What Biden’s Done Right with Ukraine

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 346]

13 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Sure.  He owned 38% of America.  That proved to be the floor of his support.  He owned almost 90% of the party (hardly a "minority of the base").  He had congress (for two years).

I do not understand the rational of your statements regarding Clinton and Obama.  Maybe Obama but, he was dealing with a global financial crises so,,, no.  You have to understand how terrified most Democrats are of being called socialist or, soft on crime.  Republicans have used these to turn public opinion swiftly.

Sorry, I must disagree.

Disagree all you want, I guess.  You're making the claim that a guy who was barely elected the first time—didn't win the popular vote— and couldn't even win re-election once had more support to make significant structural changes than any Democrat going back to FDR, who was elected FOUR TIMES and would have been elected more if he hadn't died, and all of his election were by comfortable margins if not landslides.  It's a patently ridiculous claim.

And the comments regarding Clinton and Obama is me trying to figure out what you're even talking about making such a claim.  You said Trump had a lot of "unconditional support."

That certainly can't mean from the opposing party, as that's clearly not true.  In fact, the true statement there would be that he had a lot of unconditional opposition.

It can't mean from within his own party, as his entire term was characterized by Republicans breaking ranks to oppose him.

So it has to mean just ordinary citizens.

"Unconditional" being the important word.  The ones who, as he famously said, he could shoot someone in the face and they would still support him.

Like the people who still supported Clinton despite having been exposed as a sexual harasser of women, a criminal perjurer, and a probable rapist.  Unconditional support.  Regardless of anything he did.  

You're literally claiming that Trump had more of that than Clinton.  Who was elected twice and would have been elected again if he could have been.

Obama's behavior didn't ever rise to the level of Clinton's or Trump's, but again, he was elected comfortably the first time and in a landslide the second time.  There's no reason to believe he was lacking in "unconditional support."

And yes, Trump had Congress for two years.  So did Obama.  So did Clinton.  So do most presidents b/c of the dynamic between the POTUS and midterm elections.  So what?

Possibly the most absurd thing you're claiming is that Republicans calling Democratic policies socialist or saying they are soft on crime is such a blow to the popularity of Democratic presidents that they just didn't have the support they need to do anything.

Good grief, man.

Democrats have every major tv news outlet except for one carrying their water.  They have NPR, PBS, almost every university in the country, and almost the entire entertainment industry.  Basically all Republicans have is Fox News, talk radio, and a few DIY personalities on YouTube.

Trump (whether you believe he deserved it or not is again, not the point here) got more criticism from all of those influencers of public opinion than any president I can ever remember.  Metric tons more than Obama.  Orders of magnitude more than Clinton.  He probably got more criticism from those influencers of public though than all the rest combined.  (If I am not mistaken, this was actually studied and confirmed, btw.)

To try to claim that Trump had an advantage over Democratic presidents because Republicans say "socialism" or "soft on crime" while almost the entirety of public influencers are shouting "racism" and "fascism" about Trump is so absurd I don't know what to say about it.

The one thing I will say is that Democrats are so afraid of the word "socialism" that they've let a guy run for POTUS under their banner TWICE now who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. 

Yeah, they're scared of that word, all right.

This whole thing is just too absurd for words.

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

 

Democrats have every major tv news outlet except for one carrying their water.  They have NPR, PBS, almost every university in the country, and almost the entire entertainment industry.  Basically all Republicans have is Fox News, talk radio, and a few DIY personalities on YouTube.

 

I  would disagree that Conservatives are at such a media/info disadvantage as you claim. Conservatives and Republicans have just as many sources for information on "their side" as Democrats do, it's just that the two sides get their information in different ways, and also that in general balanced news that criticizes both sides is usually more likely to be consumed by a liberal/left leaning audience, and thus assumed to be heavily left leaning in its coverage. 

For Example I read the Washington Post, which many Conservatives would label as a heavily biased Democratic/liberal source, and I can verify personally that while the Washington post does have a a real biased left slant in it's editorial opinions, its news outfit is fairly balanced and criticizes Biden and Democrats regularly on a variety of issues and viewpoints. You will very rarely see Conservative news criticize Republican viewpoints and actions in the same way. 

