THIS IS SOCIALISM...The Trump administration just lent $700 million to a trucking company sued for ripping off taxpayers

[airplanemechanic]

A fucking trucking company!

So? You don't think we need trucking companies?

no...and we dont need bigots either

How the fuck you think all that shit you buy gets to the fucking shelves? Walks down the road by itself?

 

[dblack]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

 

[whitehall]

"Fucking trucking"? What the hell is going on with the left?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

 

[pknopp]

Government bail outs. The cornerstone of Capitalism.

 

[dblack]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

 

[BrokeLoser]

A fucking trucking company!

Treasury just lent a troubled trucking company $700 million. The company was worth only $70 million

The US Treasury is giving a $700 million loan to YRC Worldwide, a troubled trucking company that warned in May it was in danger of going out of business.

edition.cnn.com

By George, I think you have got it! That is indeed socialism, trump style.

So now the taxpayers own 30% of the company.

Good, real, productive, positive contributing Americans take great pride in investing in the "GENERAL WELFARE" of our nation...We like ROi...We HATE investing in ShaQuita and her baby factory...we hate investing in wetback Guadalupe and her litters of silver tooth filth...I can't figure out how you struggle with making simple distinctions.
Listen you dumbmotherfuckers...lets do this one more time..Follow along.
Forcing good real productive Americans to invest in Guadalupe and her litter of filth = SOCIALISM
Forcing good real Americans to invest in the GENERAL WELFARE of the Republic = NOT SOCIALISM
Still confused?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

 

[dblack]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

Explain what you mean by a "classless society".

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

Explain what you mean by a "classless society".

You now ask me to explain what I mean by a “classless society.”

But I have only said such a thing was a dream of American 1950’s propagandists countering Soviet propaganda (which once spoke of such a goal — placing it somewhere in the far future). Here is the reference I already provided:

"People's capitalism" was an American propaganda meme popularized in the mid-1950s as a name for the American economic system .... It was endorsed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for worldwide use by the United States Information Agency, which employed the term to trumpet the successful aspects of the American economy worldwide during the Cold War. The propagandists depicted the United States as a classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves” in the Soviet Union and China.” — People's capitalism - Wikipedia

So perhaps you should ask what President Eisenhower meant by this term. Or Karl Marx.

 

[beagle9]

So now the taxpayers own 30% of the company.

Could be until repaid.

 

[dblack]

You now ask me to explain what I mean by a “classless society".

I'm just trying to figure out what you meant by:

I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

But you're too busy doing the denial dance to even acknowledge your statement, much less explain it. Why do you wish we were headed toward a "People's Capitalism"?

 

[Aletheia4u]

A fucking trucking company!

Treasury just lent a troubled trucking company $700 million. The company was worth only $70 million

The US Treasury is giving a $700 million loan to YRC Worldwide, a troubled trucking company that warned in May it was in danger of going out of business.

edition.cnn.com

Whom ever was the one who has done the rip off must have been planted in that company to bring it down. And George Soros owns JB Hunt which they could have been ready to takeover Yellow /Roadway corporation's' clienteles.
And so many don't need to suffer behind one person wrong doings. Beside they hired more women in that company.
But what Obama has done for Soros was to help him to stay on the top.

Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

Latest news coverage, email, free stock quotes, live scores and video are just the beginning. Discover more every day at Yahoo!

answers.yahoo.com

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

Explain what you mean by a "classless society".

You now ask me to explain what I mean by a “classless society.”

But I have only said such a thing was a dream of American 1950’s propagandists countering Soviet propaganda (which once spoke of such a goal — placing it somewhere in the far future). Here is the reference I already provided:

"People's capitalism" was an American propaganda meme popularized in the mid-1950s as a name for the American economic system .... It was endorsed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for worldwide use by the United States Information Agency, which employed the term to trumpet the successful aspects of the American economy worldwide during the Cold War. The propagandists depicted the United States as a classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves” in the Soviet Union and China.” — People's capitalism - Wikipedia

So perhaps you should ask what President Eisenhower meant by this term. Or Karl Marx.

dblack —

Now you insult me: “You’re too busy doing the denial dance to even acknowledge your statement, much less explain it.”

