Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 07:42 AM
Robert Sturgeon
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)

If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.


Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.


Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. As
to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the
mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely
a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over
the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow
of time is apparently a one way street.

Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.


In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.


Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"


That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the
other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my
Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less
influence than my neighbor's dog.

If the
corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.


Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?


Because that means they have good reason to fear for their
own safety.

FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.


The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"


Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate
of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to
open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond.
Been there - a waste of time and electrons.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.
  #47   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 02:33 PM
Volker Hetzer
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear
afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to
blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie
continually and people like you would come to believe it.

Strider

So you like demolishing self-built strawmen?
Volker
  #48   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 05:19 PM
Strider
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:23:06 +0100, "Volker Hetzer"
wrote:


"Strider" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Ah, but they would describe the sky as a darkened haze on a clear
afternoon. They would, in spite of evidence to the contrary, go on to
blame Bush for the darkened sky. They would repeat this lie
continually and people like you would come to believe it.

Strider

So you like demolishing self-built strawmen?
Volker


I don't build them. I burn them.

What color is the sky, Liberal?

Strider
  #49   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 05:20 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65640 rec.gardens:259463 misc.survivalism:501562 misc.rural:115611 rec.backcountry:172445

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)


If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.


Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.



Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had.


Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a
period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. That's a myth
perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school
"history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the
depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the
market. The depression occurred because the Federal
Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean
they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut
the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%,
leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation.
Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in
economics for showing this.

As to whether industrial capitalism was more humane that the
mixed economy of the New Deal/Great Society - that's purely
a matter of opinion. I would choose the capitalists over
the New Dealers, but it was in the past, right? The arrow
of time is apparently a one way street.


Their influence was moderated during the 30s but they regained
their power during the second world war and by 1948 had succeeded in
eviscerating the labor movement. By the 50s they suceeded in eliminating
the most creative elements who were opposed to their rule. No American
president, including FDR, has ever questioned the basic economic
assumptions that guarantees the seat of priviledge that the ruling class
believes it deserves.

In the 1930s, and still today, the ruling class consisted of
the bureaucrats, think tank residents, Congress critters,
university presidents and professors, lawyers and the rest
of the operational personnel of the security state.


Baloney. Ask yourself, "Whose decisions have a greater effect on my day to
day life, my boss or my congressman?"



That's easy - my Congressman. I don't have a boss. On the
other hand, my Congressman (I assume you mean - my
Representative) is a Democrat and probably has less
influence than my neighbor's dog.


If the

corporations were really in control, there is no way Martha
Stewart and the rest of the accused corporate types would be
in any legal trouble at all. In the glory days of rule by
the industrialists, the tycoons did much more outrageous
things, and generally got away with them.


Why would a competitor of Martha Stewart be any thing but pleased that she
was in hot water with the feds?



Because that means they have good reason to fear for their
own safety.


FDR's "brain trust" was not made up of corporate CEOs.
JFK's "best and brightest" had McNamarra (sp?) from the
corporate world, and he was a dismal failure. Same with LBJ
- professors, lawyers, politicians.

If you mean that not even FDR tried to eliminate the market
system and the right to spend one's own time and money more
or less as one sees fit - so long as you don't interfere
with the governors' view of how public life should be
conducted - you are of course correct. He was a control
freak, not a communist.


The question that hasn't been asked for almost a hundred years in this
country is "Who creates wealth, and who has the right to gain the most from
its creation?"



Oh, it's been debated lots. Surely you're not an advocate
of the labor theory of value??? Really - don't bother to
open that one. It's ridiculous and I will not respond.
Been there - a waste of time and electrons.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.


  #50   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 06:21 PM
Robert Sturgeon
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)


If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.


Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had.


Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a
period of "laissez-faire" capitalism.


No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean
something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire
capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail.
Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested
in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New
Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of
political power. People had lost faith in industrial
capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They
turned instead to the New Deal.

That's a myth
perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school
"history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the
depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the
market. The depression occurred because the Federal
Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean
they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut
the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%,
leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation.
Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in
economics for showing this.


The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the
previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking)
could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had
been allowed to decline. But instead the FDR administration
put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS
taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital
market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing
inflexible wage rates, etc. They made the depression worse
and much longer than it needed to be. We did need a market
correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market
speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need
the Great Depression.

FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.


  #51   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 07:13 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT,
(George Cleveland) wrote:

(snips)



If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the
imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining,
the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA,
the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933
nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE
enacted, because the corporations did lose their power.

Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of
corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has
made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them
the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red
revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire
capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for
radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system.

Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my
case that the corporations did lose their power.
"Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had.


Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a
period of "laissez-faire" capitalism.



No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean
something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire
capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail.
Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested
in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New
Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of
political power. People had lost faith in industrial
capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They
turned instead to the New Deal.


That's a myth
perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school
"history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the
depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the
market. The depression occurred because the Federal
Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean
they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut
the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%,
leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation.
Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in
economics for showing this.



The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the
previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking)


Fractional reserve banking does not by itself cause
inflation. We still have fractional reserve banking today.

could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had
been allowed to decline.


Costs DID decline: that's what deflation is, and we
experience a horrific deflation.

But instead the FDR administration
put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS
taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital
market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing
inflexible wage rates, etc.


The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt
was inaugurated in 1933.

They made the depression worse
and much longer than it needed to be.


The "making worse" didn't happen until 1937, when the
administration cut spending in pursuit of a balanced
budget.

We did need a market
correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market
speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need
the Great Depression.

FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.


  #52   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 07:07 AM
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:08:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


But instead the FDR administration
put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS
taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital
market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing
inflexible wage rates, etc.


The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt
was inaugurated in 1933.


Gentlemen...below is the #1 reason the Depression was far more than a
market readjustment

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=66

Read it and then discuss it in this thread, alone with its
permutations and history of what it later wrought, even though itself
only lasted for 2 yrs.

Gunner

" ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age...
I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues
as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity,
bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity,
fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable
choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with
every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we
accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we
kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for
Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and
then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We
*assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his
fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation
to keep the State out of the church business, we've
destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*.
Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives
  #53   Report Post  
Old 22-04-2004, 09:08 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)


What you say is correct and it is also politically correct bullshit !!


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...

Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.



When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Left wing kookiness" Rico X. Partay Gardening 182 22-04-2004 09:02 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Edible Gardening 17 21-12-2003 06:43 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Gardening 17 21-12-2003 06:42 PM
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Gardening 5 19-12-2003 03:32 AM
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers Jonathan Ball Gardening 0 18-12-2003 09:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017