Socialist CEOs or Capitalist CEOs: Which is worse?

[bododie]

It is chaos and the US will limp out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a humiliating withdrawal.

LONDON, England (CNN)The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said.

Hmmm.

Nor is China exporting a hideous bubble-gum celebrity obsessed 'culture' around the globe

Hey, don't buy it! Are your people so weak minded?

Nor does it stand up on the world stage preaching freedom and democracy

That would be because it is openly tyranical? Oh, that's better. At least as its kicking 100,000's of thousands of people out of their homes, suspending noisy jobs to present a "good" picture for the Olympics wasn't hypocritical. Those people who didn't get to eat because they were laid off for games didn't have a single bad thought about their government because if the gov. thought that they did, they would be dead! Yea! non-hypocritical China. What a bastion of human decency.

Hate the poor? Tell it to the "great protectors" of Muslim and African lands who won't let our aid get through to those who need it.

For once answer a question: Do you think America owes your country anything? If not, then please initiate a movement to stop our foreign aid to you. The rest of the world takes from us, gives nothing in return except for sending us it's losers, and then b****** about having to be appreciative for it. Hmmm.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So is the US

That is the point.

The US is breathtakingly hypocritical as evidenced by GWB condemning Russia for invading Georgia.

What is that about?

 

[bododie]

So is the US

That is the point.

So is the U.S. what, and what is the point?

GWB isn't America. He's Bush. Do you NOT understand that we are also waiting for this clown to go away? American's do not support Bush, how he handled just about anything, and what he has done to America's reputation. If Americans are at fault for Bush, then all Muslims everywhere are responsible for the attack on 9-11. Same mentality. Islam in its entirety declared war on American soil, and American innocents.

Should all Muslims in the world pay the price for that?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

He is your leader

Your people allegedly voted him in

So yes, you are responsible.

What you should do now is try to ensure that never again is an extreme right wing relgious fundamentalist abuser of human rights allowed to govern the US

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And suicide bombing is committed by illegal gangs

Not what is upposed to be the world's shining light of democracy.

If you don't think the US should be judged by higher standards than warring gangs then non-existent deity help us all

 

[Andy]

How ironic. Did it ever occur to you that possibly the reason God does not 'do something' is because of the massive non-belief in our country? By non-belief I mean people have turned away from the laws of God, including professing Christians, not just the wide spread atheism.

That said, I did look up your quote from the general. Did you actually bother to read the story? The General was explaining we can't win conventionally like go to the capital city, have the leaders surrender and the war is over.

This is because since all the various bands of terrorist and Tailban forces are dispersed and isolated in caves, and not all are linked with communication, even if the unofficial leader of the group were to declare defeat, hundreds would never know it and keep fighting.

Instead, the goal, as the General explained, was to reduce the militia forces down to a manageable level, and then pass off control to local Afghan military. To this end, we are making progress and the goal can be achieved.

See, you don't know anything about which you speak, and never have. All this... we're going to withdraw in shame and defeat ignorant crap, and the general said nothing of the sort. We are advancing, and we will reach our goal.

 

[Aus22]

I rarely visit this site so I am afraid this topic is getting away from the original topic. Socialism means complete control. Whatever Fanny Mae was it was not completely control by the government. The government may have guarntee its depositors and imposed some regulations.But so do most governments . Recently Ireland ,Greece and Germany have guarntee the private deposits of all their banks. This does not mean the banks are government control, they are still own by private interests.

The difference between a Socialist solution to the present crisis and others is that socialist would take over the whole failed company,nationalise it so it is fully government owned and not sell it back to the private sector until it yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase.

The American solution is for the government to buy out the debts of failed enterprises but give control still to the private business owners who will take any subsequent profit. This is not socialism

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is a kind of socialism.

National socialislm

 

[GenSeneca]

Socialism means complete control.

Give it time, we're getting there.... While the strict definition of Socialism is Ownership of the means of production, the American government doesn't need to own an industry in order to have control over it - Fannie & Freddie for example.

This is not socialism

We are closer to Socialism than we are Capitalism.

Capitalism is no government control over the economy.

A mixed economy blends Socialism with Capitalism. Rather than owning the means of production outright, "Democratic Socialism" allows the means to remain in private ownership but control all the necessary aspects of the industry. Regulation tells business who, how, where and when - effectively controlling means of production or a soft Nationalization of Industry.

Additionally, Taxation can be used so that the Government can control the profits made in the private sector... limiting the accumulation of wealth. Most extreme example is the windfall profits tax. Absent of the Windfall Profits Tax, there is the Income Tax, the Capital Gains tax to "redistribute wealth" (Take from the rich and give to the poor).

Bottom line is... while Government doesn't YET own the complete means of production... we're getting closer to that than we are to no government control. Key Industries are effectively being Nationalized and the trend looks like it will continue.

The more Government we have, the greater the number of individuals that must have their individual rights sacrificed in the name of the collective. Sadly... many Americans don't mind voting away the rights of a stranger they think can "afford" it, so long as its for a good cause - Like the Common Good - or they have sufficient animosity toward a particular minority, like disdain for the "Rich", brought about by class warfare.

What we need is less Socialism, not more. Less Government, not more. Less taxation, not more. But that's not whats happening, we're getting more.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Genseneca you are sooo uninformed.

Socialism is all about a fairer redistribution of wealth.