You ask, “Why do you wish we were headed toward a "People's Capitalism"?

I only in passing referenced this lovely utopia of capitalists, of Dwight Eisenhower’s, of “an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and ‘equal opportunity’ are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.“

Why on earth would anybody NOT wish our capitalist system to be or evolve in this way? This is part of the “American Dream” at its best!

You must really despise private ownership of homes, or widespread stock ownership, or good education, or equal opportunity ... to argue as you do.

Frankly, you are like a junkyard dog who won’t give up an old bone. You gnarl and pick at old words, instead of understanding what they mean in different contexts.

This whole OP was about the hundreds of millions of fiat dollars spent to save a particular bankrupt corporation and whether that should or should not be called “socialism.” From the beginning (comment #33} I explained what this bailout really represented, having researched this particular case. And then I concluded, “Call it what you will.”

You are not having a discussion with me about reality, but merely obsessing over words. Indeed, you are trying to turn this into an empty discussion about words.

 

[pknopp]

So now the taxpayers own 30% of the company.

Could be until repaid.

Where in Capitalism do we find this idea?

 

[dblack]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

Explain what you mean by a "classless society".

You now ask me to explain what I mean by a “classless society.”

But I have only said such a thing was a dream of American 1950’s propagandists countering Soviet propaganda (which once spoke of such a goal — placing it somewhere in the far future). Here is the reference I already provided:

"People's capitalism" was an American propaganda meme popularized in the mid-1950s as a name for the American economic system .... It was endorsed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for worldwide use by the United States Information Agency, which employed the term to trumpet the successful aspects of the American economy worldwide during the Cold War. The propagandists depicted the United States as a classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves” in the Soviet Union and China.” — People's capitalism - Wikipedia

So perhaps you should ask what President Eisenhower meant by this term. Or Karl Marx.

dblack —

Now you insult me: “You’re too busy doing the denial dance to even acknowledge your statement, much less explain it.”

I've been insulting you in every post. Thanks for noticing. The reason I'm insulting you is because you're a pain in the ass to engage in discussion. You inject unsupported claims and then refuse to defend them - either denying that you made the claim at all or pretending you meant something else. To wit: how many posts has it taken for you to finally defend your desire for "People's Capitalism"?

You ask, “Why do you wish we were headed toward a "People's Capitalism"?

I only in passing referenced this lovely utopia of capitalists, of Dwight Eisenhower’s, of “an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and ‘equal opportunity’ are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.“

Why on earth would anybody NOT wish our capitalist system to be or evolve in this way? This is part of the “American Dream” at its best!

At last, we can discuss the point of contention! There are damned good reasons to not want a capitalist system to evolve this way.

To begin with, by "class differences" what you really mean is differences in economic power, correct? We don't have "class" in this country. By invoking the term "class" socialists hope to imply a rigid caste system that excludes people for circumstances of birth. That's not how it works in the US. A person who can't afford to buy a Lamborghini isn't being discriminated against because of their class. They just can't afford to buy a Lamborghini. As soon as they can come up with the money, they can buy one.

So, substituting the more accurate "differences in economic power" for "class differences" your goal becomes a society where differences in economic power are relatively unimportant. Why would anyone NOT want that? Because economic power is the power to make crucial decisions for society. And it's crucial that such power is assigned to people who will make decisions that benefit society. We want some people to have more of that power, sometimes a LOT more, than others. We want Steve Jobs to have more power to invest society's resources than the town drunk. That's why we give Steve Jobs more of our money than we give to the town drunk. In a free market, economic inequality makes for a better society. If everyone had the same economic power, if they weren't allowed to pool their resources under leaders who will decide what to do with them, large important projects would never get off the ground.

 

[dudmuck]

...

Without Uncle Sam and the Federal Reserve bailing out over-indebted “zombie corporations” in both the real and “private equity” economy, which is a process that has only been sped up (and covered up) by the COVID-19 contraction, thousands of small, medium size and “too big to fail” U.S. corporations would already have failed. U.S. dollar supremacy and our relative weight in world economy would also long since have been profoundly shaken and reduced.

