Bush: "I had to become a Socialist to save the country"

[editec]

Sorry Editec, you must not have been paying as close attention as I was from 2000-2006, because it was ALL GOP.

Did the GOP need to convince a few Democrats to vote with them? Sure. Did they give them pork to go along? Probably.

So they sold out and you STILL think it's ALL the Republicans fault?

For example, in 1993, I saw how many Democrats went along with NAFTA. So clearly enough Dems were bought off by lobbyists/special interest to go along. And do I think the Dems are angels? No. But the GOP is who got us where we are today.

If your agument is that the GOP is WORSE the the DEMS, okay. But your posts often neglect to note that the DEMS ALSO worked hand in hand with the REpublicans and that makes you look like an unthinking partisan for the Dems.

If you don't think so, then stop voting. Stop caring about politics. If it doesn't matter and they are all equally rotten, stop voting.

Yeah, that makes like no sense.

Remember the Democrats from 2000-2006 that tried really hard to stop the GOP's radical agenda? If you forgot, just google the Nuclear Option. The GOP wanted to do away with filabusters because that was the only weapon the Dems had. So then the Dems took power and what do you think happened? The GOP have filabustered more in 2 years than the Dems did in 6.

Whose fault is that? The Republicans or the feeble Dems?

The reason I have a major problem with Republicans saying, "everyone has to share the blame", is for one that's a lie, but also this montra will help them out big time in 2010 and 2012. Fuck that! They fucked up this economy and they took us into that war for $. And not money for us but money for them. Money for the oil companies and defense companies. The losses they put on the US taxpayers.

Everyone has to to accept blame for WHAT THEY DID.

Blindly just blaming everyone when everyone was NOT involved is a mistake I quite agree.

That's why it pays to KNOW who voted for what, don't you think?

 

[Shadow]

The O'Franken Factor didn't suck.

Must be why he never made any money and eventually had to pay the station out of his own pocket due to no audience LOL. Yeah, it didn't suck at all....

 

[Orange_Juice]

Just goes to show, even the most dedicated free marketeers admit Capitalism needs big government just to survive

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just goes to show, even the most dedicated free marketeers admit Capitalism needs big government just to survive

No, us real "free marketeers" do not believe that in the least.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Just goes to show, even the most dedicated free marketeers admit Capitalism needs big government just to survive

What goes to show that? Which dedicated free marketeers admit that capitalism needs big government?

 

[Agnapostate]

What goes to show that? Which dedicated free marketeers admit that capitalism needs big government?

Intelligent ones. Apart from the fact that trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor, the prevention of the existence of a viable manufacturing and industrial sector would obviously prevent the existence of market competition in those sectors.

I would recommend having a look at Ha Joon-Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Intelligent ones. Apart from the fact that trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor, the prevention of the existence of a viable manufacturing and industrial sector would obviously prevent the existence of market competition in those sectors.

I would recommend having a look at Ha Joon-Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

Gotcha. Long-winded non-answer.

 

[Agnapostate]

Gotcha. Long-winded non-answer.

In what manner did it not sufficiently address the question that you asked? Do you disagree with the protection of infant industries in order to protect market competition in the long run? Do you see how the comparative advantage argument doesn't apply to such instances because foreign industrial and manufacturing sectors continue to develop and don't remain at a plateau?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

In what manner did it not sufficiently address the question that you asked? Do you disagree with the protection of infant industries in order to protect market competition in the long run? Do you see how the comparative advantage argument doesn't apply to such instances because foreign industrial and manufacturing sectors continue to develop and don't remain at a plateau?

I asked for a list of names, or one or two prominent names, of people who fervently supported free market capitalism, who nonetheless say that socialism is needed in certain circumstances that are valid to what is happening in reality right now.

 

[Agnapostate]

I asked for a list of names, or one or two prominent names, of people who fervently supported free market capitalism, who nonetheless say that socialism is needed in certain circumstances that are valid to what is happening in reality right now.

How about a list of countries, since the majority of industrialized countries have put a leash on trade liberalization in order to protect infant industries. Given the inaccurate and wide-sweeping nature of the Right's use of the term "socialism," I shall assume that any major facet of a planned economy would qualify. If so, tariffs and other regulations used to protect infant industries are used by many industrialized countries in order to ensure long term market survival.

Are you quite sure you won't take a look at Kicking Away the Ladder?

 

[Agnapostate]

Must be why he never made any money and eventually had to pay the station out of his own pocket due to no audience LOL. Yeah, it didn't suck at all....

You do realize that O'Lielly had to pay to be on the air, correct?

 

[editec]

Intelligent ones. Apart from the fact that trade liberalization promotes adverse socioeconomic impacts as long as heavily industrialized countries entice poorer and underdeveloped countries into remaining dependent on trade with them rather than utilizing their productive assets into forming a viable manufacturing and industrial sector of their own, much the same way that capitalism necessitates worker dependence on the wage provider, so that he may deprive them of the products of their labor, the prevention of the existence of a viable manufacturing and industrial sector would obviously prevent the existence of market competition in those sectors.

I would recommend having a look at Ha Joon-Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

Tariffs made this nation great.

Incidently this is wrong

In protecting their industries, the Americans were going against the advice of such prominent economists as Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say, who saw the country’s future in agriculture.

Contrary to the misreading and out right lies that we have been told, ADAM SMITH was NOT a FREE TRADER.

Why people continue to insist he was, when anyone can read his thoughts on the subject I cannot say.