The US is nowhere near that.

It is taking money off the poor to give to the rich.

That is the oppositie of the socialist intent.

The only socialism in operation in the US is national socialism

 

[Andy]

I rarely visit this site so I am afraid this topic is getting away from the original topic.

That's understandable. Realize that all topics on an open forum like this, tend to sway and wander around. That's simply the nature of open discussion.

Socialism means complete control.

Well at least I can now understand the logic of your perspective. So, by your view, you would claim that, unless the government has a 100% lock on a company, then it's .... capitalism?

This is an interesting view because by that standard, China is 100% capitalist. The Chinese government hold about 85% control over it's major utility and industrial companies. They would say this is socialized, but you would claim it isn't.

Whatever Fanny Mae was it was not completely control by the government. The government may have guarntee its depositors and imposed some regulations.But so do most governments . Recently Ireland ,Greece and Germany have guarntee the private deposits of all their banks. This does not mean the banks are government control, they are still own by private interests.

I would generally agree with this. I understand the concept of having some regulations, or in this case, some government issued insurance, is pretty much what that is.

Where I have a problem is when government determines who runs the company, or when it chooses business decisions for the company, or controls the prices for the companies products, or so on.

With Fannie Mae, the government controlled who ran the company. That's antithetical to private ownership. If it's 'privately owned', the government can't show up and say "here's your new CEO", which is pretty well what happened.

Also, government dictated company policy. The reasons Fannie Mae started securing subprime loans, is not because it was sound business practice, not because it was a profitable move... it was because government dictated it. Now does that sound more like a free capitalist system, or a socialized system?

The difference between a Socialist solution to the present crisis and others is that socialist would take over the whole failed company,nationalise it so it is fully government owned and not sell it back to the private sector until it yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase.

The American solution is for the government to buy out the debts of failed enterprises but give control still to the private business owners who will take any subsequent profit. This is not socialism

Er... you seem to be missing something here. Fannie Mae is right now... as we speak 100% fully owned by the government. There is no known plan to sell it back to the private sector.

Further, the whole reason why Fannie Mae was originally privatized was because it was doing fairly poorly. It is unlikely that it will "yield enough profits to pay for the government purchase" ever.

Supporting evidence is the US Post Office, which has always been mismanaged and never once shown a positive income. Every year the government has to give money to the USPO, to balance it's books.

See, I disagree with you that Socialism is an all or nothing deal. I don't agree that unless government has complete 100% control of everything, then it isn't socialism.

If you did the same for Capitalism, then there isn't real Capitalism anywhere on the planet. Obviously that isn't true. If government buys control over a company, that's socialism. If the government controls how much a company charges, or how much it buys, or what products it sells, those are all elements of socialism. If the government tells a hospital how much it can charge, and how much it will be paid, and what services it must offer, and which it can't... all that is socialism.

 

[Libsmasher]

Just a clarifying note: capitalism is an ideal which has actually never existed anywhere on earth. The closest to it was probably Hong Kong before the PRC takeover. Economies like the US, called "capitalist" only by ideologues and the uninformed, are called "mixed economies" by economists.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What the American government is practising now is called theft.

It is taking around $5000 from everyone who is working and one third of these earn less than $16,000 per year.

That is roughly one third of their income.

The same tax is being taken off the bankers responseible many of who will be earning millions of dollars p.a.

Those bankers will go on to make millions more and the poor bastards who have lost a third of their income will never get it back.

This is not socialism.

It is national socialism

 

[Andy]

What the American government is practising now is called theft.

It is taking around $5000 from everyone who is working and one third of these earn less than $16,000 per year.

That is roughly one third of their income.

The same tax is being taken off the bankers responseible many of who will be earning millions of dollars p.a.

Those bankers will go on to make millions more and the poor bastards who have lost a third of their income will never get it back.

This is not socialism.

It is national socialism

National socialism, or socialism. Both suck. Both are horrible. If calling it national socialism, floats your boat, great. I think we should torpedo both.

It's interesting how the left here use selective numbers. When Bush cut taxes, it cut income tax at every level. The left complained that those earning less than $16K would not benefit because due to deductions, they already pay zero income tax.

Now with a bail out that changes no taxes, they complain those earning less than $16K are going to foot the bill. Which is it? Can the left be consistent on anything?

Further, you claim bankers are going to run off with billions. Er... were you paying attention? Remember the first bail out that got shot down? Do you know why?

The original bail out, written by democrats, had no controls, no restrictions. The Republicans had a cow over it, and shot the bill down. The current bail out that was passed, has controls and regulations attached. If a company takes bail out money, the CEO has to agree to a pay cut or restriction, and limits on how much in company benefits they can take.

Meanwhile, they don't get in cuts in their personal taxes.

Of course, you did get the theft comment down right. All income taxes are theft. It's taking by force, the money you rightfully earned.

Look, you act as if I am going to defend this bail out. To me... socialism, national socialism, Maoist socialism, purple socialism, retarded socialism, any socialism... is all, every bit of it, bad. I hate the bail out.

See, we're not like you. If it was a democrat in office, no matter what he'd do, you'd be for it. Not us. Bush has done many great things. This isn't one of them, and I don't support it. Socialist bailouts are crap. Fannie Mae should have filed bankruptcy, and been sold off.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think that you don't understand the term 'national socialism'.

National socialists are more familiarly known as Nazis