Fairness or Prudence?

The pugnacious little devil that he was, Theodore Roosevelt, in 1912, ran against his own handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, split the Republican vote, and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson, formerly President of Princeton University, is the only man ever elected United States President to have possessed a PHD.   Much more subdued in personality than Roosevelt, but no less rigid, his unwillingness to placate the Republican coalition, and specifically Henry Cabot Lodge, the United States of America never became member of the League of Nations, Wilson’s own brainchild conceived to protect the world from war.

Considering Barack Obama’s high minded and idealistic rhetoric which has captured the presidency, it will be interesting to see if the moderating qualities of the office temper Obama’s views or empower his ego.

It is one thing to wield the sword of class envy to persuade enough of your countrymen to support your ascendancy, it is quite another to use that sword to cut off your own head.  

Given Obama’s tendency and ambition to share the wealth because he views the unfettered success and reward from hard work as unfair , the greatest attribute of George W. Bush’s presidency might just be that it has left us in such economic fragility that Obama’s administration will have tied hands moving forward, making it difficult or impossible to make good on his redistributionist promises.

As much as he likes to declare he wants to grow this economy from the bottom up, certainly he must know the bottom can offer little for long term growth potential.   It is the creation of goods and services which creates wealth, not consumption of those things which does it.  

It takes experienced people with good business acumen and insight to develop the products that establish long term growth and potential.   These people are exclusively not members of the bottom , and if we wish to benefit from their expertise we better be willing to pay them for their efforts.

Even when new technologies are developed by brilliant young people from prestigious universities, let’s use Google as example, the driving forces that provide capital and advice come from the established ranks at the top of our hierarchies, not the bottom.

When we invest in the bottom with tax credits and other giveaways, we don’t develop the sort of intellectual property which has value and makes wealth.   These cash expenditures are a one shot stimulus that have no lasting effect.  

Wisdom and knowledge is where the wealth is, and those who have it impart it to others by doing business and profiting from those operations.   It is profit which points at valuable entities and illuminates a path for wealth creation, ergo, economic growth.   This realm is entirely controlled and managed by those at the top , not the bottom.  The good thing, however, is this realm is entirely in view, and when working in the vicinity, those at the bottom have full access to the intelligence enshrined there.

As jealousy and envy are the human attributes responsible for much destructive policy, those attributes exist in tension with the desire for self-preservation.   To what extent are those at the bottom willing to except pain to punish those they perceive undeservedly at the top?    

The real question becomes, will Obama deflect the rods of dissatisfaction hurled by his base demanding fairness in punitive tax policy to insure anemic or non-existent economic growth maintaining hardship for those disaffected spear-chuckers, or will he walk the prudent path and sacrifice more reward to the wealthy to insure that they do their part in growing the economy to provide jobs and opportunity?

One wonders, if he had to do it over again, would Woodrow Wilson have ventured to appease Henry Cabot Lodge insuring US membership in the League of Nations satisfying what he viewed to be his pinnacle achievement, or would he maintain the arrogance of his ego to guarantee his failure?

Will Obama give up fairness and failure for prudence and success?
 

Copyright 2008 Jim Pontillo

129 thoughts on “Fairness or Prudence?

  1. Nice site, good cause, as far as distasteful or vulgar comments, regardless of how much we dislike a candidate, or past president, I think you’ll be taken more seriously and professionally if you leave the 4 letter words for off site usage.
    For God and country let’s put conservative values forefront and rally our camps.

  2. Ego is a good thing, if connected to a hunger to leave a positive mark. It is a terrible thing when it is an “I am right and the decider in chief though I don’t know what to do, let me ask Cheney who to bomb next.”

  3. What I have seen so far I fear is the ego of Obama will just be to big for him to really do what is best for America.

    I heard General Franks on Fox news state that Obama will change his views on Iran after he is briefed. When asked are you sure he responded he will or their will be an uprising of the people.