Letting unprofitable companies fail would, in the long run, substantial strengthen our economy, and the dollar.

That is theoretically (and sometimes really) true in this and similar cases. But that is, at best, only true “in the long run” — by which time many of us will be dead.

Also, without a social safety net and a fundamental restructuring of our capitalist economy, the drift toward inequality and the immiseration of lower skilled workers would destroy any hope of remaining a reasonably decent and democratic society.

That's a steadfast conviction of the left, but I don't buy it. Government interference in the economy is the primary tool of rent-seeking corporations. It's how they create and maintain "inequality".

In my opinion, “people’s capitalism” in an interconnected world of giant corporations competing and seeking higher profits is basically an absurdity.

What do you mean by "people's capitalism"? Sounds like "socialism".

What do I mean by “People’s Capitalism”?

Good question. It is an old catchphrase, one I think should be used more frequently, if only to show how far we are from realizing it. Nothing at all like “Socialism,” the idea was used in Eisenhower’s time as a propaganda term to describe what was pictured then as an ideal almost classless society modeled on the U.S.A. (People's capitalism - Wikipedia). It was captured in a nutshell by a 1953 issue of the Hearst magazine House Beautiful: “Our houses are all on one level, like our class structure.”

I am using it to describe an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and “equal opportunity” are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.

Is this where modern capitalism is taking us? Forget the typical American obsession with blaming “government” for every failure of capitalism. Can one even imagine any way such a reality could come into existence in a world of giant competing international corporations seeking to maximize profit?

Please forgive my quoting myself. I fear folks might misunderstand my last paragraph.

I meant the last paragraph ironically. I DON’T believe we are heading toward a “People’s Capitalism,” much as I wish we were.

It was a pretty picture. A dream. Propaganda. Only a political and cultural revolution, leading to thorough progressive social and democratic reforms, and dramatic changes in international relations as well, can lead us to such a society.

Even dreaming of such a society was only possible in the U.S. after WWII, when the “American Dream” seemed realizable because of U.S. world dominance, social peace, more progressive tax structures and strong trade unions equalizing wage differentials between management and workers.

Why do you see that as a desirable state? It sounds like you long for a society where everyone has equal say in how society invests its wealth. But that makes no sense. I'd rather the people with the most foresight and consideration of society's needs were at the helm; the people who can successfully predict consumer needs. Giving everyone equal say in how we invest in our future makes as much sense as giving everyone equal say in what constitutes scientific fact.

I didn’t at all speak about “a society where everyone has equal say” in “how we invest in our future” or “how society invests its wealth,” let alone about who “is at the helm” or “who can successfully predict consumer needs.”

I can’t imagine why you think I addressed any of that.x

I absolutely don’t believe all those things can be determined “equally by all,” any more than I believe it’s possible for everyone to have equal say in how ... doctors do heart surgery.

Oh, we're playing that game. Well, when you figure out what you really mean, let me know.

No games here. You asked me a question and I gave you a thought-filled answer. A very clear answer. You asked more questions, I tried to give you more serious answers. I am sorry if you don’t understand. It is clear you are not interested in continuing the discussion. If others are interested, I will be more than happy to explain further.

Explain what you mean by a "classless society".

You now ask me to explain what I mean by a “classless society.”

But I have only said such a thing was a dream of American 1950’s propagandists countering Soviet propaganda (which once spoke of such a goal — placing it somewhere in the far future). Here is the reference I already provided:

"People's capitalism" was an American propaganda meme popularized in the mid-1950s as a name for the American economic system .... It was endorsed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower for worldwide use by the United States Information Agency, which employed the term to trumpet the successful aspects of the American economy worldwide during the Cold War. The propagandists depicted the United States as a classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves” in the Soviet Union and China.” — People's capitalism - Wikipedia

So perhaps you should ask what President Eisenhower meant by this term. Or Karl Marx.

dblack —

Now you insult me: “You’re too busy doing the denial dance to even acknowledge your statement, much less explain it.”

