Ziggy the Marxist argues for capitalism!!!

Instead of allowing you to change the conversation on another thread where you are wrong, I figured I would give this conversation it’s very own thread.

ziggy wrote:I condemn them when I think they are wrong. And I think it is wrong for Congress and Bush and now Congress and Obama to bring the whole country to economic bankruptucy because they think General Motors or certain banks are "too big to let fail".

A part of capitalism is economic failures. Those failures should have been allowed to run their course- which would have included that other capitalists would have picked up the pieces and gone forth. That would have been the natural order. But it was interrupted. And we'll likely be paying for that interruption for generations to come.

I don't disagree with what you've said here. I do believe that accounting rules should have been changed to what they were in the 80's, specifically the mark to market rule, and then if a bank, insurance company or other business failed, let it fold and everyone else come in and pick up the chips.

But I am curious. Why is a Marxist like yourself suddenly condemning this current government’s interruption of the capitalistic system when you have such a long history of championing FDR's mirror interruptions 80 years ago as necessary and right for the country?

Why the change of heart?

1- I am not a Marxist- never have been.

2- To the best of my knowledge FDR was not bailing out General Morors and Wall Street banks- although there are undoubtedly things about the FDR era that I do not know.

So there is no "change of heart"- only your misrepresentation of my political and economic views.

FDR'S policy intervened on the free market society, of that there is no doubt and you know it.

From mandated minimum wages to unconstitutional entitlement programs (his blackmailing the Supreme Court leaves no doubt as to the constitutionality)to increased taxes to cover unconstitutional spending, he was as much if not more so an interventionist as RePO is today.

Your 'change of heart' comes because RePO is intervening on the behalf of corporations and not individuals as FDR did. Your "condemnation" comes down to who the intervention benefits, not the intervention itself.

We all know that as well. It’s as clear as the Marxist nose on your Marxist face, warts and all.

Aaron wrote:1-If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and poops like a duck, it's a duck. Everyone here knows what you are. The only thing I don't understand is why you continue to refuse to admit it.

I thought you knew.

ziggy wrote:

Self-conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness to admit that a belief to which we have once committed ourselves is wrong.

https://gazzfriends.forumotion.com/religion-f11/pet-notions-the-path-of-least-resistance-t3486.htm#35124

So Sam does not disagree with what I posted?

So he is just pissed that he can't find an opening to attack it with his "Devil's advocate" logic-in-reverse?

FDR'S policy intervened on the free market society, of that there is no doubt and you know it.

Of course I know that. And that "free market society" needs to be "interfered on" sometimes.

From mandated minimum wages to unconstitutional entitlement programs (his blackmailing the Supreme Court leaves no doubt as to the constitutionality)......................

There is significant doubt about that- your opinion notwithstanding.

............... to increased taxes to cover unconstitutional spending, he was as much if not more so an interventionist as RePO is today.

Your 'change of heart' comes because RePO is intervening on the behalf of corporations and not individuals as FDR did.

Yeah, I do believe in government intervening on behalf of individuals from time to time- and I have always believed that. So there is no change of heart.

Your "condemnation" comes down to who the intervention benefits, not the intervention itself.

Duhh, yeah again. Why have any government anywhere other than to intervene in the affairs of society on behalf of the individuals that make up that society?

We all know that as well. It’s as clear as the Marxist nose on your Marxist face, warts and all.

Were I a "Marxist", I would favor the nationalization of all industry and commerce. But I know better than to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So instead of killing it, I want to nurture it and let it feed on itself just enough to allow the harvest of those golden eggs from it- and, like the chicken hens we used to take care of back on the farm, leave it enough of those golden "nest eggs" to keep it busy laying more and more of them.

By your theory, it's ok to kill in cold blood a person if it conforms to your needs and desires but if it doesn't, then it's murder.

Setting very clear and defined operational procedures in which a company can operate and then taxing the profits to the point that a company barely survies is nationalization of business and commerace no matter how you slice it.

Sorry comrade, you can't have it both ways. Murder is murder regardless of who or what the victim is and supporting governmental intervention into industry for ANY reason is Marxist principals.

There's no two ways around it, you're still a Marxist.

And no, FDR's blackmailing the Supreme Court to find his Marxist intervention in the 30's constitutional is not merely my opinion. It's a fact that anyone, including you can find if you so desire. It was so blatant that even members of his own party didn't agree with him and had the justices had not succumbed to FDR's threats, Congress wouldn't have passed the bill.

Aaron wrote:By your theory, it's ok to kill in cold blood a person if it conforms to your needs and desires but if it doesn't, then it's murder.

Setting very clear and defined operational procedures in which a company can operate and then taxing the profits to the point that a company barely survies is nationalization of business and commerace no matter how you slice it.