  4. I’m certainly not “politically correct” and since I just started reading this forum with the last installment on “Obama’s Two Chicken Theory” I have little knowledge of from what angle this particular web site comes from.

    Having said that I have to take exception with the way a particular part of this article was written. I agree with much of the writers view, but the part that says:

    “The real question becomes, will Obama deflect the rods of dissatisfaction hurled by his base demanding fairness in punitive tax policy to insure anemic or non-existent economic growth maintaining hardship for those disaffected spear-chuckers, or……….”

    Unless I’ve missed something there seems to be a racist overtone to this with the words “disaffected spear-chuckers”.

    I think an explanation, if one is available, showing to the contrary of a racist statement would be advised.

  5. I hope Obama Puts his country first and not his ego. However he has a lot of people on the far left he may or need to please.

  6. “It is one thing to wield the sword of class envy to persuade enough of your countrymen to support your ascendancy”
    Any evidence of this “class envy” policy?

    “Given Obama’s tendency and ambition to “share the wealth” because he views the unfettered success and reward from hard work as “unfair””
    Where has he ever said this? Do you have evidence or are you putting words in his mouth?

    “certainly he must know the “bottom” can offer little for long term growth potential”
    Hard work doesn’t pay off?

    The production of goods and services is necessarily tied to the consumption of them. If workers produce more goods and services than are being consumed, the economy is NOT doing well. Basic economics.

    “It takes experienced people with good business acumen and insight to develop the products that establish long term growth and potential. ”
    No, it takes those people to market those products. It takes creative and innovative people to create the products.

    “These cash expenditures are a one shot stimulus that have no lasting effect.”
    If stimulating the “bottom” of the economy has no effect, then who is consuming the products marketed by businesses at the top? The wealthy elite? Consumption occurs primarily in the bottom.

    “The good thing, however, is this realm is entirely in view, and when working in the vicinity, those at the bottom have full access to the intelligence enshrined there.”
    But clearly, it is not in full view, or we would not have had problems with Enron, Fannie Mae etc etc. And clearly that knowledge is not accessible to those at the bottom, because not all of them can afford higher education. Of course, I’m sure you believe that business acumen comes solely from hard work! Surely successful businessmen with college degrees are in the tiny minority!!

    “As jealousy and envy are the human attributes responsible for much destructive policy”
    You conveniently leave out greed, selfishness and ignorance, hmm.

  7. “will he walk the prudent path and sacrifice more reward to the wealthy to insure that they do their part in growing the economy to provide jobs and opportunity?”

    If this were true, wouldn’t the businesses who had so much leeway under the Bush administration have created more jobs, stopped job loss, and provided opportunity [out of the goodness of their hearts, of course]? And if this only happens as a result of “conservative prudence,” then why did the economy grow so fast under Bill Clinton?

    How does Woodrow Wilson relate to this at all? It is, if anything, an extremely clumsy comparison between Barack “Spear-chucker” Obama and Woodrow “Communist PHD” Wilson that you are making.

    Wilson did not let his ego get in the way of the US joining the League of Nations. Henry Cabot Lodge held this opinion on the League:

    “The United States is the world’s best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance; this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.”

    What a familiar argument! It seems that I have heard it here before, but with “League” replaced with “United Nations”. How exactly do you expect that Wilson could have compromised with this man? And since when did you support that greatest of moral wrongs… APPEASEMENT.

    Then there is the question of why you brought up Wilson’s PHD at all. Wait… wait I know this one…

    LIEBRUL INDOCTRINATION

    Oh course! Hussein Obama is exactly like America-hater Wilson!

  8. Crumb,

    You have a very active imagination.

    “…will Obama deflect the rods of dissatisfaction hurled by his base…”, these were the spear-chuckers I was referring to. I never insinuated Obama was a spear-chucker.

    When Wilson returned from Europe with the treaty for the League of Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge requested, deferentially, “May I carry the treaty into chambers, Mr. President?”

