Sanders planning "Major Speech" on democratic socialism

[Freewill]

After the last debate it is obvious, Sanders is a distraction, a planned distraction. Act like a new age thinker then have Mrs. clinton tear him a new one in a debate is like faking the hand off to the half back.

 

[NightFox]

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure.

Free market capitalism has been a dismal failure? What other economic system in the history of mankind has created anywhere near as much broad based wealth and prosperity? You do understand that "free market" is simply another way of saying voluntary exchange, right? Voluntary exchange being only workable in the absence of coercion of course, what other way would you like to see exchange take place, involuntarily? What other mechanism would you like to see determining the dynamics of the economy other than a free market, central planning?

So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

Had it's moments? I'd say that's more than a bit of an understatement given that it's created the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, why would we want to change that? So that we can be less wealthy and have less economic freedom?

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

What system would that be? History clearly demonstrates that no system yet tried has been as successful at fulfilling on such a broad scale human wants and needs as that which has been practiced in the United States.

 

[NightFox]

Also, USSR had a tyrannical government.

So it's no longer your assertion that the United States has been so economically successful because of it's resources, it's because we didn't have a "tyrannical government"? Why did the Soviet Union have a tyrannical government, did it have anything to do with the necessity to tightly control economic activity?

About the organized theft issue, you need to read John Perkins book. It is really enlightening!

This is what lawyers call a "document dump", instead of addressing my point you attempt to throw a book at me, I could throw a whole library of books that I've read at you on the subject of economics, however that would not provide anything useful to the discussion nor would I expect you to read them. Try addressing the point yourself......

 

[Mac1958]

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure.

Free market capitalism has been a dismal failure? What other economic system in the history of mankind has created anywhere near as much broad based wealth and prosperity? You do understand that "free market" is simply another way of saying voluntary exchange, right? Voluntary exchange being only workable in the absence of coercion of course, what other way would you like to see exchange take place, involuntarily? What other mechanism would you like to see determining the dynamics of the economy other than a free market, central planning?

So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

Had it's moments? I'd say that's more than a bit of an understatement given that it's created the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, why would we want to change that? So that we can be less wealthy and have less economic freedom?

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

What system would that be? History clearly demonstrates that no system yet tried has been as successful at fulfilling on such a broad scale human wants and needs as that which has been practiced in the United States.

This "free market capitalism" stuff is intellectually dishonest.

First, there is no such thing as a "free" market - obviously - so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much. As with most things, it's all about equilibrium. Obviously.

Second, if a good system is not perfect you work to improve it, you don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the worldwide benefits of the system are so blazingly clear.

This is all a transparent excuse to completely end capitalism and replace it with Central Planning. Even Sanders himself is not proposing that.

Just be honest, folks. Just say what you want.
.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about Bernie Sanders

 

[bedowin62]

IT'S HYSTERICAL watching left-wing nutjobs here try to portray themselves as moderates merely trying to "correct" the situation where the rich have "too much". As if every dictator in the world didnt think the same way.
one idiot yesterday, donald, says he only wants to take one car away from a rich person who has 8 cars and give it to the poor i guess. As if that would ever satisfy people who think what others have belongs to the government first, not even the poor, to be "distributed" as the government sees fit

idiots and hypocrites

 

[NightFox]

This "free market capitalism" stuff is intellectually dishonest.

Really, how so ?

First, there is no such thing as a "free" market - obviously -

No it's not "obviously" , free markets exist wherever and whenever exchange takes place in the absence of coercion (also known as voluntary exchange).

so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much.

You're missing the fact that this is not a singular nor a simple problem, the effectiveness and efficiency of "degrees of regulation" vary from one market segment to the next and from one region to the next, there is no silver bullet whereby one can declare that X amount of "regulation" is the most effective and the most efficient for an entire modern economy.

As with most things, it's all about equilibrium. Obviously.

Why is it "all about equilibrium"? What does "equilibrium" entail in your mind?

Second, if a good system is not perfect you work to improve it, you don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the worldwide benefits of the system are so blazingly clear.

Voluntary exchange IS perfect it's plain as day once you understand what it entails.

Just be honest, folks. Just say what you want.
.

