But I was told the free market brought me the best product at the cheapest price!!

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

If yer buyin' I'm drinkin'!

Alright just hollar when you get to Phoenix.

[Sailor Steve]

By the time I get to Phoenix, she'll be drinkin'...no, wait...that's not right.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

By the time I get to Phoenix, she'll be drinkin'...no, wait...that's not right.

You know, in this case, yeah... I kinda think it is.

[Sailor Steve]

Dang! Another strike against me!

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

By the time I get to Phoenix, she'll be drinkin'...no, wait...that's not right.

I think I heard a country song like that, Come to think of it most of them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

I think I heard a country song like that, Come to think of it most of them.

That's not a country song at all. Not one single pickup, dog or trailer.

Amateurs.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

Interesting post.

Thanks Most of my posts are either lengthy or bad jokes or both, so it's nice to be interesting.

However I would have to say privatization is a way to destroy an economy as Regan's policies destroyed the US economy, by killing the manufacturing basis, and when the IMF told Argentina to privatize their assets, it destroyed that economy as well, completely.

Ah, I see the problem here. You're operating under the classic assumption that manufacturing is in and of itself a good thing. That's an attitude typical of supporters of socialist agendas. I don't mean to be condescending by saying that, I just lack the vernacular to make the point clear and succinct in a polite fashion. The best I can do as a former leftist myself is to explain why I have drawn the conclusions I have and let you make your own judgements. Someone did that for me, once.

First, I'd like you to ask yourself why it is that you believe that manufacturing is a critical component of the workers' well-being. Is it because manufacturing is important to self-sufficiency? Is it because controlling the means of production will empower the workers? Is it because the capitalists are standing on the backs of the less-fortunate and greedily gobbiling up a disproportionate share of the world's wealth? Or do you just think capitalism is inefficient? Personally, I subscribed to the school of thought that focused upon income disparity; in fact, the wealth gap still bothers me, but what are your reasons? Odds are they include at least one of the above and that they are reasonable opinions.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't quite work that way. Let's begin with your Reagan example. I'm not a fan of the guy, myself, but for different reasons. You claim that he destroyed the US manufacturing base. Let's just assume that's true so we don't get bogged down. What happened after that? The US economy grew more powerful. In fact, just a few years later, under a Republican congress, the US economy experienced unprecedented growth, mostly in sectors that were deregulated or minimally-regulated to begin with. Median income went up. The standard of living went up. There were more goods and they were more readily available than they had been in the years preceding Reagan. Clearly, the manufacturing sector is not integral to prosperity.

Now, let's put a hypothetical President X in Reagan's place. We'll give him fiat power over industry and assume that he has the plight of the workers at heart. He focuses upon manufacturing jobs and ensures the workers are well-paid and cared-for. He also makes sure that CEOs don't make too much. Disregarding the complete lack of motivation that being unconditionally provided-for often engenders, we now we have legions of prosperous, united, empowered workers and citizens toiling away and showing the capitalists how it's done. There's just one small problem: Who is going to buy their goods, read "pay for all that"? I'm curious to know how you'd fix that problem.

US manufacturing, in the sense that you mean it, died because the standard of living in the US began to exceed the income that producing and selling a finished product could provide. It didn't disappear, it just changed into something else, as befit the needs of the market.

The manufacturing that you refer to remains, at great public expense, because people like you do not see that they're being had by the workers themselves, and their bosses. Socialism necessitates government, and government necessitates power. Who do you think is going to get that power? The people? How much time and effort are you prepared to invest in ensuring that widget-makers are being treated fairly? The widget-makers have all the time and effort in the world to invest in making their case, especially when they have a right to the fruits of your labor, and vice-versa. Lawmakers generally have very little experience in the widget market or yours, and you'd trust them to make decisions for you? Are we putting 2 and 2 together yet?

Like it or not, the world is not a fair place. I'm sure you have some great idea for social equality, but the fact of the matter is that you are not smarter than everyone else, and everyone else is not as fair-minded as you. They will figure out a way to co-opt any kind of socialist system, no matter what you do. The best you can hope for is free-market exchange, where the choice rests with the consumer, as do the benefits.

Riots were in the streets everywhere, though there was a positive side effect. Workers occupied the factories and to this day continue to do so.

And Argentina is still a crappy place to live to this day. Glad it's working out for them. The IMF is little better than a government when it comes to policymaking.