    Wilson’s response, “Not on your life!”

    It reminds me of the vitriolic speech by Nancy Pelosi laying all economic blame on the Republican party and then expecting the Republican caucus to vote for the bailout. Daaaa….

    I used Woodrow Wilson to introduce this piece specifically to illuminate how his arrogance and rigidness made the tail end of his presidency quite miserable and unsuccessful, hence will Obama embrace a quest for subjective fairness despite that application of policy he envisions will further hurt our economy?

  9. I’ve got some time. Let’s gov over this and see WHY your argument is terrible!

    1) Woodrow Wilson has nothing to do with this; his situation and Obama’s are incomparable and completely irrelevant, especially considering Obama has not even begun to try to enforce his policies [how can his ego get in the way of success if… it has not gotten in the way of his success?]

    2) You do not seem to understand how supply and demand work. Oversupply is not a good thing, you need to increase consumption too.

    3) Unless you can produce evidence, you have invented accusations of class warfare and “fairness” and put them in Obama’s mouth. Of course you come off looking better if you make up some terrible thing your opponent said. Dishonest.

    4) You contradict yourself when you say that the bottom does not generate growth – you are usually a champion of a hard work ethic leading to success and economic growth. However, this contradictory new position is consistent with your “Gods and Clods” hypothesis; that a handful of people run everything, and everyone else is a stupid lazy slob lucky to have such ubermenschen to offer them jobs and minimum wage, out of charity.

    5) You do not understand that a business succeeds because of all the parts collaborating with each other. Businesses do not give jobs to people just cuz, they do it because they cannot succeed without labourers. Businesses do not succeed just because they have great marketing skills, or else the dot-com bubble never would have burst. Businesses do not succeed just because of the people at the top, because those people can do nothing without all of the other high ranking and low ranking employees with the skills, knowledge, training, education and inventiveness to make it happen. You can put any idiot in the President’s chair; it’s the bureaucracy that makes things work.

    Oh, NOW I see why you don’t understand business! It CAN’T BE that success comes thanks to a well developed system of middlemen and logisticians!

  10. “I never insinuated Obama was a spear-chucker”

    Yes. Yes, you did. You see, spear-chucker means something, especially when you put it in such close proximity to the first black president and his supporters. Implicitly, you are referring to his black supporters, whom you slandered in Column 65:

    “when Mississippi’s black vote went to Obama by 92% nary was there any bit of dissent. The last politician I know of to get 92% of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and look what happened to him!”

    “Barack Obama will do very nicely for himself as a politician who represents a narrow and prejudiced group, he’ll make lots of money and probably enjoy a long life in public service, but he will never be President of the United States; that job requires he represent all Americans, not just the angry black ones.”

    Why would you use the well-known and extremely offensive term spear-chucker in this context? Surely you are not THAT ignorant. You MUST be aware of what it means. So, what reason could you have had to use it? To support your metaphor “rods of dissatisfaction”? What does that even MEAN? It’s so incredibly awkward and artificial – nobody would ever say that. Unless they were leading up to using the word spear-chucker. Or they were unbelievably, incredibly ignorant and clumsy.

  11. Your Wilson-Obama comparison is still completely irrelevant, because Obama HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING YET. There is no evidence of him being egotistical enough and willful enough to sabotage his own policies. Not only that, you accuse him of being an indecisive flip-flopper! He can’t be an uncompromising egotist and a policy-changing populist at the same time.

    And your example of Wilson rejecting Lodge is still stupid – if you were a Senator, would you accept President Obama’s greatest achievement, subjection of the US to international courts and law under the UN, just because he asked you to?

  12. I’m on a roll, so I’ll conclude my criticism for now so you have time to respond.

    Your argument lacks any real substance. Nothing is supported, and some of it is outright dishonest or “bending the truth”. It is contradictory, but those contradictions imply a deeper agenda [it’s not just liberals with secret agendas!]. Your entire argument is effectively a strawman; erecting a cheap imitation of your opponent, made to look as bad as possible, and then tearing it apart easily. So! Can you justify anything you’ve said today?

