Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[Hawker]

This is a forum for people with no executive or legislative duties to discuss Politics and Society.  Surely broad generalities and platitudes are welcome?  Posting lists of books and videos instead of communicating your ideas directly is not going to progress the conversation.  If I were to sat that you should have read "Das Kapital" before you can say you are against socialism, all that means is I've given up on engaging you directly. 

[FirstAscent]

This is a forum for people with no executive or legislative duties to discuss Politics and Society.  Surely broad generalities and platitudes are welcome?  Posting lists of books and videos instead of communicating your ideas directly is not going to progress the conversation.  If I were to sat that you should have read "Das Kapital" before you can say you are against socialism, all that means is I've given up on engaging you directly. 

Missed the point again. Seriously, read the posts. Why do you keep coming back and implying that I've been saying the opposite of what I've been saying?

[FirstAscent]

+100

-200

[AyeYo]

This is a forum for people with no executive or legislative duties to discuss Politics and Society.  Surely broad generalities and platitudes are welcome?  Posting lists of books and videos instead of communicating your ideas directly is not going to progress the conversation.  If I were to sat that you should have read "Das Kapital" before you can say you are against socialism, all that means is I've given up on engaging you directly.  

In order to discuss something, you need to have an understanding of the umbrella topic area.

You can't intelligently discuss turbo sizing unless you understand forced induction, how an engine works, and are able to read a compressor map.  Knowing what a turbo is and being able to define it is NOT enough.

You can't intelligently discuss the plane on a treadmill myth unless you understand basic physics.  Knowing what a plane and treadmill are is NOT enough.

You can't intelligently discuss Yankees vs. Red Sox unless you understand the rules of baseball and have some knowledge of what's been happening during the season.  Knowing who the Yankess and Red Sox are is NOT enough.

You can't intelligently discuss environmental regulation and industry impact on the environment unless you understand the complexities of how the environment works, how industry affects it, and have some grasp of history.  Knowing that the environment exists and is full of green stuff is NOT enough.



Thus, the book recommendations are NOT intended to sway anyone's opinion, but are instead intended to educate people on the overall topic being discussed so that they can then intelligently apply and defend whatever ideology they happen to believe in.  It's impossible to have an intelligent debate with someone that has no knowledge of or, even worse, is misinformed on the topic at hand.

[johnyj]

Remember that human do not produce anything, they just move resources around and consume them.

No, we do produce and the produced product is called wealth. When we turn minerals and raw materials into a toy for instance, the skills and labor required to form the toy are valued and scarce and come from the ingenuity of an individual. The innovations required to make things faster and better are also valuable. They weren't there before and it would require more effort to consume raw materials directly through other means. We can make things to use LESS resources while making MORE value available to everyone as a whole.

Wealth has to be created for this to be possible. The fact is there is value that wasn't there before thus we can make the "wealth pie" bigger. Life is not a zero-sum game.

Here's another example involving record sales:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/

Minerals and raw materials turned into toy, consumed and trashed, useable resource got lost and become much more difficult to re-use again

Only plants produce, they took solar power and turn the air into organics, everything else on the planet just consume the organics they produce, and plants even turn to petroleum after millions of years

You can say, human move and reform natual materials into the way they want, and the more they want, the more resource will be moved/consumed. But their desire can not increase forever, sometimes it just shrink, especially after most of their desire are fulfilled. And that will put the driven power of market economy(human's desire) to 0 or even negative

No matter how low the interest rate is, no company wants to invest, since most of the desire of human has been fulfilled more or less, thus most of the investment will turn into a loss

Purely depend on human desire to drive the economy, is a painful and long way

[Anonymous]

Remember that human do not produce anything, they just move resources around and consume them.

No, we do produce and the produced product is called wealth. When we turn minerals and raw materials into a toy for instance, the skills and labor required to form the toy are valued and scarce and come from the ingenuity of an individual. The innovations required to make things faster and better are also valuable. They weren't there before and it would require more effort to consume raw materials directly through other means. We can make things to use LESS resources while making MORE value available to everyone as a whole.

Wealth has to be created for this to be possible. The fact is there is value that wasn't there before thus we can make the "wealth pie" bigger. Life is not a zero-sum game.