At this point in the discussion I prefer to stick with the Socratic method, I'm sorry if that annoys you.

 

[Conservative65]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure. So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

How about humans meeting their own needs instead of expecting the government to do it for them?

 

[Mac1958]

This "free market capitalism" stuff is intellectually dishonest.

Really, how so ?

First, there is no such thing as a "free" market - obviously -

No it's not "obviously" , free markets exist wherever and whenever exchange takes place in the absence of coercion (also known as voluntary exchange).

so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much.

You're missing the fact that this is not a singular nor a simple problem, the effectiveness and efficiency of "degrees of regulation" vary from one market segment to the next and from one region to the next, there is no silver bullet whereby one can declare that X amount of "regulation" is the most effective and the most efficient for an entire modern economy.

As with most things, it's all about equilibrium. Obviously.

Why is it "all about equilibrium"? What does "equilibrium" entail in your mind?

Second, if a good system is not perfect you work to improve it, you don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the worldwide benefits of the system are so blazingly clear.

Voluntary exchange IS perfect it's plain as day once you understand what it entails.

Just be honest, folks. Just say what you want.
.

At this point in the discussion I prefer to stick with the Socratic method, I'm sorry if that annoys you.

I was actually disagreeing with DonaldFG and the way anti-capitalists essentially use the term "free market" as a fact.

But to answer your question about equilibrium, that's what I meant by the phrase so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much.

And that point of equilibrium can certainly exist at different points along a spectrum depending on industry.
.

 

[NightFox]

nobody cares about Bernie Sanders

Speak for yourself, I love Bernie in fact I can't wait to get my Bernie Sanders with Kung-Fu Grip Action Figure this X-Mas.

Not to mention, Bernie is a poignant reminder of just how "far out" things were in the 1960's, he's kinda like a Jefferson Airplane Album in politician form all he needs now is a tie-dye t-shirt and a headband and the picture will be complete.

 

[Disir]

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure.

Free market capitalism has been a dismal failure? What other economic system in the history of mankind has created anywhere near as much broad based wealth and prosperity? You do understand that "free market" is simply another way of saying voluntary exchange, right? Voluntary exchange being only workable in the absence of coercion of course, what other way would you like to see exchange take place, involuntarily? What other mechanism would you like to see determining the dynamics of the economy other than a free market, central planning?

So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

Had it's moments? I'd say that's more than a bit of an understatement given that it's created the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, why would we want to change that? So that we can be less wealthy and have less economic freedom?

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

What system would that be? History clearly demonstrates that no system yet tried has been as successful at fulfilling on such a broad scale human wants and needs as that which has been practiced in the United States.

This "free market capitalism" stuff is intellectually dishonest.

First, there is no such thing as a "free" market - obviously - so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much. As with most things, it's all about equilibrium. Obviously.

Second, if a good system is not perfect you work to improve it, you don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the worldwide benefits of the system are so blazingly clear.

This is all a transparent excuse to completely end capitalism and replace it with Central Planning. Even Sanders himself is not proposing that.

Just be honest, folks. Just say what you want.
.

That's feeding into a fear and there is no evidence to support that position.

 

[Mac1958]

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure.

Free market capitalism has been a dismal failure? What other economic system in the history of mankind has created anywhere near as much broad based wealth and prosperity? You do understand that "free market" is simply another way of saying voluntary exchange, right? Voluntary exchange being only workable in the absence of coercion of course, what other way would you like to see exchange take place, involuntarily? What other mechanism would you like to see determining the dynamics of the economy other than a free market, central planning?

So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

Had it's moments? I'd say that's more than a bit of an understatement given that it's created the wealthiest society in the history of mankind, why would we want to change that? So that we can be less wealthy and have less economic freedom?

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

What system would that be? History clearly demonstrates that no system yet tried has been as successful at fulfilling on such a broad scale human wants and needs as that which has been practiced in the United States.

This "free market capitalism" stuff is intellectually dishonest.

First, there is no such thing as a "free" market - obviously - so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much. As with most things, it's all about equilibrium. Obviously.

Second, if a good system is not perfect you work to improve it, you don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the worldwide benefits of the system are so blazingly clear.