The Posts' editorial section also has several Conservative writers that post Republican opinion and viewpoints several times a week that get placed on the front page. Back when i was a Conservative I don't recall a right wing news source that was similarly as balanced or prone to give access to liberal views in the same ways.   

As you said, Democrats have more mainstream options on cable tv, while Conservatives dominate the talk radio space. 

Out of the 20 most listened to talk radio shows (of all verities and topics) in the United states, 9 out of those 20 are Conservative leaning shows...1 is left leaning or progressive. 

Conservatives also dominate many online spaces. Despite the near universal hatred of Facebook by Conservatives, Facebook is one of the most prominent spreaders of Conservatives news and viewpoints in the world. The most shared links, websites, and news articles on Facebook are almost always dominated by Conservative, right leaning sources. Right wing news gets more 'like' reactions, more shares, and more views on Facebook than left wing stuff does. The right also has  a much more popular and higher variety of biased online offerings from Daily Wire, Breitbart, NYP, National Review, Daily Mail. All of which have more readership and spread than most similarly left biased sources. 

 

Universities do tend to have more liberal instructors because liberals are more likely to get advanced degrees and go into teaching/research. I'll also throw in the jab that reality tends to lean more liberal anyway, so if you're dedicated to teach real world concepts, the student will come out with a bit more liberal viewpoint naturally. 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[homersapien 11,385]

Trump's power resides in the fact his supporters show up in primaries.  As a result, he dominates the Republican Party.

Just watch how prominent Republicans refuse to come out and say he was wrong to praise Putin.  They'll hem and haw and talk about how Trump has a right to his opinion or change the subject to how they feel about Putin, but they will not say Trump was wrong to say what he did.

They are all scared to death of him.

Just one quick example (starting at 3:26):

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sen-thune-on-bidens-handling-of-russian-aggression-theyre-doing-the-right-things

 

 

• Judy Woodruff:

  Senator, some members of your party, however, have been praising Vladimir Putin, in particular, former President Trump. He has called him a genius, savvy. Just over the weekend, he doubled down. He called him smart, and he's been calling — he said, while our leaders, American leaders, are dumb.

  What do you make — do you agree with his assessment?

• Sen. John Thune:

  I think that Vladimir Putin is now exposed and all the world can see. This is a guy — this is a — a power grab on his part.

  He is a thug. He is a criminal. He has to be stopped. And I — that's — I think that's going to be the view of not only a huge majority of Americans, but a huge majority of the world, which is why everybody is now stepping up and providing assistance. It's really remarkable to see and encouraging, frankly, to see the number of countries around the world that are stepping into this equation and doing everything they can to help assist.

  But, no, but Vladimir Putin clearly is a menace to the world. And it's important that the world stop him. And this is the place to do it. And I'm glad that everybody is stepping up the task.

• Judy Woodruff:

  So, you're saying former President Trump is wrong in that assessment?

• Sen. John Thune:

  Well, I don't — former presidents can have their own opinions.

  But I can tell you what everybody else can see clearly. And that is that this is a man who is deluded and, frankly, like I said, I think a very desperate person, but someone who has no qualms about murders, murdering innocent people and children. And he has to be stopped.

  And there's — there will be no question about that. There is no question about that. And I — anybody who suggests otherwise, I think, is not watching what's unfolding in front of them.

 

 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump's power resides in the fact his supporters show up in primaries.  As a result, he dominates the Republican Party.

Just watch how prominent Republicans refuse to come out and say he was wrong to praise Putin.  They'll hem and haw and talk about how Trump has a right to his opinion or change the subject to how they feel about Putin, but they will not say Trump was wrong to say what he did.

They are all scared to death of him.

Just one quick example (starting at 3:26):

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sen-thune-on-bidens-handling-of-russian-aggression-theyre-doing-the-right-things

 

 

• Judy Woodruff:

  Senator, some members of your party, however, have been praising Vladimir Putin, in particular, former President Trump. He has called him a genius, savvy. Just over the weekend, he doubled down. He called him smart, and he's been calling — he said, while our leaders, American leaders, are dumb.