I've been insulting you in every post. Thanks for noticing. The reason I'm insulting you is because you're a pain in the ass to engage in discussion. You inject unsupported claims and then refuse to defend them - either denying that you made the claim at all or pretending you meant something else. To wit: how many posts has it taken for you to finally defend your desire for "People's Capitalism"?

You ask, “Why do you wish we were headed toward a "People's Capitalism"?

I only in passing referenced this lovely utopia of capitalists, of Dwight Eisenhower’s, of “an economy where home and stock ownership and good education and ‘equal opportunity’ are universal. A society where class differences are relatively unimportant.“

Why on earth would anybody NOT wish our capitalist system to be or evolve in this way? This is part of the “American Dream” at its best!

At last, we can discuss the point of contention! There are damned good reasons to not want a capitalist system to evolve this way.

To begin with, by "class differences" what you really mean is differences in economic power, correct? We don't have "class" in this country. By invoking the term "class" socialists hope to imply a rigid caste system that excludes people for circumstances of birth. That's not how it works in the US. A person who can't afford to buy a Lamborghini isn't being discriminated against because of their class. They just can't afford to buy a Lamborghini. As soon as they can come up with the money, they can buy one.

So, substituting the more accurate "differences in economic power" for "class differences" your goal becomes a society where differences in economic power are relatively unimportant. Why would anyone NOT want that? Because economic power is the power to make crucial decisions for society. And it's crucial that such power is assigned to people who will make decisions that benefit society. We want some people to have more of that power, sometimes a LOT more, than others. We want Steve Jobs to have more power to invest society's resources than the town drunk. That's why we give Steve Jobs more of our money than we give to the town drunk. In a free market, economic inequality makes for a better society. If everyone had the same economic power, if they weren't allowed to pool their resources under leaders who will decide what to do with them, large important projects would never get off the ground.

Youre saying that plutocracy is better than democracy.

These 7 billionaires' net worth is up more than 50% since start of the Covid-19 pandemic

A new GoBankingRates.com study found that a few of the world's richest people, like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, have recovered their fortunes, growing their net worth by more than 50% during the Covid-19 pandemic from market lows in mid March.

www.cnbc.com

Zuckerberg made $28 billion during pandemic.
What value is provided worth that much?

 

[dblack]

Why on earth would anybody NOT wish our capitalist system to be or evolve in this way? This is part of the “American Dream” at its best!

At last, we can discuss the point of contention! There are damned good reasons to not want a capitalist system to evolve this way.

To begin with, by "class differences" what you really mean is differences in economic power, correct? We don't have "class" in this country. By invoking the term "class" socialists hope to imply a rigid caste system that excludes people for circumstances of birth. That's not how it works in the US. A person who can't afford to buy a Lamborghini isn't being discriminated against because of their class. They just can't afford to buy a Lamborghini. As soon as they can come up with the money, they can buy one.

So, substituting the more accurate "differences in economic power" for "class differences" your goal becomes a society where differences in economic power are relatively unimportant. Why would anyone NOT want that? Because economic power is the power to make crucial decisions for society. And it's crucial that such power is assigned to people who will make decisions that benefit society. We want some people to have more of that power, sometimes a LOT more, than others. We want Steve Jobs to have more power to invest society's resources than the town drunk. That's why we give Steve Jobs more of our money than we give to the town drunk. In a free market, economic inequality makes for a better society. If everyone had the same economic power, if they weren't allowed to pool their resources under leaders who will decide what to do with them, large important projects would never get off the ground.

Youre saying that plutocracy is better than democracy.

No, I'm not talking about government. Government should be democratic, or at least be run by democratically elected leaders.

 

[dblack]

Zuckerberg made $28 billion during pandemic.
What value is provided worth that much?

You'd have to ask all the people who gave him that money. Apparently they thought what he's doing is worthwhile.

 

[pknopp]

Zuckerberg made $28 billion during pandemic.
What value is provided worth that much?

You'd have to ask all the people who gave him that money. Apparently they thought what he's doing is worthwhile.

You gave it to him.