Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers | Gardening |