  What do you make — do you agree with his assessment?

• Sen. John Thune:

  I think that Vladimir Putin is now exposed and all the world can see. This is a guy — this is a — a power grab on his part.

  He is a thug. He is a criminal. He has to be stopped. And I — that's — I think that's going to be the view of not only a huge majority of Americans, but a huge majority of the world, which is why everybody is now stepping up and providing assistance. It's really remarkable to see and encouraging, frankly, to see the number of countries around the world that are stepping into this equation and doing everything they can to help assist.

  But, no, but Vladimir Putin clearly is a menace to the world. And it's important that the world stop him. And this is the place to do it. And I'm glad that everybody is stepping up the task.

• Judy Woodruff:

  So, you're saying former President Trump is wrong in that assessment?

• Sen. John Thune:

  Well, I don't — former presidents can have their own opinions.

  But I can tell you what everybody else can see clearly. And that is that this is a man who is deluded and, frankly, like I said, I think a very desperate person, but someone who has no qualms about murders, murdering innocent people and children. And he has to be stopped.

  And there's — there will be no question about that. There is no question about that. And I — anybody who suggests otherwise, I think, is not watching what's unfolding in front of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Homer, what this shows is PBS’ own bias toward the Republicans.  It was a good interview until the 3:26 mark, then Judy, without Thune even mentioning Trump or his comment, launches into her agenda just to see if Thune would have a *Liz Cheney* moment.

There was no other reason to ask that question.  Thune was complimenting Biden as to how he was handling the crisis and Judy wanted to see how far he would go.

PBS is not an unbiased news source.

[homersapien 11,385]

29 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Come on Homer, what this shows is PBS’ own bias toward the Republicans.  It was a good interview until the 3:26 mark, then Judy, without Thune even mentioning Trump or his comment, launches into her agenda just to see if Thune would have a *Liz Cheney* moment.

There was no other reason to ask that question.  Thune was complimenting Biden as to how he was handling the crisis and Judy wanted to see how far he would go.

PBS is not an unbiased news source.

I disagree.  That sort of weak-kneed response by prominent Republicans has been going on every since Trump made his comments.

It has become so ubiquitous in interviews with Republicans that it's become newsworthy - something worthwhile to report.  It illustrates Trump's stranglehold on the party.  Likewise, Liz Cheney - and her travails with Trump supporters - is also news worthy reporting.

I am sure you'd feel differently were it Democrats refusing to condemn Biden for saying such a thing about Putin, (which he wouldn't.)

And PBS is the most unbiased major news source there is.  You just think it's biased because "reality has a well known liberal bias".  

 

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pbs-newshourhttps://www.allsides.com/news-source/pbs-newshour

PBS NewsHour media bias rating is Center.

For 35 years, millions of Americans and citizens of the world have turned to MacNeil/Lehrer Productions for the solid, reliable reporting that has made the PBS NewsHour one of the most trusted news programs in television. Learn more about the program, the people who produce it and the company behind the NewsHour in the About Us section.

Edited March 2, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,385]

And speaking of Republicans:

 

Republicans are so eager to see Biden fail that they’d let Putin succeed

After her fellow Republicans booted her from party leadership last year, Rep. Liz Cheney posed a question: “Do we hate our political adversaries more than we love our country?”

Now, with Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Republicans are answering that question — in the affirmative.

The dictator is betting that division within the United States will sap American resolve and thereby sow disunity between the United States and European democracies — allowing him to crush Ukraine’s democracy and potentially others. And Republicans are giving him what he wants. They are so determined to see President Biden fail that they would let President Putin succeed.

Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, coming six days after Russia started the biggest war in Europe since 1944, offered a timely opportunity to showcase national unity for Putin, and the world. During a similar address to Congress after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush enveloped Democratic congressional leaders in bear hugs. But this time, a number of Republicans boycotted Biden’s address, ostensibly because they objected to getting tested for the coronavirus.

