USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
True, though trying to insert capitalism into an authoritarian system is often an awkward fit, as we’ve clearly seen in China. If the government can quickly change the rules and pull the rug out from under companies, it makes it very difficult to plan and very risky to do business in that country. We’re seeing this on a smaller scale with Trump’s authoritarian moves within the executive branch in the U.S.
Someone needs to tally up the per capita cost of implementing that approach in the U.S. and see what it would really mean, and what would be required to cover it with tax revenue. I don’t think Americans would respond well to European-level gas prices and a 20% VAT.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
True, but once corruption sets in on a system without extensive checks and balances, the march toward authoritarianism becomes inevitable, either to impose control on a system that’s spiraling out of control, or to impose the will of the corrupt people who managed to weasel their way into decisionmaking roles.
Why is that, and why are there no real world examples of it succeeding at scale, then?
Yes, but that’s the whole point. Capitalism tends to work better because it harnesses greed for the greater good, but it requires extensive checks and balances and regulation to prevent that greed from biting the hand that feeds. Just like harnessing dangerous animals and putting them to work, you have to have and enforce strict safety protocols to avoid having your head bitten off.
Basically, any place where the profit motive acts against the wellbeing of the people, you need a regulation to keep that danger in check. But you need to temper that with risk assessment so you don’t go overboard like California frequently does.
…and yet I assume you still own a phone and eat chocolate…?
Yes, this is obscene. We should consider capping total executive compensation at 40x the total compensation of the lowest-paid employee or contractor at the company. That way they can still be paid a massive premium, but if they want more, they have to raise all the boats with them, or start to dump unrealistically cheap overseas labor.
Well, there’s also the standard of living that richer countries have become accustomed to, and whose populations would be unlikely to give up willingly.
Yax
Ancient Mariner
The Sweden (and in part others, although multiple historians claim Sweden were in many ways the most leftist of the democratic western states) of the late 1960-1970s were doing this, but in a light version and more importantly, pre internet and pre globalization (the late 70's saw the first election of a right-center coalition that started to implement european liberal policy). It was a mix of capitalism and socialism, though with some obvious flaws with authoritarian, or at least, non-capitalist overtones with few or none non-public options of core services like TV, Radio, infrastructure etc with mountains of bureaucracy and non-individualist policies. Hell, the early 80s had the Social Democrats adopt (although with the party leader and Prime Minister in an under-the-radar internal opposition) wage earner funds - though it never materialized in any meaningful way and was a contributing issue in getting the right-center elected in 1977.
Would I want to live in the 60's-70's Sweden? No, though I wouldn't mind a variation of the late 80's as I think the U.S. economic neo-libereralism influences here have gone too far (after all, Sweden has one the largest western ratios of GDP/billionaires, an ever shrinking welfare state and more and more capitalist and upper middle-class policies).
Last edited:
Diesel 11
As you scream into the web of silence...
Not intending to just dunk on you here especially because I think you and Vaenyr are actually having a discussion worth having, but I do think this jab is a bit silly. Vaenyr never said he's against phones or chocolate, just the way they are often produced under capitalism. You've pointed out a lot of fallacies on the board before so I'd hoped you'd be above a tu quoque.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Just checking his level of commitment to his principles. It’s actually possible to get phones and chocolate that don’t fall prey to his stated concerns, but you have to pay a premium for them. I should have been more clear about that in how I worded my response, but he still had (and has) an open-ended opportunity to explain his walk vs. his talk.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
Trump White House Rages Over 'South Park' Episode, Calls Show 'Fourth-Rate'
The White House is furious at "South Park" after the show's premiere lampooned Donald Trump, depicting him in bed with Satan.
www.rollingstone.com
It's funny that the White House feels compelled to respond to what is said and shown in a tv show that apparently hasn't been relevant for 20 years.
It's almost as if they're desperately trying to stop people from talking about the Epstein files.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
This is today’s front page of a Scottish newspaper. Trump is on his way there to golf.
I think the house is pretty much gone. Perhaps the only bright light for Dems in 2024 is that they minimized house losses and it actually ended up being pretty close with a couple republicans in bluer districts hanging on. Especially with Medicaid cuts and tariff stuff really kicking in by November of next year I don’t see how republicans hold the house.
The senate is a more interesting story and just like it seems to be every year it’s tough because of the map and the GOP’s rural advantage, but doable for democrats. As long as Kemp doesn’t get in (and why would he want the job?) I think Georgia is safe for Dems. I don’t think Republicans will win Michigan in an off year with Trump as president. Maine in an off year seems doable, despite Susan Collins being a formidable candidate. She says she's running but I won't be surprised if she changes her mind, at any rate I think with the right candidate it's possible. Similarly, an open seat in North Carolina makes it much more of a possibility for Democrats, especially if that lunatic who ran for governor gets in. Roy Cooper seems like an obvious choice for the Dems here but even then I would hedge my bets in NC.
Despite all of this, if everything works out for Democrats in the above states and they pull off four victories, they're still only at 50/50 with Vance as a tie breaking vote. It would still be a massive victory and basically pumps the breaks on Trump achieving anything in congress in his last two years, but a lot has to go right for that to work out. After that you're looking at longshots like Iowa and Texas, and if Democrats are winning those the Republicans might want to seriously look at getting on board with impeaching Trump because that means he seriously fucked up.
The senate is a more interesting story and just like it seems to be every year it’s tough because of the map and the GOP’s rural advantage, but doable for democrats. As long as Kemp doesn’t get in (and why would he want the job?) I think Georgia is safe for Dems. I don’t think Republicans will win Michigan in an off year with Trump as president. Maine in an off year seems doable, despite Susan Collins being a formidable candidate. She says she's running but I won't be surprised if she changes her mind, at any rate I think with the right candidate it's possible. Similarly, an open seat in North Carolina makes it much more of a possibility for Democrats, especially if that lunatic who ran for governor gets in. Roy Cooper seems like an obvious choice for the Dems here but even then I would hedge my bets in NC.
Despite all of this, if everything works out for Democrats in the above states and they pull off four victories, they're still only at 50/50 with Vance as a tie breaking vote. It would still be a massive victory and basically pumps the breaks on Trump achieving anything in congress in his last two years, but a lot has to go right for that to work out. After that you're looking at longshots like Iowa and Texas, and if Democrats are winning those the Republicans might want to seriously look at getting on board with impeaching Trump because that means he seriously fucked up.
Flaming Blimp Crash
Ancient Mariner
Kemp already said he won't run for the Senate. Roy Cooper I believe I heard is going to announce his intentions on running for NC this week.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
Been a couple days, so I feel like it’s time to remember that Trump is definitely in the Epstein files for being a rapist pedo.
Way to go Trump voters (and non-American Trump supporters who helped spread the propaganda)! Anyone who votes Republican supports the coverup and protection of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and any of the pedos and rapists who may be in the Epstein files. I knew a lot of them were nazis but this is a new extreme.
Even Bill Clinton, who is definitely in the files in some capacity, said release the files.
They can have Clinton if they take Trump with him.
Actually, scratch that, they can just have Bill, I don't give a shit what happens to Bill Clinton.
Actually, scratch that, they can just have Bill, I don't give a shit what happens to Bill Clinton.
MrKnickerbocker
clap hands
They can and should have everyone in that list. I don't give a damn if they're a Democrat, Republican, The Pope or Dolly fucking Parton. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives rotting away in jail.