1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThink about the farmers right now. Are they thinking: well we'd better pivot our business practices and diversify because soybean prices aren't very good and we're growing 50 million acres without cracking a profit?
Your premise is weak, that corps are necessary to a healthy capitalistic society, when you do not go a step further and say..."As long there is not one certain circumstance where they all go down the tubes together." Say all employees of all airlines walk out....or maybe just the mechanics. You thus say the govt should let them all crumble, which the would. No bailout. ...[text shortened]... eral government????
Am I going to have to come down there!!?? Wait, is Suzianne there?.......
Or are they thinking: well the governments giving us a lot more money to grow soybeans than anything else, so despite the fact we'd be a lot more profitable year over year to diversify and grow more tomatoes and green beans we should just grow what the government tells us to?
What question is more healthy in a capitalist society? Which sounds more like socialism?
@wildgrass said(All of this is hypothetical, has to be for such a discussion...)
No. Again you're presenting hypothetical scenarios for government intervention but it's already happened in real life several times and you supported those moves.
Shareholder stock price is critical here. Without the bailouts, the stock price would crumble and rich investors would lose money. That's how it's supposed to happen in healthy capitalism. Risk needs to be a co ...[text shortened]... king about Marx, you are reinventing his philosophy in your defense of Republican spending programs.
Hold on, I am saying the stockholders are at risk every day of losing money. If that of which we speak happens to, say, Delta, tough for them. They lose. Because, as President, I would demand they pay it all back or just see their stock turn to dust, the corp turn to dust. At that point, they indeed to go out of business. If they are real important to society as someone says above, the government steps in, has the corp restructure, maybe bails them out, or allows a sale of all of its assets to a competitor.
Since they are in effect bailed out, then the new organization will owe money to the government to repay the bail out. Either all of that, or Delta disappears.
Now we can discuss the USA. In this country, there will be greedy (sorry, Suzianne) investors champing at the bit to step in and fill the void left by a defunct airline that USED to be real important. They start it up again with better management, cut a payment structure deal with the government, they do their best for success, to get rich, and to fly us around.
This ain't that hard. Why make it so complicated above, throwing in incendiaries like Marx and Socialism? Sounds more like good business to me. That's why we call it capitalism.
@wildgrass saidI was 'not in the room' many years ago, when a banana picked in Carmel last night was in my cereal the next morning (I love this country). They talked about problems which go over my head, so we hired them to figure it all out. They came up with subsidies for the farmer. I guess there was a good reason, as it is still the practice,,,,,maybe you know more about that approach than I do, so I defer to you.
Think about the farmers right now. Are they thinking: well we'd better pivot our business practices and diversify because soybean prices aren't very good and we're growing 50 million acres without cracking a profit?
Or are they thinking: well the governments giving us a lot more money to grow soybeans than anything else, so despite the fact we'd be a lot more profitable ...[text shortened]... s us to?
What question is more healthy in a capitalist society? Which sounds more like socialism?
If you are asking me, I am totally capitalist, I think independence from govt is EXTREMELY important for that health that you talk about, so my thinking comes down on the side of pure capitalism, with all of its warts and govt confusion. As to your question, the govt involvement does indeed smack of socialism, but as I say, I know nothing of farming. Maybe the subsidies, etc is that bit of socialism that liberals say is already going on. The process is not perfect. Farmer Jones is still growing, and I am still eating, bananas.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidIt's your inconsistencies that bother me Joe. You started this thread to insult the fact that paid medical leave and unemployment benefits for individuals costs money. Lots of money. But the money is for someone who is sick, or has stumbled on hard times, or was laid off by Delta so their stock would stabilize.
(All of this is hypothetical, has to be for such a discussion...)
Hold on, I am saying the stockholders are at risk every day of losing money. If that of which we speak happens to, say, Delta, tough for them. They lose. Because, as President, I would demand they pay it all back or just see their stock turn to dust, the corp turn to dust. At that point, they indeed to g ...[text shortened]... s like Marx and Socialism? Sounds more like good business to me. That's why we call it capitalism.
Why is that you are advocating for a corporate safety net that supports businesses who forget to save for a rainy day, but no safety net if a person does the same thing?
According to you, these safety nets that stabilize the lives for individuals are socialism. But safety nets that stabilize the bottom line for overtly risky business decisions are capitalism.
It's nonsense. And stop blaming liberals. I don't like them either, but let's not pretend it wasn't a conservative with full control of congress who tripled the farm subsidies and doubled the deficit in 4 years with nothing to show for it.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidI’ve never studied pro/con of subsidies, I’ve said that, can’t discuss it. Eons ago it was invented, and must be a practical way to handle things, since no smart politicians or entities have made a big deal out of it, as have you guys. Must be a good band aid? Not perfect, a few people can game it, but works in the scheme of things.
It's your inconsistencies that bother me Joe. You started this thread to insult the fact that paid medical leave and unemployment benefits for individuals costs money. Lots of money. But the money is for someone who is sick, or has stumbled on hard times, or was laid off by Delta so their stock would stabilize.
Why is that you are advocating for a corporate safety net th ...[text shortened]... ative who tripled the farm subsidies and doubled the deficit in 4 years with nothing to show for it.