  13. Crumb,

    You definitely live in an alternate universe.

    I don’t even know where to start. Your shotgun arguments are incoherent and as usual you attribute to me things I have not said.

    The comparison with Wilson was not meant to disparage either of the two men. The whole point of the piece was to ruminate whether or not Wilson would have done things differently if he could have known how his unwillingness to concede a little ego to Lodge would have manifest itself.

    This piece doesn’t even say Wilson was a bad president, and it only asks the question, will Obama allow his ego and seemingly singular desire to increase taxes on the rich interfere with his ability to make policy which will save our economy instead of hurt it.

    As for my meager economic knowledge wise professor:

    If you owe 10,000.00 and you need 11,000.00 a month for living expenses, you are going to keep going into deeper debt until no one will loan to you anymore. To pay your debt you must earn “more than you use” so the extra can go to retire your debt.

    So I guess I don’t know how supply and demand works, but I do know I make more than I spend and I am a lot better off than those who can’t even make their mortgage payments.

    As for your schizophrenic assault on my describing why a stimulus coming up from the bottom won’t work:

    We just tried one of those a few months ago, and look here, we still have a problem?! Another one is likely to accomplish the same—nothing.

    The top 1% of earners pays 39% of all taxes and that’s not enough? They make far less than 39% of all income.

    The point which I have reiterated many times is if you over tax these people they won’t work as much and the “bottom” will not be able learn from those who can impart skills to increase their ability and their value.

    It is a fact, that as you increase taxes on the rich, the poor and middle class end up paying a greater percentage of the total tax burden.

    Hoover increased taxes during a recession which started the depression. FDR monkied with the market even more, and gave us the Great Depression.

    Will Obama go down that path? That’s what this column is asking.

  14. “will Obama allow his ego and seemingly singular desire to increase taxes on the rich interfere with his ability to make policy which will save our economy instead of hurt it.”
    Where do you even get this? Where is this “singular desire to increase taxes”? Do you even know what singular means? Do you really believe that the only thing running through Obama’s mind is “raise taxes raise taxes raise taxes”? Oh, no, there’s also “class warfare class warfare class warfare” that justifies the tax increases, because wealthy people don’t deserve their money! That is unfair and we will steal it!!! We’re liberals!!!!!

    You are disingenuously inventing this mythical version of Obama that seems to be based around your incredible fear of MARXISM. You have no reason to state or believe these things, you just do.

    You do not know how supply and demand works. You compared it to debt, which is not supply and demand.

    Obama’s hypothetical stimulus to the economy would come in the form of traditional Democrat/liberal venues – welfare, healthcare, job training etc. That is what liberal governments typically do in America. They build the economy from the bottom up by developing social programs and improving the welfare state. This is quite different from sending everyone a check and saying “SPEND THIS ON USELESS CONSUMER GOODS TO SAVE THE ECONOMY!!” It is an investment, not a spree. As a businessman, you must be able to tell the difference.

    Who said anything about taxes? Stay on topic.

  15. As I have said, time and time again, the wealthy will not stop working just to spite the state. They will work just as hard, even if their money moves through the economy informally [through illegally concealing their earnings]. You seem to have this fantasy in your head about how businessmen only do things because they have good consciences and want to support civilization on their overburdened shoulders. Sure, they make a lot of money, but it’s a small reward for these magnates of industry, who support millions of freeloaders with their charitable wages… yes, surely this world would be nothing without these veritable man-gods nobly supporting the economy that sustains the many clods… perhaps we should have an experiment, and see what happens when the magnates retreat from the world they’ve built… yes….

