitalistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Excluding labour as "services" is precisely uncapitalistic.

Your meaning isn't clear.

 

[Quetzal]

I've noticed that we've a socialist or two here in the thread.
But under RF rules, this is acceptable. RF considers socialism
to include "state capitalism", ie a command economy wherein
the people control the means of production.
Thus socialists can be "capitalist", but apparently not vice versa.
I don't understand it, but hey....this place is what it is.

I am not sure where I fall in the spectrum.

 

[Willamena]

Your meaning isn't clear.

I'm saying that providing labour for pay is "services," and in capitalism selling goods and services is ideally done for profit.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure where I fall in the spectrum.

No worries.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying that providing labour for pay is "services," and in capitalism selling goods and services is ideally done for profit.

OK.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously
↑
Yes, during the time that the economy was still tanking as a result of Bush's second worst depression in the Nation's history.

But now it's growing in leaps and bounds because of current policies, thank you very much.

So you agree that the first couple of years of the Obama administration were bad because they were a carry over from Bush's depression.

But you want to give Trump credit from day one for the economy continuing to rise as it did during Obama's last five years.

That is hypocritical.

 

[ecco]

Trump haters ... grossly underestimate the mindset of the typical Trump supporter.

I, for one, do not underestimate the mindset of the typical Trump supporter. I understand it and it scares the hell out of me.

 

[Revoltingest]

ecco previously
↑
Yes, during the time that the economy was still tanking as a result of Bush's second worst depression in the Nation's history.

So you agree that the first couple of years of the Obama administration were bad because they were a carry over from Bush's depression.

But you want to give Trump credit from day one for the economy continuing to rise as it did during Obama's last five years.

That is hypocritical.

No president should be automatically be blamed or given credit for what
the economy does during his administration. Economies are complex
things which respond to many things, with various time delays.
Instead of regime duration, one should examine just what policies a
president & Congress enacted, & how those effected economic change.

 

[metis]

Call me in 2024 and we'll compare notes. I think the personal vendettas that some, if not most, Trump haters exhibit have caused them to grossly underestimate the mindset of the typical Trump supporter.

If you're implying that I'm a "Trump hater", you certainly don't know me at all. If the above is the best response you can come up with, it's no wonder why you've fallen for Trump.

And if you truly were bothered by "personal vendettas", why in the world are you defending Trump? The guy is a walking-talking vendetta factory. And talk about "hate"? Do you actually ever listen to him or read his tweets? He can't hardly go a single day without using hate speech against someone.

 

[metis]

By the way, I only just noticed this was in the Capitalist Only section.

Oops!

 

[BSM1]

ecco previously
↑
Yes, during the time that the economy was still tanking as a result of Bush's second worst depression in the Nation's history.

So you agree that the first couple of years of the Obama administration were bad because they were a carry over from Bush's depression.

But you want to give Trump credit from day one for the economy continuing to rise as it did during Obama's last five years.

That is hypocritical.

Nope.

 

[BSM1]

I, for one, do not underestimate the mindset of the typical Trump supporter. I understand it and it scares the hell out of me.

Be afraid...be very, very afraid.....bwahahahaha.

 

[BSM1]

If you're implying that I'm a "Trump hater", you certainly don't know me at all. If the above is the best response you can come up with, it's no wonder why you've fallen for Trump.

And if you truly were bothered by "personal vendettas", why in the world are you defending Trump? The guy is a walking-talking vendetta factory. And talk about "hate"? Do you actually ever listen to him or read his tweets? He can't hardly go a single day without using hate speech against someone.

Go back and read my post and you'll see the the word "you" was never used. Breathe, M...breathe.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you're implying that I'm a "Trump hater", you certainly don't know me at all. If the above is the best response you can come up with, it's no wonder why you've fallen for Trump.

And if you truly were bothered by "personal vendettas", why in the world are you defending Trump? The guy is a walking-talking vendetta factory. And talk about "hate"? Do you actually ever listen to him or read his tweets? He can't hardly go a single day without using hate speech against someone.

When the thread devolves to the point where you claim to not be a Trump ha

Go back and read my post and you'll see the the word "you" was never used. Breathe, M...breathe.

Well, even if you had called a spade a spade, it would be cromulent.
(I looked up TDS in the dictionary. Guess whose picture was there?)

It all seems an attempt to take the spotlight off of Warren's radical
veering in the direction of socialism. Is it because they are actually
embarrassed by her proposal, or that they support it, but dare not
admit this, lest it defeat her in a 2020 run?

 

[BSM1]

When the thread devolves to the point where you claim to not be a Trump ha

Well, even if you had called a spade a spade, it would be cromulent.
(I looked up TDS in the dictionary. Guess whose picture was there?)

It all seems an attempt to take the spotlight off of Warren's radical
veering in the direction of socialism. Is it because they are actually
embarrassed by her proposal, or that they support it, but dare not
admit this, lest it defeat her in a 2020 run?

It just gets curiouser and curiouser with the addition of O-Cortez. It's ironic that someone mention in another thread how frightened they are of Trump supporters when the Dems are starting to devolve into a blatant Tim Burtonesque political party.

 

[ecco]

No president should be automatically be blamed or given credit for what
the economy does during his administration. Economies are complex
things which respond to many things, with various time delays.
Instead of regime duration, one should examine just what policies a
president & Congress enacted, & how those effected economic change.

Perhaps you should have addressed that comment to...

But now it's growing in leaps and bounds because of current policies, thank you very much.

 

[ecco]

So you agree that the first couple of years of the Obama administration were bad because they were a carry over from Bush's depression.

But you want to give Trump credit from day one for the economy continuing to rise as it did during Obama's last five years.

That is hypocritical.

Nope.

I am not at all surprised that you do not find your views hypocritical.

If a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama said "John McCain is not a hero, he got captured", you and the Right would have been up in arms.

If a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama made fun of a person with a physical handicap, you and the Right would have been up in arms.

If a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama appointed their closest relatives to senior positions in the White House, you and the Right would have been up in arms.

If a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama played a few rounds of golf, you and the Right would have been up in arms.

But you are not a hypocrite. Uh huh.