The benefits you mention are used, I assume, by people who qualify. I don’t know if I’m for safety nets, as I’ve never seen a definition of what it is. I do believe, however, in govt programs for people down and out...sick... Medicare, Medicaid. And emergency rooms for people who’ve made no preparations, even the ones I call losers. I also believe Repubs should draw the limits on who qualifies, as libs are a bit too fast and loose with OPM.
I don’t get what you mean about getting laid off at Delta. I believe there are unemployment benefits that they have paid into? And if they paid into, it is not socialism, it is their money, it is like insurance for gosh sakes. There are 10M jobs out there for that worker to pick from while living on unemployment. What in the world are you talking about? That person has a safety net, doesn’t he??? And you compare that individual to a Corp? And no, I don’t believe in a Corp safety net. They borrow (get bailed out) and should pay it back.
Your last para is irrelevant. And query this? Since Scandinavia is a safety net unto itself, are instance products like we have in USA non-existent?? I mean, like, why have med or property or biz insurance if govt is a Nanny?
@averagejoe1 saidAt least you're not demonizing liberals in this post.
I’ve never studied pro/con of subsidies, I’ve said that, can’t discuss it. Eons ago it was invented, and must be a practical way to handle things, since no smart politicians or entities have made a big deal out of it, as have you guys. Must be a good band aid? Not perfect, a few people can game it, but works in the scheme of things.
The benefits you mention are used, ...[text shortened]... ve in USA non-existent?? I mean, like, why have med or property or biz insurance if govt is a Nanny?
Not subsidies. Direct payments. Farms, bank bailouts, airlines, oil companies, military. The list goes on. Conservatives support socialist positions. It's the world we live in.
@wildgrass saidI don't demonize libs. I just ask them to settle down and be independent, blah blah, you know my spiel. Conservatives don't force ourselves and ideas on libs, do you not think libs force theirs on conservatives? Let us alone so we can get on with our independent lives, free from govt controls and regs.
At least you're not demonizing liberals in this post.
Not subsidies. Direct payments. Farms, bank bailouts, airlines, oil companies, military. The list goes on. Conservatives support socialist positions. It's the world we live in.
Yes, you could say Military is a form of socialism. Like fire stations and free Emergency rooms. We have a bit of it if here and there since we all live on the same island.. But as I have said, direct payments and bailouts should be paid back to the government. Why should the government give money willy nilly to people who get themselves in trouble.... From paying for abortions to paying an airline or car mfg for bad management.?
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidWhy should the government give money willy nilly to people who get themselves in trouble....
I don't demonize libs. I just ask them to settle down and be independent, blah blah, you know my spiel. Conservatives don't force ourselves and ideas on libs, do you not think libs force theirs on conservatives? Let us alone so we can get on with our independent lives, free from govt controls and regs.
Yes, you could say Military is a form of socialism. Like fire s ...[text shortened]... selves in trouble.... From paying for abortions to paying an airline or car mfg for bad management.?
The government gives hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year to rich corporations (willy nilly) in the form of subsidies and grants, whether they need it or not, on top of billions more (willy nilly) to bail out companies in trouble.
But - - send a few bucks, and a few crumbs of health and dental care to an unemployed waitress so she can feed her kids, while she looks for another job?? No Way! Tell that lazy Socialist b*tch to pull herself up by her own bootstraps! Conservative America - Goody two shoes Christians, all. 😵
1 edit
@mchill saidWilly Nilly is randomly, without a plan. Like the Biden administration, spends willy nilly, with no plan to recoup the money that they are spending. Same thing as what you are talking about.
Why should the government give money willy nilly to people who get themselves in trouble....
The government gives hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year to rich corporations (willy nilly) in the form of subsidies and grants, whether they need it or not, on top of billions more (willy nilly) to bail out companies in trouble.
But - - send a few bucks, and a ...[text shortened]... to pull herself up by her own bootstraps! Conservative America - Goody two shoes Christians, all. 😵
Then you causally say that there is an unemployed waitress, in a country where there are over 10M unfilled jobs, who the govt should give money to. Geez. I bet there are not a comparative number of jobs in a country like Romania, for instance. Geez. And you conveniently do not remember that there is unemployment insurance for that waitress. Geez again.
Whether she believes in socialism is not germane to this issue. Further, if we were a socialist state, she would not be a socialist.....rather, she would live under socialism. The Socialists would be your dear leaders, with the extra houses and hoards of money, running everything. I think she would be called a People, or some such,........not a socialist.
As to your beef about Subsidies, you might catch this link. They improve the supply of certain goods and services. They were invented so that consumers (you and me) would have access to cheaper products and commodities. I wasn't in the room, so I don't know exactly how it works, so why don't we read the link together. We can cool down the guys here who are running the concept into the ground, knowing nothing about it except that it uses govt money. Have you seen want Biden wants to do with our money???? Do you folks ever watch the news? Of today...? Not links about Trump of yesterday?
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/subsidy/
@AverageJoe1
The unemployed waitress above, to whom you want the government to give money? Would that not make a her a dependent....? >>On Government? Wouldn't we lose another worker in the work force?