Sorry comrade, you can't have it both ways. Murder is murder regardless of who or what the victim is and supporting governmental intervention into industry for ANY reason is Marxist principals.

There's no two ways around it, you're still a Marxist.

You analogy to "murder" is non-sensical.

As to "taxing the profits to the point that a company barely survies", there has been more expansion of industry and commerce- both nationally and internationally- in the past 70 years than in all of the previous history of the world.

So your "barely survives" terminology is also non-sensical.

I don't think so Marxist Ziggy, on both counts.

As to "taxing the profits to the point that a company barely survies", there has been more expansion of industry and commerce- both nationally and internationally- in the past 70 years than in all of the previous history of the world.

There has been more expansion of industry and commerce despite high taxation because of the great inventions of scientists and innovations of entrepenuers who enjoyed the freedom to think their thoughts and work on their projects and market their products and the drive to overcome the obstacles government and society placed in their paths.

Do you read biographies?

There has been more expansion of industry and commerce despite high taxation because of the great inventions of scientists and innovations of entrepenuers who enjoyed the freedom to think their thoughts and work on their projects and market their products and the drive to overcome the obstacles government and society placed in their paths.

EXACTLY!

And so it still works- the golden goose is alive and well and producing those golden eggs every day- despite the doom and gloom mongers.

And here you claim you’re not a Marxist and yet you think the revenue from businesses are nothing more then a golden egg for the government to tax to fund their unconstitutional entitlement programs and that's simply not the case.

Businesses and corporations are golden eggs for those who have invested in them and/or provide labor for said businesses and corporations and the government has no more right to the fruit of those labors then they are entitled to the fruits of mine or your labor beyond what it takes to run a very limited government described in the Constitution.

They have even less right to get in my pocket or a companies pocket and then redistribute that money to someone who did nothing to earn it simply because people like you think it's morally the right thing to do.

As I said and your own post has continued to reiterate, you are indeed a Marxist.

ziggy wrote:

There has been more expansion of industry and commerce despite high taxation because of the great inventions of scientists and innovations of entrepenuers who enjoyed the freedom to think their thoughts and work on their projects and market their products and the drive to overcome the obstacles government and society placed in their paths.

EXACTLY!

And so it still works- the golden goose is alive and well and producing those golden eggs every day- despite the doom and gloom mongers.

What people produced those innovations? Capitalism provided these people the ability to reach great heights and capitalism long made our nation the envy of the world. I'm a "gloom and doom monger" because we have a President and a Congress hellbent on killing the golden goose, Ziggy.

ziggy wrote:

There has been more expansion of industry and commerce despite high taxation because of the great inventions of scientists and innovations of entrepenuers who enjoyed the freedom to think their thoughts and work on their projects and market their products and the drive to overcome the obstacles government and society placed in their paths.

EXACTLY!

And so it still works- the golden goose is alive and well and producing those golden eggs every day- despite the doom and gloom mongers.

I wonder if anyone has told that to the people living in the "rust belt" of the mid-West, specifically the states of Indiana and Ohio.

I'm sure that that would make them feel a whole lot better.

.

I wonder if anyone has told that to the people living in the "rust belt" of the mid-West, specifically the states of Indiana and Ohio.

I'm sure that that would make them feel a whole lot better.

And tell it to the folks of McDowell County, WV- where more coal has been removed in the past century and a quarter than almost any county in America. And where they got less to show for it than almost any county in America.

And Marxism would have prevented what happened in McDowell County how?

It seems to me that southern WV and coal is as good a reason to argue against government intervention as it anything else considering the vast majority of problems in all of southern WV has been created by local and state representatives selling out their constituents and capitalism of which I follow or of Marxism which you clearly follow.

Correction:

............... selling out their constituents TO capitalism run amuck ................

How so? I've at no time lobbied for or believe in laissez faire capitalism. I realize that under the constitution the government plays a role in regulating and taxing commerce.

So please explain how the failures of southern WV are capitalistic in their foundation and should not be laid at the feet of the duly elected representatives who have sold out their constituents for nearly a decade?

What people produced those innovations? Capitalism provided these people the ability to reach great heights and capitalism long made our nation the envy of the world.

Quite frequently the federal government funded those innovations.

The space program, alone, spun off hundreds of inventions, particularly in the medical field.

It is unlikely that any one corporation could have ever come up with the $$$.

And Government funded innovations that led to the application and use of nuclear energy ......... but then "dropped a big hammer" on that one.

So please explain how the failures of southern WV are capitalistic in their foundation and should not be laid at the feet of the duly elected representatives who have sold out their constituents for nearly a decade?

For nearly a decade, hell! For a hundred years and more!

You're right for once. I meant to write century. And it's still not a failure of capitalism.