Those in the chamber rose to applaud the Ukrainian ambassador, and many wore Ukraine’s yellow and blue.  But as Biden extolled national unity — “He thought he could divide us at home, in this chamber, in this nation. … But Putin was wrong." — Republican lawmakers sniped at him on Twitter.

“Joe Biden sought to appease Vladimir Putin from the very beginning,” wrote Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). “Biden is empowering our enemies.”

“The United States is back to leading from behind under President Biden,” tweeted Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). “This is the second time Putin has invaded a foreign country while Joe Biden has been in the White House.”

How deep was the contempt? As Biden mentioned the cancers that kill many U.S. veterans, including his own son Beau, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) heckled the president.

GOP leaders had set the blame-Biden tone earlier in the day. Rep. Michael McCaul (Tex.), the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, likened Biden’s actions toward Russia to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, saying, “We have a weak president, and he’s creating a very dangerous world.”

Also Tuesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the No. 3 House GOP leader, said Biden “failed to engage in meaningful deterrence against Russian aggression,” and asserted that “the war on Ukraine represents one of the greatest foreign policy failures in modern history.”

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Rep. Steve Scalise (La.), the House GOP whip, amplified the attacks on Biden over Ukraine. And Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), head of the Senate Republican Conference, said Biden’s “policies from Day One have enabled, emboldened Vladimir Putin to do what he has done,” adding that it’s “as if Vladimir Putin were Joe Biden’s secretary of energy.”

Some Republican candidates have even been fundraising off calling Biden “weak” on Ukraine.

The relentless assault no doubt undermines Biden — but it also weakens America. Biden’s response — the U.S. response — can be only as strong as Republicans allow. By sabotaging the commander in chief, Republican leaders have made it more difficult to rally the nation to accept wartime sacrifices (accepting higher energy prices or, potentially, lost American lives).

A poll released Monday by Yahoo News-YouGov shows how corrosive the Republican assaults on Biden have been. Though Americans overwhelmingly call the Ukraine invasion unjustified, Trump voters actually had a more favorable opinion of Putin than of Biden. Ninety-five percent of Trump voters expressed an unfavorable view of Biden (including 87 percent holding a very unfavorable view), compared with 78 percent of Trump voters expressing an unfavorable view of Putin (60 percent very unfavorable). Only 3 percent of Trump voters said Biden is “doing a better job leading his country” than Putin, while 47 percent said the dictator, who has brought isolation and economic crisis to Russia, is doing a better job than Biden.

This shouldn’t be surprising. Trump, while opposing the Ukraine invasion, has called “peacekeeper” Putin’s actions “very savvy,” “genius” and “smart,” while “our leaders are dumb.”

That’s a bit rich, after Trump threatened to blow up NATO, unsuccessfully tried to persuade other world leaders to readmit Russia to the Group of Seven and infamously tried to condition military aid to Ukraine on the country’s willingness to provide Trump with political dirt on Democrats. Republican lawmakers defended Trump by parroting Russian propaganda falsely blaming Ukraine for 2016 U.S. election sabotage, which Russia actually did.

But this isn’t the time to point fingers at political opponents. It’s time to confront the real enemy. Do Republican leaders know the difference?

In the official GOP response to the State of the Union, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds picked up the blame-Biden theme, accusing him of “focusing on political correctness rather than military readiness” before the Ukraine invasion. “Weakness on the world stage has a cost," she charged.

It does. And Republicans, by undermining Biden in a time of war, risk making America pay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/01/republicans-biden-fail-putin-succeed/

 

Now tell me how "biased" it is to quote Republicans.   

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Disagree all you want, I guess.  You're making the claim that a guy who was barely elected the first time—didn't win the popular vote— and couldn't even win re-election once had more support to make significant structural changes than any Democrat going back to FDR, who was elected FOUR TIMES and would have been elected more if he hadn't died, and all of his election were by comfortable margins if not landslides.  It's a patently ridiculous claim.

And the comments regarding Clinton and Obama is me trying to figure out what you're even talking about making such a claim.  You said Trump had a lot of "unconditional support."

