TexasCHLforum.com

Economics will fix this. The reality is that socialism outside of universal slavery to the state (i.e. "communism") rests upon the theft of money by printing more of it. This process steal from the poor to give to the rich while financing quasi-socialist policies. America has accomplished this feat in a never before seen way, sucking wealth from not only the middle and lower class in the US but also every nation that uses dollars as a reserve and every person the world over who holds or uses dollars.

This process always breeds reliance upon it, and when this engine shows signs of wear, the desperate chiefs merely push it harder rather than stepping back and evaluating the underlying problem. Recall Quint in Jaws, obviously destroying his engine and crippling his vessel through willful ignorance and in defiance of their respective limits. These systems could be dismantled safely, but human nature prevents that process.

Crashes crash (versus desecalating peacefully) because the combination of greed and a desperate belief in the persistence of normalcy cause the exact people in finance who should predict and prevent the crash to sprint toward the edge while shouting for others to follow.

Economic action and finance need one another, but they can be horribly decoupled, often for the benefit for government spending and always to the benefit of the obscenely rich. Depressions tend to reset that circumstance (at least until we forget the lesson), and that's what we need: finance needs to be brought to heel to suuport the economy, which needs to work for people while the government keeps its greedy hands off.

Right now we have the government reappropriating wealth from the world in general and 99.5% of Americans in particular for the benefit of the super rich, and doing it for the highly ironic cause of redistributing wealth to the bottom end of the folks that they're robbing.

House Elections happen every two years. If Democrat anger towards Trump produced a swing in the House and lost seats in the Senate at its zenith, I'm hard pressed to call that much of a victory for them.

The Senate confirms USSC justices, and there are two such justices on the left end of the court who are over 80. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has a nice ring to it, no?

The issue to me is that charity and GOVERNMENT SPONSORED charity are not the same thing. There is no ceiling on the amount of your income that you can donate to the government. There is no ceiling on the amount of your wealth that you can give away.

Streamlining the process of giving is necessary because real giving breeds respect and gratitude. Impersonal giving via government confiscation breeds resentment and corruption as all of the power rests with a government intermediary which does not care about waste, opportunity cost, or resultant benefits. When I give to a charity, I want to see that they're using that money to help people. When the government confiscates my income, the folks who actually distribute it have no skin in the game.

This sort of moral hazard causes huge problems everywhere that it crops up. The fubdamental cause of the real estate bubble in 2005-7 was the repackaging of loans from originators for sale into the securities market. The people on the ground who knew thatmost of the debtors could never repay the mortgages didn't care because they had no intention of holding on to the loans. The principal-agent problem, which is a broader category containing most of these examples, also describes government taxation based charity very well.

For that reason, the watered down socialism that many Democrats support fails in practice due to an inability to provide intrinsic motivation to key actors.

The thing is, his review was poking fun at the objectification of women, and that STILL wasn't enough to please the base. Male Democrats appear to be finding that they cannot please sexists because they are male. It is a prison of their own design, so my sympathy for Beto is pretty limited.

If you go to work for a boss that can't be pleased and who hates you because of how you were born, the only real answer is to find another job.

bblhd672 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:41 pm

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:32 pm There's nothing "liberal" about socialism.

Nope, but there is alot of communist about socialism.

Socialism was only ever a transitional stage toward communism. It turns out that communism doesn't scale up well, and most of the communists in Asia (small peasant villages that stuck together because the alternative was death) were annihilated or dispersed by the Soviets and ChiComs. So the Marxist "grand experiment" stalls out in socialism and then morphs into fascism (China) or plutocracy (Russia).

None of those are examples that thinking people would seek to emulate, but if you bring it up to a committed Socialist, they'll immediately haul out the mother of all No True Scotsman defenses. It is hilarious unless they're at risk of gaining power.

Liberal doesn't mean what it has come to represent over the past 30 years. Liberalism as the term was used until the 1980s, represented tolerance and limited government intervention in people's lives, and then only for the purpose of defending against the infringement of the rights of another citizen. These days, "liberal" means some combination of socialism and racism/sexism (which is deemed acceptable when directed against white males). Socialism and communism are founded upon an economic thesis that assumes widespread slavery, and they have always agreed upon summary execution of political dissent.

There's nothing "liberal" about socialism.