Here's another example involving record sales:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/

Minerals and raw materials turned into toy, consumed and trashed, useable resource got lost and become much more difficult to re-use again

Only plants produce, they took solar power and turn the air into organics, everything else on the planet just consume the organics they produce, and plants even turn to petroleum after millions of years

You can say, human move and reform natual materials into the way they want, and the more they want, the more resource will be moved/consumed. But their desire can not increase forever, sometimes it just shrink, especially after most of their desire are fulfilled. And that will put the driven power of market economy(human's desire) to 0 or even negative

No matter how low the interest rate is, no company wants to invest, since most of the desire of human has been fulfilled more or less, thus most of the investment will turn into a loss

Purely depend on human desire to drive the economy, is a painful and long way

Most human desire has not been met. There are still starving and thirsty people. The drive is there and so was the capital but very little of it was used towards means to achieve an effective goal. It was wasted in wars and bureaucracy.

[GideonGono]

+100

-200

are you not proposing status-quo interventions and do they not have proven fallibility in the real world?

[AyeYo]

+100

-200

are you not proposing status-quo interventions and do they not have proven fallibility in the real world?

If he wanted status-quo interventions then he wouldn't be proposing anything, because he'd already have it.  


Additionally, the fact that something doesn't work 100% doesn't automatically mean it should be discarded.  Nothing works 100% in the real world.

[Anonymous]

+100

-200

are you not proposing status-quo interventions and do they not have proven fallibility in the real world?

If he wanted status-quo interventions then he wouldn't be proposing anything, because he'd already have it.  


Additionally, the fact that something doesn't work 100% doesn't automatically mean it should be discarded.  Nothing works 100% in the real world.

However some things work significantly better than others.

[AyeYo]

+100

-200

are you not proposing status-quo interventions and do they not have proven fallibility in the real world?

If he wanted status-quo interventions then he wouldn't be proposing anything, because he'd already have it.  


Additionally, the fact that something doesn't work 100% doesn't automatically mean it should be discarded.  Nothing works 100% in the real world.

However some things work significantly better than others.

Thank you, captain obvious.

[FirstAscent]

However some things work significantly better than others.

And some things which are a shade of red are more red than other things which are also a shade or red. Furthermore, some people have more forks in their kitchen drawers than others.

[FirstAscent]

+100

-200

are you not proposing status-quo interventions and do they not have proven fallibility in the real world?

You mean the statement I made earlier which I quote below?

What is needed is leadership to ordain collective ownership (i.e. public lands), with guaranteed future protection. Following that, businesses will find themselves collectively handicapped in the quantity of resources available to them (artificially imposed constraints), and thus the process of finding alternative solutions to resource exploitation will be accelerated by competition to derive real solutions that are efficient and non exploitative, as opposed to being mostly exploitative.

The key is to artificially guide business to seek out efficiency as it relates to the entire system which sustains us, as opposed to efficiency at maximizing money through exploitation.  

It's pretty much proven to work. Of course, every corporation will put out a massive propaganda campaign and line the pockets of politicians to make you believe otherwise. Get a handle on the more sophisticated economic theories coming to light in the face of the new realities we're facing.

Here's an interesting dynamic for you to ponder. Consider automotive design, regulations, fuel prices, and oil exploration, all combined. In the absence of auto manufacturing regulations, what happens to oil resources?

[Anonymous]

Last I checked, the corporations hate everything we stand for. They are in favor of government regulations and subsidies that put them on top. In fact, Ron Paul doesn't even have a single large corporate sponsor.

In the absence of automotive regulations, you would see them tailoring their designs more to consumer desires. Smaller manufacturers would be more free to start-up and not hindered by the burdening costs of government permits and standards. The poorer safety and efficiency of larger automotive companies could be challenged and dismantled.

The possibilities would be limitless.

PS The sooner oil is depleted, the better. We could finally take on new energy sources with full force.

[ctoon6]

PS The sooner oil is depleted the better. We could finally take on new energy sources with full force.

i would love nothing more, id have like a brain orgy in an instant the second i realized that came to fruition.

[FirstAscent]

Last I checked, the corporations hate everything we stand for. They are in favor of government regulations and subsidies that put them on top. In fact, Ron Paul doesn't even have a single large corporate sponsor.

In the absence of automotive regulations, you would see them tailoring their designs more to consumer desires. Smaller manufacturers would be more free to start-up and not hindered by the burdening costs of government permits and standards. The poorer safety and efficiency of larger automotive companies could be challenged and dismantled.

Do you believe everything you write? To begin with, who do you think drives consumer desires? The corporations do! Their marketing departments. And their design departments, which focus on what's cool - they create needs in the public consumer. As for smaller companies starting up - they are starting up, despite the fact that you think regulations are preventing them from starting up. Witness Tesla, Aptera, Local Motors and Fisker Automotive. And among those four, three of them make very efficient cars, yet we're not seeing the big automakers being challenged by them, are we? That's three points against what you've said.