IU guess people would rather read somebody's interpretation of Adam Smith than bother to read the man's own words.

As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." (Book 4, Chapter 2) Wealth of Nations

 

[Agnapostate]

To the extent that Smith did support free markets, he did so because he believed that they would ensure equality. Had he been aware of the mass industrialization that would exacerbate vast income and wealth inequalities, he would have likely revised his position. He would be appalled by the neoliberal idiocy that's supported in his name by modern capitalists.

 

[editec]

To the extent that Smith did support free markets, he did so because he believed that they would ensure equality.

The extent to which he supported free markets was entirely to do with agriculture.

Basically he thought it foolish to impose tariffs on wine from France (because England's wine was crap) and cork from Portugal because he thought it foolish to attempt to overcome the natural advantage that Portugal had to grow cork.

As to imposing tariffs on incoming manufactured goods?

Adam Smith was no less for those than I am for them today, or Hamilton and every POTUS until FDR was for them for the first 200 years of American history.

Had he been aware of the mass industrialization that would exacerbate vast income and wealth inequalities, he would have likely revised his position. He would be appalled by the neoliberal idiocy that's supported in his name by modern capitalists.

You apparently have fallen for the excerpted version of Adam Smith that the neo-cons have been using to imply that Adam Smith was a damned fool.

Read Wealth of Nations, and while you do do so knowing that Adam Smith worked for the English government which had enormous tariffs to protect its own industrial development.

 

[Paulie]

What if I would rather just buy imported goods instead, because some are just flat out better quality than their american counterparts?

Why should I have to pay more because tariffs increase their cost?

Tariffs are just another way to inhibit freedom within the market. They're a horrible policy, in my opinion.

 

[Agnapostate]

You apparently have fallen for the excerpted version of Adam Smith that the neo-cons have been using to imply that Adam Smith was a damned fool.

Read Wealth of Nations, and while you do do so knowing that Adam Smith worked for the English government which had enormous tariffs to protect its own industrial development.

How so? It is not inaccurate to say that his views have been distorted by modern free marketers.

What if I would rather just buy imported goods instead, because some are just flat out better quality than their american counterparts?

Why should I have to pay more because tariffs increase their cost?

Tariffs are just another way to inhibit freedom within the market. They're a horrible policy, in my opinion.

And what of the infant industries argument?

 

[Paulie]

And what of the infant industries argument?

Trade barriers result in counter trade barriers, and the end result is diminishing market size. This hurts infant industries.

I believe that if you offer something viable, the market will eventually come to you.

 

[sealybobo]

Trade barriers result in counter trade barriers, and the end result is diminishing market size. This hurts infant industries.

I believe that if you offer something viable, the market will eventually come to you.

Trade Barriers shmade barriers.

Our trade policies are hurting the American people.

Screw the market size and infant industries. What's more important? The citizens of this country or the corporations.

And forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Walmart is the only thing killing infant industries.

If you stop buying stuff from countries that pay slave wages, then some American in America might be able to make that product and sell it for a profit.

I think you just want cheap goods. You don't give a rats ass about diminishing market size.

Please explain diminishing market size. Do you mean less people to sell to? This sounds like a problem for large companies, not small.

Anyways, for everyone else reading your post, I hope they realize this is just right wing spin. This is you controlling the conversation. "trade has to be completely free and NAFTA should not be fixed, even if it's unfair and harmful to the American people because...." Total bullshit.

I'm beginning to not like Libertarians as much as I dislike Republicans/conservatives. Their radical ideas would be harmful to millions of Americans. This is not an every man for himself country and the middle class is the creation of our government. It is not the creation of capitalism or free trade.

 

[Paulie]

Trade Barriers shmade barriers.

Our trade policies are hurting the American people.

Screw the market size and infant industries. What's more important? The citizens of this country or the corporations.

And forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Walmart is the only thing killing infant industries.

If you stop buying stuff from countries that pay slave wages, then some American in America might be able to make that product and sell it for a profit.

I think you just want cheap goods. You don't give a rats ass about diminishing market size.

Please explain diminishing market size. Do you mean less people to sell to? This sounds like a problem for large companies, not small.

Anyways, for everyone else reading your post, I hope they realize this is just right wing spin. This is you controlling the conversation. "trade has to be completely free and NAFTA should not be fixed, even if it's unfair and harmful to the American people because...." Total bullshit.

I'm beginning to not like Libertarians as much as I dislike Republicans/conservatives. Their radical ideas would be harmful to millions of Americans. This is not an every man for himself country and the middle class is the creation of our government. It is not the creation of capitalism or free trade.

Sealy I sympathize with a lot of what the left desires, but until the left sheds their overall sense of entitlement, I'll never stand in their corner.

This IS an every man for himself society. The CHOICE to help is always there, but no one must be FORCED to, in any way.

It puts hair on your chest.

Oh, and I don't support NAFTA or any of the other FTA's. That isn't real free trade, its cronyism.

 

[editec]

What if I would rather just buy imported goods instead, because some are just flat out better quality than their american counterparts?

I won't play the better qiaulity debate game because that really has damned all to do with the debate.

Why should I have to pay more because tariffs increase their cost?

Look at our current economy, Paul. Most of what is wrong with it has to do with FREE TRADE.

Tariffs are just another way to inhibit freedom within the market. They're a horrible policy, in my opinion.

Fuck the market. The market is but one part of a nation.

That idiotic religion of mammon that you worship is destroying this nation.

Wake up