    Because you surely have not noticed, that is effectively the plot of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

    You have a very poor grasp of history. Hoover didn’t just “increase taxes,” he specifically presided over the government that passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, an act that put extraordinary taxes on imported goods and effectively killed American international trade. This is not the same as increasing income tax [which did not exist before Wilson, I presume you disapprove of that little maneuver], this is clotting the lifeblood of your economy.

    Your understanding of history surely must be poor, because you just blamed FDR for the Great Depression, despite the facts that it started before his presidency, and the worst was over by 1933. It was FDR’s interventionist policies that supported the Allied nations before the US entered the war, and kickstarted the war effort and its positive effect on the economy.

    Now, instead of going on about taxes, which you do, uninvited, every single time you ever try to engage someone in debate, derailing the discussion into something irrelevant, respond to my other criticisms.

  16. Where is your evidence to support these statements?

    “It is one thing to wield the sword of class envy to persuade enough of your countrymen to support your ascendancy”

    “Given Obama’s tendency and ambition to “share the wealth” because he views the unfettered success and reward from hard work as “unfair””

    “certainly he must know the “bottom” can offer little for long term growth potential”

    How do you answer for the contradictions you present in this column? Namely, that Obama devalues hard work, but then you devalue hard work and say that nothing good comes up from the bottom?

    How about the way you criticize the left as envious, but do not consider the criticism of the Right’s selfishness?

    Or the way you baselessly draw class warfare into all of this? After all, Obama has not been rallying his supporters [the spear-chuckers] around a Marxist revolutionary ideal. He has been rallying them around a vague and positive message. YOU are the one who brings class warfare into the discussion. You accuse him of class warfare because you claim that

    A) he is a liberal and therefore loves to tax the wealthy

    B) he is a liberal and therefore is a socialist

    C) liberals are envious of the wealthy, that is the only reason they support socialists

    D) Obama is a Marxist

    E) Marxists love class warfare!

    Where is ANY of the evidence for this? What is the cause of your little Red Scare here?

    And among the other unanswered criticisms, why did you call his supporters by an obvious racial slur?

  17. I’m still trying to grasp this garbage about “growing an economy from the bottom up”.

    It would seem to be a perversion that attempts to use it’s phony argument as a foundation for increasing taxes therefore government control over the people.

    Any commerce starts between two individuals and without the existence of government, nor government meddling. Individual needs for self reliance, rugged individualism is the foundation, something that should be common sense. When any politician says that he intends to grow the economy from the bottom up (or the top down) I get concerned quickly.

    Analysis of commerce from a third party perspective is one thing, but suggesting that government is the beginning or creator of an economy is sort of like saying in the beginning there was a Nation who created States and then Counties culminating in creating people. Just a little backward for reality.

  18. A)
    When Barack Obama repeated his call to nearly double the capital gains tax rate last month, most observers wrote it off to fiscal naivety. But during last night’s debate, the Democrat frontrunner let slip that his motives were more socially than economically driven. And that his reasoning was nothing short of ridiculous.

    Charlie Gibson reminded Obama of a March 27th statement he made to Maria Bartiromo on CNBC’s Closing Bell that he’d return the rate to the 28 percent it was under Bill Clinton. Said Gibson: [emphasis added throughout]

    “It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent …. And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

    “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? ”

    And Obama’s remarkable response:

    “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.”

    Wow. Democrats have typically ignored or outright denied the supply-side benefits of lower taxes — particularly capital gains.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/the_inanity_of_obamanomics.html

  19. Professor Crumb,

    I don’t understand anything about supply and demand, I devalue hard work, I am a racist, and I don’t know what singular means. Got it.

    Now how can a red-necked neophyte like me know that increasing taxes on the highest bracketed earners will cause them to change their behavior and shift the tax burden to the lower income earners as has been demonstrated every time the government installs punitive tax policy, and you, Mighty Professor, don’t know that?

