PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #161
ROFLMNAO...
So you're saying that Socialism 'necessitates' the public ownership of the means of production..., which in NO WAY should be confused with Government intervention the markets...
GENIUS!
Explaining further that this Socialist attempt to control the means of production is merely Socialism acting as a 'stabilizing agent' to prevent capitalism's inevitable collapse?
Yet in reality, capitalism has a long history of stability; where the socialist stabilization, such as Bawney Fwank's coercive abuse of power in threatening the US Financial Markets with civil right law suits; where the Socialist demanded that if the Financial Markets did not lower their actuarial thresholds to accommodate the 'underprivileged' they'd find themselves under Investigation by the US Justice Department; where upon the market foolishly capitulated; which resulted in a filthy fascist partnership; followed up by socialist psuedo-gaurantees of those sub-prime loans through Fanny and Freddie; and THAT Socialist "Stabilization of Capitalism" resulted in the present financial meltdown; where FURTHER Socialist Stabilization has resulted IN THE SAME absurd policy which is propping up failures and punishing success... all of which can only result in an exponentially deeper leve of economic recession and a prolonged PERIOD required to recover from that socialist induced calamity...
This projecting DE-STABILIZATION as a stabilizing influence does however certify your socialist bonafides... so CONGRATS COMRADE!
No, idiot, government intervention in a capitalist economy doesn't come close to being sufficient for the establishment of socialism inasmuch as it does not introduce the public ownership of the means of production.
OH! So Socialism can ONLY EXIST in TOTALITY? Any policy which promotes the interests of or otherwise advances the power of socialist advocacies, which COULD and DO position those advocactes to take total control over the means of production, CANNOT be consider "Socialist" because, it does not enjoy the TOTALITY OF ESTABLISHED, ENTRENCHED SOCIALISM...
Well that's handy... LOL GOTCHA!
(Again kids... notice how COMPLICATED it all is...
Socialism is a DISTINCT Entity which exist ONLY in ethereal uptopian myth; which can never be realized because of the inherent imperfections of fluidity common to reality... meaning that transitional snapshot identities of ANY governance will NEVER meet the pedantic definitions designed to conceal its fatally flawed construct.)
Government intervention plays an integral role in capitalist economic development. For instance, we could consider the role of government intervention in strategic trade policy, namely through protections of the development of infant industries, which has the effect of maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.
LOL... Wellthere ya have it... A Constitutional Republican Government, the representatives of which promote the general welfare of the citizenry, is tantamount to 'government intervention'... I mean after all, there's a government and it's clearly intervening... SO it's NOT PURE CAPITALISM... ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother that's hysterical!
I mean to get there, all we have to do is to set aside the whole thing where the government merely establishes guidelines which promote the means by which one soversign nation is expected to treat the trade by free individuals of our sovereign nation who seek trade with same... and PRESTO! You've got the government 'IN BED with BUSINESS'....
Funny stuff...
Unless, of course, you want to maintain that capitalism has never existed, since free markets have never existed in an industrialized society.![]()
DAMN I'M GOOD! Can I call it or WHAT? I know these morons like the back of my ample hand...
![eusa_whistle :eusa_whistle: :eusa_whistle:](/styles/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif)