Micheal Moore with a racist rant about gun owners

[Openmind]

I believe the stated goal of Marxists is to have a society in which everyone shares equally, with no rich or poor but everyone working for the good of society.

and unicorns frolicking, no doubt.

Socialists believe in an economic system in which the people, i.e., the government, owns the means of production.

It is the stated goal of capitalists to use money to make more money, which would make Michael a capitalist.

Unless, of course, he has given all of his wealth away to the poor in order to have a more egalitarian society.

Okay, I don't disagree to this point.

But you seem to have left out a HUGE section of political ideology. . .one that is extremely wide spread and has been for over a century. . .and that is SOCIAL DEMOCRACY or Democratic Socialism, which really is a half way road between run away Capitalism and Socialism. It is a system(s) in which there is a strong component of welfare state (in the sense of a safety net and labor laws that assure that even the poor and the lower middle class have full access to the advantages provided by "controlled" Capitalism, and Capitalism that is regulated in order to SERVE the well being of most in society. It is a "combination" ideology that promotes the well being of every citizens, but also promotes the cooperation of private enterprise (Capitalism) with government ventures to assure that the needs of the population (infrastructure AND social safety net) are met.

I really like the visual image provided by one web site about this ideology that has flourished in Europe for over half a century:

Libertarian Capitalism vs Social Democracy - A metaphor
September 06, 2011, 03:04:52 PM
#1

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:

Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:

Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

Too many people, of course, confuse it with "socialism," or even "communism." Yet, it certainly doesn't fall under any of the description you provided, and IT IS the overwhelming ideology in Europe.

Maybe it might behoove all of you to put aside your pre-conceived ideas of "Europe as a socialist/communist state" and look at what the European community is trying to established. . .in spite of the economic problems that are always present when one tries to merge wealthy, developed countries (like France, Luxemburg, Belgium and Germany) with poor, heavily subsided states (like Greece, Spain, Portugal).

I'm pretty sure this will NOT attract the interest of many people here. . .but all I can do is present it, and then it's up to you to stick with your pre-conceived ideas spread by propaganda (like "Euro-trash" and "patriot fries," remarks) and reality.

 

[PLC1]

Okay, I don't disagree to this point.

But you seem to have left out a HUGE section of political ideology. . .one that is extremely wide spread and has been for over a century. . .and that is SOCIAL DEMOCRACY or Democratic Socialism, which really is a half way road between run away Capitalism and Socialism. It is a system(s) in which there is a strong component of welfare state (in the sense of a safety net and labor laws that assure that even the poor and the lower middle class have full access to the advantages provided by "controlled" Capitalism, and Capitalism that is regulated in order to SERVE the well being of most in society. It is a "combination" ideology that promotes the well being of every citizens, but also promotes the cooperation of private enterprise (Capitalism) with government ventures to assure that the needs of the population (infrastructure AND social safety net) are met.

I really like the visual image provided by one web site about this ideology that has flourished in Europe for over half a century:



Too many people, of course, confuse it with "socialism," or even "communism." Yet, it certainly doesn't fall under any of the description you provided, and IT IS the overwhelming ideology in Europe.

Maybe it might behoove all of you to put aside your pre-conceived ideas of "Europe as a socialist/communist state" and look at what the European community is trying to established. . .in spite of the economic problems that are always present when one tries to merge wealthy, developed countries (like France, Luxemburg, Belgium and Germany) with poor, heavily subsided states (like Greece, Spain, Portugal).

I'm pretty sure this will NOT attract the interest of many people here. . .but all I can do is present it, and then it's up to you to stick with your pre-conceived ideas spread by propaganda (like "Euro-trash" and "patriot fries," remarks) and reality.

"Controlled capitalism" is what we have in the United States as well. Most of the arguments about it revolve around just how much control is needed for a healthy economy.

The government owning shares of GM comes about as close to actual socialism as we've come, it seems to me.

 

[dogtowner]

"Controlled capitalism" is what we have in the United States as well. Most of the arguments about it revolve around just how much control is needed for a healthy economy.

The government owning shares of GM comes about as close to actual socialism as we've come, it seems to me.

AMTRAC perhaps ?
FCC. FAA. may not own but they own the 'rights' not much difference to me.

 

[Openmind]

"Controlled capitalism" is what we have in the United States as well. Most of the arguments about it revolve around just how much control is needed for a healthy economy.

The government owning shares of GM comes about as close to actual socialism as we've come, it seems to me.

I disagree. I believe that "controlled Capitalism" is what was intended, and what we had prior to the 1990's bubble. Today it is RUN AWAY Capitalism, where making an ewtre few milloins for the wealthy through "ghost investment" in NOTHING concrete has become the norm, and where to make those investments on "creative" financial instruments is more important than preserving the job (and the purchasing power, therefore the economic engine) of thousands of American workers is so much less important than assuring that Wall Street continues to climb!

Yes, the government owning shares of GM comes CLOSER to democrat socialism. . . .it is a cooperation between government and private business. . For the purpose of savings many thousands jobs.

And the government is obviously getting out (at a careful, but steady pace) of owning GM stock. . .

See. . .the world didn't end with "the take over by the government!

 

[PLC1]

I disagree. I believe that "controlled Capitalism" is what was intended, and what we had prior to the 1990's bubble. Today it is RUN AWAY Capitalism, where making an ewtre few milloins for the wealthy through "ghost investment" in NOTHING concrete has become the norm, and where to make those investments on "creative" financial instruments is more important than preserving the job (and the purchasing power, therefore the economic engine) of thousands of American workers is so much less important than assuring that Wall Street continues to climb!

Yes, the government owning shares of GM comes CLOSER to democrat socialism. . . .it is a cooperation between government and private business. . For the purpose of savings many thousands jobs.

And the government is obviously getting out (at a careful, but steady pace) of owning GM stock. . .

See. . .the world didn't end with "the take over by the government!

By "run away capitalism" do you mean that you think there is a free market operating in the US today, that the "mix" is all capitalism with no government control?

 

[steveox]

Did anyone see Bowling for columbine?
Watch Full Movie FREE!!!!

 

[Openmind]

By "run away capitalism" do you mean that you think there is a free market operating in the US today, that the "mix" is all capitalism with no government control?

I don't believe there is a "free market" operated in the US, and probably not many other places eeither, thanks to big corps, lobbyists, and deregulations.

I believe what we have now is a "manipulated market". And "manipulated politics."

 

[PLC1]

I don't believe there is a "free market" operated in the US, and probably not many other places eeither, thanks to big corps, lobbyists, and deregulations.

I believe what we have now is a "manipulated market". And "manipulated politics."

That's a lot closer to the current reality than what I would view as "run away capitalism", which would be more like what existed in the 19th. century.

Along with the capitalism/socialism mix mentioned above, we have a lot of msilaicos.
If socialism is government ownership of industry, then socialism spelled backwards must be industry ownership of government.

 

[Openmind]

That's a lot closer to the current reality than what I would view as "run away capitalism", which would be more like what existed in the 19th. century.

Along with the capitalism/socialism mix mentioned above, we have a lot of msilaicos.
If socialism is government ownership of industry, then socialism spelled backwards must be industry ownership of government.

Once again, PLC, I wish that you at least would fine tune he word "socialism" to better represent the MANY variation that goe from, as you say, "government ownership of industry" to what is A LOT closer to the truth found in all European countries: a alliance and mutually beneficial association BETWEEN government AND industry, which PROMOTES pivate ownership and the development of private enterprise in a socially conscious fashion, so as to benefit the majority of the population, instead of just a 1% of "owners!"

I saw just a few days ago a chart of the difference in several countries, between the average salary in a corporation to the salary of the top CEO, and it was very revealing! Obviously the gap in the US was at least 20 times bigger (upto 400 times greater than the average worker in specific industries) than in ANY other country!

That is STEALING from the workers.

I am trying to find the link to that chart, but in the mean time, here are a few related links:

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet...rs-continues-to-grow,508d85ebd7fc7b567036c602

And

"The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker’s pay"
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467516/ceo-pay-gap-2011/?mobile=wt

And

http://connection.ebscohost.com/businessfinances/executive-pay/history-corporate-executive-wages

I hope you take the time to read this last link, as it shows the evolution of that gap in the last 40 years, from 30 times to 384 times! Does any reasonable person really think that THIS trend is sustainable? And, does any reasonable person reaaly believe that huge gap in OUR country doesn't reduce our ability to compete with all other countries (including Germany) where the gap is 20 time smaller?

 

[dogtowner]

Switzerland is doing ok as they stay out of regulating their ecomony (service for the lions share). Ditto other countries clever enough to let business be free.

 

[PLC1]

Once again, PLC, I wish that you at least would fine tune he word "socialism" to better represent the MANY variation that goe from, as you say, "government ownership of industry" to what is A LOT closer to the truth found in all European countries: a alliance and mutually beneficial association BETWEEN government AND industry, which PROMOTES pivate ownership and the development of private enterprise in a socially conscious fashion, so as to benefit the majority of the population, instead of just a 1% of "owners!"

I saw just a few days ago a chart of the difference in several countries, between the average salary in a corporation to the salary of the top CEO, and it was very revealing! Obviously the gap in the US was at least 20 times bigger (upto 400 times greater than the average worker in specific industries) than in ANY other country!

That is STEALING from the workers.

I am trying to find the link to that chart, but in the mean time, here are a few related links:

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet...rs-continues-to-grow,508d85ebd7fc7b567036c602

And

"The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay between CEOs of the S&P 500 Index companies and U.S. workers widened to 380 times in 2011 from 343 times in 2010. Back in 1980, the average large company CEO only received 42 times the average worker’s pay"
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467516/ceo-pay-gap-2011/?mobile=wt

And

http://connection.ebscohost.com/businessfinances/executive-pay/history-corporate-executive-wages

I hope you take the time to read this last link, as it shows the evolution of that gap in the last 40 years, from 30 times to 384 times! Does any reasonable person really think that THIS trend is sustainable? And, does any reasonable person reaaly believe that huge gap in OUR country doesn't reduce our ability to compete with all other countries (including Germany) where the gap is 20 time smaller?

The word "socialism" originally meant government ownership of the means of production. It has undergone so many changes that it has come to mean whatever the user wants it to mean, usually some government program that the speaker thinks is unnecessary.

I think it is accurate to say that we have a system of capitalism with a greater or lesser degree of government control, and that most of us realize that total government control or no government control are both formulas for disaster. When someone thinks there is too much government control, then the word "socialism" tends to be applied.

I think it is also accurate to say that industry controls government to a great degree as well. Money changes hands (all legally, of course) and laws get passed that help support the industry that is the original source of the money.

 

[Openmind]

Switzerland is doing ok as they stay out of regulating their ecomony (service for the lions share). Ditto other countries clever enough to let business be free.

You really do not understand much about Switzerland or any country outside the US, do you?

In fact, let me rephrase that. . .vI'm not sure what you think you understand about the US has much to do with our economic and social realites!

 

[dogtowner]

You really do not understand much about Switzerland or any country outside the US, do you?

In fact, let me rephrase that. . .vI'm not sure what you think you understand about the US has much to do with our economic and social realites!

well just relying on whats written abiut it as opposed to your. relying on sight seeing.

 

[Openmind]

The word "socialism" originally meant government ownership of the means of production. It has undergone so many changes that it has come to mean whatever the user wants it to mean, usually some government program that the speaker thinks is unnecessary.

I think it is accurate to say that we have a system of capitalism with a greater or lesser degree of government control, and that most of us realize that total government control or no government control are both formulas for disaster. When someone thinks there is too much government control, then the word "socialism" tends to be applied.

I think it is also accurate to say that industry controls government to a great degree as well. Money changes hands (all legally, of course) and laws get passed that help support the industry that is the original source of the money.

I would agree with that comment. I think it is quite accurate.

I would go a little further. . .in the same direction.

I think the difference between countries in Europe and the US is that, in Europe, the government and private sectors are working together (between 45 and 55% participation or "leadership" for both, depending on the specific industry), while in the US, the "partnership" has evolve over the last 40 years or do to go from a 60 to 40 % leadership of the government to today's 20 to 80% leadership by CORPORATIONS through the wealth of the CEO's who can with no shame purchase lobbyists and. . .the government itself.

And, obviously, while a government main goal in leadership would be the good of the majority of people, the main goal of the leaders of industry is to increase the power and the wealth of their small, elite, inner circle.

And this is what is wrong with today's power balance in America. . .

Too bad so many people are taught (by the media) to fear the over reaching of their government, and not to fear the over reach of the corporations!

Personally, I fear prople like The Koch brothers and Murdoch a lot more than elected people. . . But that is the difference between "run away" capitalism and "socially conscious capitalism, which a few ceo's have vowed to practice (including Trader Joe's and Whole Foods CEOs)

I will try to find a list of the CEOs participating in this "socially conscious capitalism."

Okay, I didn't yet find the link I was looking for, and the term I was looking for i "socially responsible Capitalism,". But this Wikepedia article will describe much better than i can what I met to say.

Sorry, but I am afraid that i amvery limited in my ability to articulate my thoughts in English in a concise and clear manner. Please bear with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism

 

[Openmind]

well just relying on whats written abiut it as opposed to your. relying on sight seeing.

Sure. . . The trick isto determine what written "sources" one chooses to believe!