    Barack Obama said in his debate with moderator Charlie Gibson, “We want to increase taxes for purposes of fairness” even after Gibson explained that path would lead to less revenue as had been demonstrated in previous administrations.

    As for your items A, B, C, D and E—those seem about right.

  20. Thank you, Mike, for providing the evidence.

    The problem that I was attacking was that you, Jim, did not provide this evidence, or any evidence at all. Without anything to support it, this column is empty bluster, like all politics. It is poorly constructed, poorly worded, and doesn’t PROVE anything, but gives a good feeling to the right-wing supporters. It’s like the Republican version of an Obama speech, and it’s flatly hypocritical of your supposedly reasoned-out and well-supported position – contrasting yourself with liberals who feel instead of think. This column is not informative or reasonable.

    That said, the rest of the criticisms still stand unchallenged. You habitually refuse to engage criticism and continuously deflect it to taxes, whenever possible. Your last comment involved a deflection of that racial slur with “Let’s talk about taxes!!” No, let’s keep on topic. You don’t seem to understand history or economy, and yet you keep making value judgments based on them. This is plainly poor argumentation that does not and can not prove anything – but it sure feels good!

  21. Professor Crumb,

    I always go back to taxes, because that is where all the answers are.

    Why would politicians make tax policies that would decrease revenue?

    Why does “fairness” have any arena in that discussion?

    Conservative minded people go into the private sector to garner success and they contribute to society via that success.

    The liberal minded prefer “public service” and in those positions they venture to subdue those who succeed in the private sector because they envy that success since they can’t compete in that arena.

    Taxes are their power. Government regulation is their sword. They don’t use taxes to generate more income to support government operation, they use them to penalize entrepreneurs. Government regulation isn’t used to level the playing field or maintain a stable market, it is used to control and subjugate the free-enterprise spirit that might threaten the establishment.

    There were thousands of people responsible for regulating the mortgage industry, so why did it fail?

    Why do big corporations welcome government regulation and increased taxes?

    Could it be that big companies work with politicians to guarantee their monopolies?

    You think $200,000.00 a year is rich, meanwhile a guy making that much money pays a much higher tax rate on his income than Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world.

    That’s why I always go back to taxes.

    And I don’t bother to give you silly links as evidence because ultimately the real truth must be ferreted out of all the garbage. Do your own homework. It aint that tough, ever heard of Google.

  22. No. The answers are not all in taxes. Your ignorance of history, economy and apparently racial slurs are not answered by taxes. Answer the criticisms and stop changing the subject.

    And provide evidence for your own claims.

  23. “Barack Obama said in his debate with moderator Charlie Gibson, “We want to increase taxes for purposes of fairness” even after Gibson explained that path would lead to less revenue as had been demonstrated in previous administrations.”

    What’s wrong with proposing fairness?

  24. Inresponse to:

    “What’s wrong with proposing fairness?

    By: Lefty Liberal Communist Scum on November 13th, 2008 at ”

    What’s fair about taking more per dollar from anyone? If you find that to be *fair* where’s the incentive to grow, produce, succeed? As a result, and by example, “share the wealth’ becomes share the poverty.

    When is the last time you went to a poor man to get a job? Why should someone with money give it to you? What makes you think you are somehow entitled to the friuts of my labor? What makes you think that having a government do your stealing for you is OK?

    Don’t try to tell me about sin. Stealing, envy, jealousy, laziness, still make the grade and trying to redefine “fairness” isn’t going to get it. Selfishness directs the individual to vote for a theif who promises to give the stolen goods to the voter. Did Obama buy your vote?

  25. You’re assuming that the wealthy will stop earning just because taxes increase. I am inclined to think that a successful person, in the face of higher taxes, would either A) hide their income or take non-salary rewards, or would B) work harder because they like being wealthy. I do not understand where people get this idea that the wealthy would rather become poor than pay taxes.

    “Why should someone with money give it to you?”

    I take it you do not believe in income tax.