That certainly can't mean from the opposing party, as that's clearly not true.  In fact, the true statement there would be that he had a lot of unconditional opposition.

It can't mean from within his own party, as his entire term was characterized by Republicans breaking ranks to oppose him.

So it has to mean just ordinary citizens.

"Unconditional" being the important word.  The ones who, as he famously said, he could shoot someone in the face and they would still support him.

Like the people who still supported Clinton despite having been exposed as a sexual harasser of women, a criminal perjurer, and a probable rapist.  Unconditional support.  Regardless of anything he did.  

You're literally claiming that Trump had more of that than Clinton.  Who was elected twice and would have been elected again if he could have been.

Obama's behavior didn't ever rise to the level of Clinton's or Trump's, but again, he was elected comfortably the first time and in a landslide the second time.  There's no reason to believe he was lacking in "unconditional support."

And yes, Trump had Congress for two years.  So did Obama.  So did Clinton.  So do most presidents b/c of the dynamic between the POTUS and midterm elections.  So what?

Possibly the most absurd thing you're claiming is that Republicans calling Democratic policies socialist or saying they are soft on crime is such a blow to the popularity of Democratic presidents that they just didn't have the support they need to do anything.

Good grief, man.

Democrats have every major tv news outlet except for one carrying their water.  They have NPR, PBS, almost every university in the country, and almost the entire entertainment industry.  Basically all Republicans have is Fox News, talk radio, and a few DIY personalities on YouTube.

Trump (whether you believe he deserved it or not is again, not the point here) got more criticism from all of those influencers of public opinion than any president I can ever remember.  Metric tons more than Obama.  Orders of magnitude more than Clinton.  He probably got more criticism from those influencers of public though than all the rest combined.  (If I am not mistaken, this was actually studied and confirmed, btw.)

To try to claim that Trump had an advantage over Democratic presidents because Republicans say "socialism" or "soft on crime" while almost the entirety of public influencers are shouting "racism" and "fascism" about Trump is so absurd I don't know what to say about it.

The one thing I will say is that Democrats are so afraid of the word "socialism" that they've let a guy run for POTUS under their banner TWICE now who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. 

Yeah, they're scared of that word, all right.

This whole thing is just too absurd for words.

I can't imagine being so emotional over opinion that is so inconsequential.  I have no idea what your real point is.  Mine was more about Trump's use of a populist message, the support for that message.  I am sorry for not making that clear and, causing you to become angry.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

They are so determined to see President Biden fail that they would let President Putin succeed.

Another example of unbiased left leaning media.  Here’s a news flash; American is not at war with anybody.  Republicans are not determined to see President Biden fail, they are just impatient. Joe is doing a great job of failing all on his own.

And what is with the *let President Putin succeed* statement?  What Republican can let Putin succeed?  Has there been any deterrent that the Republicans has not allowed Biden to enact?  What a stupid statement.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Another example of unbiased left leaning media.  Here’s a news flash; American is not at war with anybody.  Republicans are not determined to see President Biden fail, they are just impatient. Joe is doing a great job of failing all on his own.

And what is with the *let President Putin succeed* statement?  What Republican can let Putin succeed?  Has there been any deterrent that the Republicans has not allowed Biden to enact?  What a stupid statement.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

17 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

So, how does this tweet have anything to do with Republicans letting Putin succeed?  If someone called me up and asked these questions to me I’d hang up on them.  That poll is ridiculous on its face.

[autigeremt 6,642]

I want to know who the 26% are that do think Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified? Idiots. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I want to know who the 26% are that do think Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified? Idiots. 

 

That 26% includes the "don't know" folks as well 

[GoAU 1,600]

On 2/28/2022 at 5:31 PM, icanthearyou said:

I like America first if, it means America's principles of democracy and fair trade.  If it means being selfish and indifferent, no.

My fear is that the Presidents you listed were unduly influenced by capitalists who's only interest was greed.

Trump squandered a golden opportunity.  He could have done what no Democrat can do.  He could have made real structural reforms without anyone screaming socialism.   He had a lot of unconditional support and therefore, a lot of power.  He truly could have been a transformational President.  No Democrat has had that kind of power since FDR.