Along with special interests and imperialist propagandists; I don't think you will have any luck against those interests unless there is revolution. And USA literally has a lot of work to do.

I agree with everything except for the "imperialists" part. That's socialist for "winning" and ignores the issue. I can see how some would view the US as imperialists because we don't play fair when it comes to free trade, impeding or promoting the trade of other nations as our special interests or people see fit, but complaining about it or mislabeling it doesn't help illustrate the problem.

You need to wipe out your congress, and start over. I recommend having public control over decisions, and regulations.

Are you insane? We can't even achieve anything remotely resembling a consensus on this forum, let alone in a nation of 300-something million people, and none of us have our livleyhoods tied up in this venue.

Furthermore, how can you complain about special interests and then promote public rule and regulation? How do you think we got special interests in the first place? Remember, this country is supposedly governed by ironclad constitutional law. The only limiting factor on people with a common interest getting together is the constitution, and look what's happened to it so far!

The economic mistake USA made is letting its MNC's run like wild animals raping the world's resources, getting bigger and bigger, until the government politicians want to get the regulation back and introduce all these bureaucratic measures. This turns into corporatism or fascism, as your government only serves corporate interests.

Again, you know this, but you somehow still advocate popular rule. Who do you think corporations are comprised of? I said before that you'd been had, this is a perfect example of just how badly. You're not standing up for workers rights, you're just supporting another special interest. Worse, you're actually making it easier for special interests by removing the whole "constitutional law" thing.

There needs to be a mass popular uprising of Americans to take control of these largest institutions because they are the one's destroying your country. Thats my take, but I think its to late, as the military industry, banks, IMF etc have all the control, and your country will go bankrupt with 15 trillion in debt owing to China.

Oh? And who did that? Was it private industry, operating at a profit by exchanging goods or services for capital? Or was it the people's government?

Corporate America will profit from it, because they'll just buy Every asset out there, probably wiping out small businesses, and the middle class will suffer. Of course that also brings the chance for Revolution

Forgive me, but I'm not going into this at the moment. I think I've said everything you need to hear. Again, I apologize if any of it comes across as brusque, it's just my way of speaking. If we were to discuss it face-to-face, I'm sure you wouldn't find my tone disagreeable.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's not a country song at all. Not one single pickup, dog or trailer.

Amateurs.

Or mama. Or trains. Or gettin drunk.


(@3:05)

[redsocialist]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Thanks Most of my posts are either lengthy or bad jokes or both, so it's nice to be interesting.

Too lengthy for me and though I'm not quite the intellectual as you, the world does not buy the corporate imperialist propaganda and what this establishment plans to force upon them.

[redsocialist]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/te...ref=technology

Prediction: "But!! But!! South Korea is so much more urban than the U.S.!!!" will be said..

just wondering by any chance are you a trotskyist?

[GoldenRivet]

On the point of Reaganomics being a failure...

In the 1980's i was just a kid... but i remember well the things i had to be thankful for.

between the time Reagan took office and the time he left it, my parents who together earned maybe $35K a year combined had seen about a 1400% increase in their income

When Reagan took office in 1981...

my father worked jobs in about 6 different area cities... my mother worked mostly nights and during the day i rode the school bus to a podunk low rent school.

Dad drove a cream and rust colored El Camino

Mom drove a banged up 1979 SAAB ... a 900 i think it was.

by the time Reagan was up for re-election...

Dad had ditched that old El Camino in favor of a 1984 Corvette. By 86-87 he added had a Porsche 911, a 1969 Shelby GT500 and a Toyota Land Cruiser to his "collection"

mom snagged a nice Mercedes

we also moved from our modest little 2200 square foot home when my folks purchased 14 acres in the country with a nice 7900 square foot ranch style home on it.

I didnt ride the bus to school anymore because 1) mom didnt have to work nights anymore and 2) i was now at a nice, yet small private school.

Our lifestyle dramatically changed in the mid 1980s to say the least.

did everyone experience this? no.. of course not, but i do lend a fair bit of credit to the Reagan policies.

When he came on TV and spoke... we listened. He had our respect and admiration - and it was the last time in my life that i recall really really liking a president.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by redsocialist

just wondering by any chance are you a trotskyist?

Now there's an interesting question .

[redsocialist]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Now there's an interesting question .

Hey, this post is not dirrected to you only the OP with his quote from Trotsky.

[redsocialist]

Ronald Regan with the Taliban

[Takeda Shingen]