This is all a transparent excuse to completely end capitalism and replace it with Central Planning. Even Sanders himself is not proposing that.

Just be honest, folks. Just say what you want.
.

That's feeding into a fear and there is no evidence to support that position.

Outside of the phrase "dismal failure"?
.

 

[Disir]

Outside of the phrase "dismal failure"?

It has been a dismal failure.

 

[NightFox]

I was actually disagreeing with DonaldFG and the way anti-capitalists essentially use the term "free market" as a fact.

OIC, you quoted my post so I made certain assumptions........

But to answer your question about equilibrium, that's what I meant by the phrase so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much.

Define "most effectively" and "too much" .......

And that point of equilibrium can certainly exist at different points along a spectrum depending on industry.
.

Yes, until it doesn't and over and unequal regulation tosses a domestic sector into decline, I'm sure you are aware that our regulations are not written by angels who would never enact regulation favorable to certain market participants at the expense of others or regulations whose unintended negative consequences supersede the original objectives.

 

[Mac1958]

Outside of the phrase "dismal failure"?

It has been a dismal failure.

Then there ya go. My point stands.
.

 

[Disir]

Thus leaving the ultimate perfection of a theory intact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism was not the reason for American prosperity. It was a consequence of the rich resources here.

I see, so your thesis is that capitalism has nothing to do with the fact that the United States is the richest nation in history? The Soviet Union was VERY rich in resources, arguably richer in resources than the United States and with a much greater land area and a larger population how come the U.S.S.R produced no where near the wealth and prosperity that the United States did over the same period? Why did the U.S.S.R collapse economically while the United States continued to prosper?

Capitalism has been raping the land here and abroad with little compensation to indigenous peoples for the land they occupied in the first place. And that includes insufficient compensation to the employees of these companies.

You seem to think that Capitalism is the exclusive domain of the United States (hint: it isn't) everywhere around the globe where indigenous peoples got "raped" you'll find that they had a unscrupulous government that was part and parcel to said raping, that has nothing to do with capitalism since capitalism is based on voluntary exchange not organized theft.

Finally you forgot to answer my question, to whit:

What economic system(s) in your opinion has created more broad based prosperity than capitalism?

Actually, capitalism can be a good system. But the free market type has been a dismal failure. So, the American brand of capitalism has had its moments, but it has not served society for the general good. It appears to me that the nations blending socialist policies with capitalism are doing the best for their people.

We need an economic system that responds to human needs much more efficiently, especially with resources.

Hop on an inner tube to Fidel, Loser

 

[Disir]

Outside of the phrase "dismal failure"?

It has been a dismal failure.

Then there ya go. My point stands.
.

You don't have one that isn't fear based.

The reality is that the free market has been an epic failure. Name a country that it has been a success in? You can't. But, you are right........the free market ain't free. It's why the IMF is a total disaster.

 

[Mac1958]

I was actually disagreeing with DonaldFG and the way anti-capitalists essentially use the term "free market" as a fact.

OIC, you quoted my post so I made certain assumptions........

But to answer your question about equilibrium, that's what I meant by the phrase so the question becomes what kinds and degrees of regulation can most effectively keep its potential excesses under control without damaging its dynamism too much.

Define "most effectively" and "too much" .......

And that point of equilibrium can certainly exist at different points along a spectrum depending on industry.
.

Yes, until it doesn't and over and unequal regulation tosses a domestic sector into decline, I'm sure you are aware that our regulations are not written by angels who would never enact regulation favorable to certain market participants at the expense of others or regulations whose unintended negative consequences supersede the original objectives.

I can't put a specific point on "effective regulation" and "too much" regulation. That's a decision a society has to make - How much economic dynamism is it willing to sacrifice in order to maintain proper balance? And yes, "proper" is the key word there.

We're clearly seeing a move toward populism right now, which was turbocharged by the Meltdown, which was in large part an abject failure of regulation. I'm no doubt to the Left of you on this issue, but there has to be a point of equilibrium that most can agree on if they're willing to work together.

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The poorest in America live far better than the vast majority of the rest of the world. They should kiss the ground they walk on for having running water and a roof over their head