By regulations, you must be thinking of things like safety for workers in the plants, permits, and so on. Sure, those are part of regulations, but you've either conveniently left out other types of regulations, or have failed to imagine them. Let's strike another point against your argument above: you claim that the poorer safety and efficiency of larger automobiles would be challenged by competition - but what exactly do you think encourages auto manufacturers to create efficient and safe automobiles today? It's actually mandates from the government, not the public.

Now, let's move on to oil extraction. Guess what happens when oil prices go up? Does everyone start driving super efficient automobiles overnight? No. What really happens is the management of big oil grows huge fucking smiles on their faces. They ramp up their lobbying effort, their drilling effort, and perhaps even the efficiency of their drilling efforts, and certainly their efforts at discovering oil in the ground. They create a frenzy among the public to chant "drill, baby, drill!". They lobby for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened up, and put politicians on the spot. Through their efforts, they manage to squeeze more oil out of the ground, while simultaneously, the economy takes a hit, oil prices take a small hit, the public breathes a mild sigh of relief after being conditioned to higher oil prices, the oil companies post record revenue and profits, and the auto manufacturers continue to create a need amongst the buying public for automobiles which get at best around 30MPG, because the public believes that must be reasonable and acceptable.

Now the government is put on the spot when environmentalists insist that regulations which would demand a huge increase in fuel economy are needed, because the public has been hit over the head by the oil companies and the brownlashers with propaganda, all the while being psychologically manipulated by the auto makers that big expensive glitzy gas guzzlers are the ticket to showcasing your success in life. The cycle repeats.

That's the free market for you.

What's possible, physically? Volkswagen, a rarity among the auto world, has demonstrated that their XL1 gets 260MPG. The concept is simple: build it aerodynamic and lightweight. By being lightweight, you can also have skinnier tires which will get you the same traction as fatter tires on a heavier auto - this means less road friction as well.

The government needs to mandate much higher efficiency then they have been. Much higher. It needs to happen now. Clearly Volkswagen is demonstrating what is really possible. Auto manufacturers need to stop creating a need in the public for big and inefficient, and suck it up as per extreme regulation and mandates via the government (which you are against), but the government is too weak to actually mandate such standards, because big oil just loves high oil prices, and they've convinced you that they do not need to be regulated either.

And the primary reason big oil loves high oil prices? Because management wants to make as much money before they retire, at the expense of everything else.

So, let's just continue down that path. Suck the oil out of the ground as fast as possible, destroy the environment in the process, deplete the oil resources left, burn it, and put all that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[ctoon6]

Last I checked, the corporations hate everything we stand for. They are in favor of government regulations and subsidies that put them on top. In fact, Ron Paul doesn't even have a single large corporate sponsor.

In the absence of automotive regulations, you would see them tailoring their designs more to consumer desires. Smaller manufacturers would be more free to start-up and not hindered by the burdening costs of government permits and standards. The poorer safety and efficiency of larger automotive companies could be challenged and dismantled.

Do you believe everything you write? To begin with, who do you think drives consumer desires? The corporations do! Their marketing departments. And their design departments, which focus on what's cool - they create needs in the public consumer. As for smaller companies starting up - they are starting up, despite the fact that you think regulations are preventing them from starting up. Witness Tesla, Aptera, Local Motors and Fisker Automotive. And among those four, three of them make very efficient cars, yet we're not seeing the big automakers being challenged by them, are we? That's three points against what you've said.

By regulations, you must be thinking of things like safety for workers in the plants, permits, and so on. Sure, those are part of regulations, but you've either conveniently left out other types of regulations, or have failed to imagine them. Let's strike another point against your argument above: you claim that the poorer safety and efficiency of larger automobiles would be challenged by competition - but what exactly is encouraging auto manufacturers to create efficient and safe automobiles today? How about mandates from the government?

Now, let's move on to oil extraction. Guess what happens when oil prices go up? Does everyone start driving super efficient automobiles overnight? No. What really happens is the management of big oil grows huge fucking smiles on their faces. They ramp up their lobbying effort, their drilling effort, and perhaps even the efficiency of their drilling efforts, and certainly their efforts at discovering oil in the ground. They create a frenzy among the public to chant "drill, baby, drill!". They lobby for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened up, and put politicians on the spot. Through their efforts, they manage to squeeze more oil out of the ground, while simultaneously, the economy takes a hit, oil prices take a mild hit, the public breathes a mild sigh of relief after being conditioned to higher oil prices, the oil companies post record revenue and profits, and the auto manufacturers continue to create a need amongst the buying public for automobiles which get at best around 30MPG, because the public believes that must be reasonable and acceptable.