What happens when 51% of the population becomes dependent on the government?
Why can liberals not answer these questions ? Why won't you answer these questions?
@averagejoe1 saidWhen you answer the question about corporate and share holder dependence on government maybe someone will explain that what your witnessing is macro economic engineering rather than government dependence.
@AverageJoe1
The unemployed waitress above, to whom you want the government to give money? Would that not make a her a dependent....? >>On Government? Wouldn't we lose another worker in the work force?
What happens when 51% of the population becomes dependent on the government?
Why can liberals not answer these questions ? Why won't you answer these questions?
Whatever the welfare safety net is set at wages track that, and for obvious reasons need to remain just above it.
So a generous welfare safety net should result in more generous wage rates at the lower end of the salary scale. To worry about government dependence is like worrying about teenage sex, it’s already happening at every socioeconomic level of society and it’s actually not a bad thing as long as you take precautions.
@kevcvs57 saidMine is a direct question. Do you want the government to support this woman? She can support herself, I would think? As you might think?
When you answer the question about corporate and share holder dependence on government maybe someone will explain that what your witnessing is macro economic engineering rather than government dependence.
Whatever the welfare safety net is set at wages track that, and for obvious reasons need to remain just above it.
So a generous welfare safety net should result in more ...[text shortened]... ry socioeconomic level of society and it’s actually not a bad thing as long as you take precautions.
So, ; can you ask a direct question, two lines should suffice.
Did you see where 2 of your cohorts over on Heroic Health Care thread had no idea what the thread was about?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou got a direct answer and you’ve once again claimed you haven’t.
Mine is a direct question. Do you want the government to support this woman? She can support herself, I would think? As you might think?
So, ; can you ask a direct question, two lines should suffice.
Did you see where 2 of your cohorts over on Heroic Health Care thread had no idea what the thread was about?
Yes in a civilised society I would expect a citizen to receive the support they require. It’s not for you or I to “think” wether or not she can support herself, there may be a myriad of personal and logistical reasons why she cannot.
One possible barrier is the expense of going to work full time such as transport and childcare. What usually happens is that an inefficient business has its payroll subsidised by welfare top ups for the low paid to bring their employees up to a sustainable income level. It’s not the employee who’s dependent on government and ripping off the tax payer it’s the employer who’s sitting on the gravy train with an oversized spoon.
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidAll due respects, we speak from different corners, as you are a socialist and I am a capitalist. Admittedly that makes it difficult. So that leaves us with nothing but common sense.
You got a direct answer and you’ve once again claimed you haven’t.
Yes in a civilised society I would expect a citizen to receive the support they require. It’s not for you or I to “think” wether or not she can support herself, there may be a myriad of personal and logistical reasons why she cannot.
One possible barrier is the expense of going to work full time such as tra ...[text shortened]... ipping off the tax payer it’s the employer who’s sitting on the gravy train with an oversized spoon.
“ A citizen should receive the support that they require.” That is Marxism.
Now, everyone has a myriad of circumstances. One would be, yes, raising children, but here we have someone that you suggest has children that she cannot afford. So you want us all to stop what we’re doing and raise her children. That is not common sense.
Next , you suggest an employer has some duty of care to her…, To the extent that she makes enough money from him that she can live a comfortable life in her apartment with her children. Not rational.
As to him making as much money as he can in his business, again, that has nothing to do with the employee. Usually employees learn the ropes, and go out and start their own business. But I digress.
I don’t know what you mean by a business being subsidized by welfare. I don’t see that the two are connected. An inefficient business will shut down. If the manager makes mistakes in managing that business, it has nothing to do with the employee who works for a certain salary. When she sees a problem coming, she needs to quit and find another of the 10 million jobs. However you seem to think that she needs to go to the door of the government and get free money. Not find another job?
Interesting discussion, indeed.
@averagejoe1 saidJoe, socialism is a system in which government controls production. The philosophy has entire books written about government funding of businesses and selective control of what products, what corporations, what ideas should receive support. These are the precise policies that you have advocated for on this forum. You're not a capitalist just because you say so.
All due respects, we speak from different corners, as you are a socialist and I am a capitalist. Admittedly that makes it difficult. So that leaves us with nothing but common sense.
“ A citizen should receive the support that they require.” That is Marxism.
Now, everyone has a myriad of circumstances. One would be, yes, raising children, but here we have someone ...[text shortened]... or of the government and get free money. Not find another job?
Interesting discussion, indeed.
Republicans have very good message discipline on this issue. They cry socialism at every turn by Democrats, but they don't seem to acknowledge all their handouts to corporations like Tesla and Amazon and Lockheed as "socialism", even though that's precisely what they are.
In truth, Republicans (and, apparently, you) aren’t opposed to socialism at all. You are opposed to socialism that benefits poor people. Socialism for farmers and industrialists is just fine. It's nonsense. Why is it more important for government to support rich people at the expense of poor people?
"A citizen should receive the support they require" is NOT MARXISM. Here is James Madison (you might have heard he's the dude who wrote the US constitution):
To provide employment for the poor and support for the indigent is among the primary, & at the same time not least difficult cares of the public authority.