We need a President with the ability to challenge the capitalists without destroying them.

Honest question - when it comes to capitalism, do you believe that capitalism thriving can be good for all, or do you feel that thriving capitalism is always propelled by greed?  I ask because I believe a thriving capialistic society truly is good for all.   There will always be those that have more than me, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that I've still got it good, and better than most.  The vast majority of those in the USA have a higher standard of living than most of the world.

 

Forgot to add - I agree firmly with what you said about fair trade - sending US manufacturing overseas just to save labor $$ is garbage.  It may cost more in the short term, but we've got to stop this crazy off-shoring of US manufacturing.

Edited March 3, 2022 by GoAU

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

31 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Honest question - when it comes to capitalism, do you believe that capitalism thriving can be good for all, or do you feel that thriving capitalism is always propelled by greed?  I ask because I believe a thriving capialistic society truly is good for all.   There will always be those that have more than me, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that I've still got it good, and better than most.  The vast majority of those in the USA have a higher standard of living than most of the world.

 

Forgot to add - I agree firmly with what you said about fair trade - sending US manufacturing overseas just to save labor $$ is garbage.  It may cost more in the short term, but we've got to stop this crazy off-shoring of US manufacturing.

I'm not ICHY, but ill throw in my 2 cents anyway here. 

 

A thriving Capitalistic system CAN be good for everyone, but it's not inherently good and can lead to bad outcomes if left without proper regulation and oversight. Capitalism operates off of the same principle as every other economic system...human greed....the desire for more. Bettering society and more wealth for all is only a possible side effect of regulated capitalism, not a guaranteed reality. 

The lower classes may not be living in straw huts with dirt floors and eating bugs out in the weeds, but that doesn't necessarily mean their lives or standard of living is "good", or that their mental and physical health is adequate. Especially if they are constantly told that it's their fault they aren't better off and if they had just made better choices in life they'd have more money..which life is a lot more complicated than that. 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm not ICHY, but ill throw in my 2 cents anyway here. 

 

A thriving Capitalistic system CAN be good for everyone, but it's not inherently good and can lead to bad outcomes if left without proper regulation and oversight. Capitalism operates off of the same principle as every other economic system...human greed....the desire for more. Bettering society and more wealth for all is only a possible side effect of regulated capitalism, not a guaranteed reality. 

The lower classes may not be living in straw huts with dirt floors and eating bugs out in the weeds, but that doesn't necessarily mean their lives or standard of living is "good", or that their mental and physical health is adequate. Especially if they are constantly told that it's their fault they aren't better off and if they had just made better choices in life they'd have more money..which life is a lot more complicated than that. 

 

 

Thanks - appreciate the response and dialogue.   But aren't the drawbacks you listed of equal concern for other systems?  Human greed exists in humans, and any system would be vulnerable to greed.  Goodness knows greed and power both influence socialist / communist countries as well.  I would be curious as to which countries / models you feel deliver a higher standard of living for the majority of it's people than capitalism? 

I don't disagree that boundaries and regulations need to exist, the challenge is in balancing free markets and regulation.

Edited March 3, 2022 by GoAU

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm not ICHY, but ill throw in my 2 cents anyway here. 

 

A thriving Capitalistic system CAN be good for everyone, but it's not inherently good and can lead to bad outcomes if left without proper regulation and oversight. Capitalism operates off of the same principle as every other economic system...human greed....the desire for more. Bettering society and more wealth for all is only a possible side effect of regulated capitalism, not a guaranteed reality. 

The lower classes may not be living in straw huts with dirt floors and eating bugs out in the weeds, but that doesn't necessarily mean their lives or standard of living is "good", or that their mental and physical health is adequate. Especially if they are constantly told that it's their fault they aren't better off and if they had just made better choices in life they'd have more money..which life is a lot more complicated than that. 

 

 

We often assess “capitalism” based on the perverted, minimally regulated, crony capitalism that dominates the USA. Denmark, Germany and Sweden are market economies with the profit motive that drives efficiency and innovation. They’re just not unbridled, profit at all costs societies. These are not, as many on the Right claim, socialist countries.