Now the government is put on the spot when environmentalists insist that regulations which would demand a huge increase in fuel economy are needed, because the public has been hit over the head by the oil companies and the brownlashers with propaganda, all the while being psychologically manipulated by the auto makers that big expensive glitzy gas guzzlers are the ticket to showcasing your success in life. The cycle repeats.

That's the free market for you.

What's possible, physically? Volkswagen, a rarity among the auto world, has demonstrated that their XL1 gets 260MPG. The concept is simple: build it aerodynamic and lightweight. By being lightweight, you can also have skinnier tires which will get you the same traction as fatter tires on a heavier auto - this means less road friction as well.

The government needs to mandate much higher efficiency then they have been. Much higher. It needs to happen now. Clearly Volkswagen is demonstrating what is really possible. Auto manufacturers need to stop creating a need in the public for big and inefficient, and suck it up as per extreme regulation via the government, but the government is too weak to actually mandate such standards, because big oil just loves high oil prices.

And the primary reason big oil loves high oil prices? Because management wants to make as much money before they retire, at the expense of every thing else.

So, let's just continue down that path. Suck the oil out of the ground as fast as possible, destroy the environment in the process, deplete the oil resources left, burn it, and put all that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

for one, the US economy is partially planned to a small extent. and second, you can suck the co2 out of the air and make money doing it. grow tress and do somthing with the resulting lumber, besides burn it, like make wood floors and wood houses.

[FirstAscent]

for one, the US economy is partially planned to a small extent. and second, you can suck the co2 out of the air and make money doing it. grow tress and do somthing with the resulting lumber, besides burn it, like make wood floors and wood houses.

It doesn't work that way. Planting trees requires huge expanses of land. Where are you going to plant them? Areas deforested for agriculture? Or areas deforested for the production of palm oil? Or areas deforested for civilization? Or areas deforested for lumber? Obviously, only the fourth one makes sense. So what does that get us? It gets us less trees than we already had, and furthermore, it does not address the incredible attrition of biodiversity from destroying the old growth forests. Also, tree farms used for lumber, when actually used for lumber, obviously require rotation, thus creating blank spots undergoing new planting.

[ctoon6]

for one, the US economy is partially planned to a small extent. and second, you can suck the co2 out of the air and make money doing it. grow tress and do somthing with the resulting lumber, besides burn it, like make wood floors and wood houses.

It doesn't work that way. Planting trees requires huge expanses of land. Where are you going to plant them? Areas deforested for agriculture? Or areas deforested for the production of palm oil? Or areas deforested for civilization? Or areas deforested for lumber? Obviously, only the fourth one makes sense. So what does that get us? It gets us less trees than we already had, and furthermore, it does not address the incredible attrition of biodiversity from destroying the old growth forests. Also, tree farms used for lumber, when actually used for lumber, obviously require rotation, thus creating blank spots undergoing new planting.

if you deforest an area and plant trees in a more efficient way, you actually get more trees. and trees are mostly useless anyway, aside from the animals you kill in the process. and you dont need to deforest areas to make room for planting trees, you could level off an area that used to be a parking lot, useless space is now, well useful.

[RandyFolds]

and second, you can suck the co2 out of the air and make money doing it. grow tress and do somthing with the resulting lumber, besides burn it, like make wood floors and wood houses.

This is a joke, right?

[FirstAscent]

if you deforest an area and plant trees in a more efficient way, you actually get more trees. and trees are mostly useless anyway, aside from the animals you kill in the process. and you dont need to deforest areas to make room for planting trees, you could level off an area that used to be a parking lot, useless space is now, well useful.

Are you serious? Read The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson and get back to me.

In a nutshell, deforestation is quite possibly the most threatening and destructive process that has ever occurred on this planet, short of the asteroid which killed the dinosaurs. Basically, the Earth's natural processes are analogous to an extraordinarily efficient factory which sustains all of us. It begins with the microscopic organisms in the soil which recycle everything. Their presence is dependent on the environment, beginning with the top level predators, whose presence is dependent on old growth forests, and cause the trophic cascades which trickle all the way down to the microscopic level.