[GoAU 1,600]

True - but they are also not world leading countries either.  Not too many game changing inventions, technology breakthroughs, medical innovations, etc coming from those countries.  However, I do understand your point. And agree with quite a bit of it.  Balance is the key. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

Honest question - when it comes to capitalism, do you believe that capitalism thriving can be good for all, or do you feel that thriving capitalism is always propelled by greed?  I ask because I believe a thriving capialistic society truly is good for all.   There will always be those that have more than me, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that I've still got it good, and better than most.  The vast majority of those in the USA have a higher standard of living than most of the world.

 

Forgot to add - I agree firmly with what you said about fair trade - sending US manufacturing overseas just to save labor $$ is garbage.  It may cost more in the short term, but we've got to stop this crazy off-shoring of US manufacturing.

I believe capitalism is the best system for promoting innovation, freedom, prosperity, peace.  In the context of history, I don't really see a good basis for a counter argument.  However, I think we have to recognize that the capitalist will seek to destroy capitalism by any means possible through monopoly. 

We all understand the supply/demand curves and, how the intersection is price equilibrium.  What we don't always understand is how POWER can artificially move the curves.  The capitalist understand.

At it's best, capitalism promotes competition, innovation, fair-value exchange, shared prosperity/opportunity, relative equality, choice.  At it's worst, capitalism promotes consolidation, a stifling of innovation, extreme income inequality, greed, envy, division, prices that are manipulated by power, not markets, the demise of capitalism/society.  We always want to measure economic growth.  However, the best indicator of how capitalism is working is.... is the economy getting narrower or, broader.  Is wealth concentrating or broadly shared?  Are all boats rising on the tide or only the mega yachts?

Government regulation is the only legitimate force that can keep the playing field level.  Unless of course, the capitalist have corrupted the government.  At that point, the same capitalist who rant about regulation are actually laughing in private because they helped create those same regulations as barriers to entry for small, upstart competitors.  You see a constant push to drive down wages.  Worse, you see geographic areas spend grotesque sums of public dollars to woo the capitalist to "create" jobs.  In what sane world does public money compete for the capitalist rather than the capitalist competing.

All we have done since the mid 1960's is push the incredibly stupid ideas of the Austrian school, the Ayn Rands, the Milton Freidmans that free markets and low wages are desirable.  It led to jobs moving out of union towns in the North and into staunchly non-union towns in the South with factories built with public money.  When that wasn't good enough those jobs moved on to the third-world where slave wages are acceptable.

We never learned the principles of our own success.  Our real success is not based on a few people like JP Morgan, JDR, Carnegie.  Our real success was created by high wages, workers with disposable income who could consume broadly.  It was the ability to consume that so rapidly drove innovation, competition, opportunity, prosperity.  It was a thriving middle class.

Think about the scorn of the capitalist when Henry Ford dramatically increased wages in his factories.  His response was, if we raise wages, we will be wealthier than you can imagine.  He was correct.  Think about the areas of this country, the world, where wages are relatively equal.  You will often find they have great wealth inequality yet, a high quality of life.

The fixation on free markets and low wages is nothing but a race to the bottom for society and, fabulous wealth and power for a few capitalist.  Supply side economics is stupid and cruel.  It defies the basic logic that consumption and production are inherently dependent upon one another.  It promotes the idea that human suffering is unavoidable.

 

Greed is just the point at which ambition becomes irrational, power becomes the tool rather than legitimate work.  Power must be regulated.  IMHO regulated means balanced between labor and capital.  This is the core of politics, the two real political concerns.  They need one another.  We cannot allow one to dominate the other or, we will become a third world country, a handful of elites with the masses living in shanty towns.

Yes, we are the greatest nation in the world and, I thank God I was born here but, I don't feel good using that comparison.  We should be above that.   I don't feel good about the direction we are going.  We cannot continue to drift right.  We cannot afford to allow China to have so much influence over both our supply and demand.  Inflation is no longer the product of market forces but of power.

Economically and politically, we have to grow up, stop blaming the poor, the powerless and, honestly question the motives of real power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,385]

7 hours ago, GoAU said:

Honest question - when it comes to capitalism, do you believe that capitalism thriving can be good for all, or do you feel that thriving capitalism is always propelled by greed?  I ask because I believe a thriving capialistic society truly is good for all.   There will always be those that have more than me, but that doesn't mean that I can't recognize that I've still got it good, and better than most.  The vast majority of those in the USA have a higher standard of living than most of the world.

 

Forgot to add - I agree firmly with what you said about fair trade - sending US manufacturing overseas just to save labor $$ is garbage.  It may cost more in the short term, but we've got to stop this crazy off-shoring of US manufacturing.

No offense, but do you see the conflict between those two paragraphs?

A completely free market capitalistic society would not consider restricting a capitalist from off-shoring manufacturing to save labor cost.

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

True - but they are also not world leading countries either.  Not too many game changing inventions, technology breakthroughs, medical innovations, etc coming from those countries.  However, I do understand your point. And agree with quite a bit of it.  Balance is the key. 

That's undoubtedly true on an absolute basis, but probably much less so on a normalized, per-capita basis.  And they certainly do some things much better than we do, such as healthcare, childcare and quality of life (not to mention driving. )

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Edited March 3, 2022 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

39 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No offense, but do you see the conflict between those two paragraphs?

A completely free market capitalistic society would not consider restricting a capitalist from off-shoring manufacturing to save labor cost.

I do understand your point and should clarify a bit.  “Free market” for me has domestic and international flavors.  I have worked in manufacturing since leaving the military and have seen the results of shuttering factories to send jobs overseas.  On the international stage the currency manipulation, unfair trade deals, tariffs , etc ruin any semblance of “free trade”.  Not to mention the national security implications of losing a manufacturing base.  

[GoAU 1,600]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's undoubtedly true on an absolute basis, but probably much less so on a normalized, per-capita basis.  And they certainly do some things much better than we do, such as healthcare, childcare and quality of life (not to mention driving. )

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

Can agree with you on some of that.  Not completely on board with healthcare though.  I had a firsthand experience with “free” healthcare and am not a fan at all.    I do see the need for some reforms of our systems - pre existing conditions being a great example.  
 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Can agree with you on some of that.  Not completely on board with healthcare though.  I had a firsthand experience with “free” healthcare and am not a fan at all.    I do see the need for some reforms of our systems - pre existing conditions being a great example.  
 

Can you detail your experience with free healthcare please.  Thank you.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

True - but they are also not world leading countries either.  Not too many game changing inventions, technology breakthroughs, medical innovations, etc coming from those countries.  However, I do understand your point. And agree with quite a bit of it.  Balance is the key. 

The EU could greatly benefit from reassessing it’s regulations.

I don’t think any of those leading breakthroughs come from the way crony, can’t-fail “capitalism” tends to be practiced in this country. Utterly failed CEOs get amazing golden parachutes regardless of whether they run a company well or not. CEOs often show gains by short-term cost reductions that may actually impede innovation and breakthroughs and get rewarded with new gigs. 

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Can you detail your experience with free healthcare please.  Thank you.

Sure.  When I was serving in the Army and met my wife she was living with her mother in Canada.  Due to the frequency of deployments, she was staying with her mother and I was commutingwhile she was pregnant. When she went into labor we went to the hospital (in Canada).  Our son had some complications due to his size (9 lbs, 15 ozs) and basically got logged in place.  Any hospital in the USA would have cranked up the anesthesia and went straight to a C section.  This hospital truly did not have an anesthesiologist on staff at night.  The normal guy was supposedly on call, but couldn’t be reached.  They did a lot of cutting, pulling and the like and were able to extract my son, thankfully w/o any injuries.  When I asked the staff (after) about why the hospital only had 1 anesthesiologist they said that was all they were budgeted for.  They were as frustrated as I was about it.  
 

On a side note, my brother in law, also in Canada, injured his back on the job.  He had to wait several months for surgery due to the quotas that are in place.