    One could easily turn that stealing argument around on you and portray the wealthy business elite as thieves. What do they do to earn their money? Do they put their sweat and labour into it? Do they work the fields or the factory? What do they do to deserve the money, which they do not create, but steal from the people by cheating them of their ability to sustain themselves?

  26. Winston Churchill: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

    Obama’s “cult” status will be a lot of pressure to bear. Look at what it did to Elvis. He has a lot of people that have an immense amount of expectation and 56 million more waiting for him to fail. If he attempts to keep his promises, capital will dry up more than it has and businesses will not reinvest. My husband’s boss is 62 and has built a company to 400 employees with the capital that tax cuts gave him. He is already expressing that at his age, why should he work so hard if more will go for taxes and his company won’t grow. He might as well retire or downsize.

  27. And, crumbunist (is that a marxist that is happy with the crumbs?)

    It is not assumed that the wealthy will stop making money. There are safer places to invest in than growing businesses that would provide jobs. They will hang on to their money. But, jobs will be lost. Have you read the Wall Street Journal this week? Let us not forget how many millions of Americans also have pension funds and 401(k)s invested in corporations. Many elderly now living on the interest off those funds will lose more. We are in a recession, which affects investments. But, Wall Street also knows that the expected capital gains tax hike is not good, nor is punitive taxes on corporations with “wind fall profits” (in whose definition?).

  28. In response to:;

    ““Why should someone with money give it to you?”

    I take it you do not believe in income tax.

    One could easily turn that stealing argument around on you and portray the wealthy business elite as thieves. What do they do to earn their money? Do they put their sweat and labour into it? Do they work the fields or the factory? What do they do to deserve the money, which they do not create, but steal from the people by cheating them of their ability to sustain themselves?

    By: crumbunist on November 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm”

    I am the “wealthy”. I’m still waiting for you to explain just how I somehow owe you anything for being wealthy. I also wonder what makes you think anything of my wealth and life are any of your business. I’m also wondering how you came up with ridiculous assertions (and insult) as to me being someone who would “steal from the people by cheating them of their ability to sustain themselves?”

    If I offer a product it’s up to another individual to determine if they want my product and if they are willing to pay my price. If not that individual can either go elsewhere for that product or do without it. Wealth is not a finite. It’s created. That individual could also decide to produce their own product. That individual could also go into competition with me if they so chose.

    Actually I favor the founders view on taxation, impost and excise tax. Income taxes are not an impost nor excise tax. The debate on this still rages on and the federal government has at times given consideration to that argument. I suspect that it will have to be decided by the Supreme court on Constitutional grounds eventually.

    As to your claim of: “One could easily turn that stealing argument around on you and portray the wealthy business elite as thieves.”

    In fact, you’ve not easily done anything yet since you’ve made assertions without any foundation and have convinced me of nothing of your views.

  29. Cont;
    In response to:

    “”“Why should someone with money give it to you?”

    I take it you do not believe in income tax.

    One could easily turn that stealing argument around on you and portray the wealthy business elite as thieves. What do they do to earn their money? Do they put their sweat and labour into it? Do they work the fields or the factory? What do they do to deserve the money, which they do not create, but steal from the people by cheating them of their ability to sustain themselves?

    By: crumbunist on November 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm”

    I would venture that your problem is in fact self pity, selfishness, jealousy, envy, to name but a few, but ultimately you’ve chosen to be a socialist and instead of moving to someplace where socialism is already the method you instead attempt to inflict your will upon others by force.

    Moreover you do so at the point of a loaded gun because for those who do not go along with your will once placed into law it will be a man with a gun and a badge doing your dirty work. Ergo, you would be a thief. (among other things)

    This begs the question as to just who is the aggressor? With such followed through to it’s logical conclusion your views are what revolts are made of throughout history and world wide.

    Care to try again?

  30. So you do not believe in income tax, thank you.

    That argument comes from a clear understanding of industrialising forces, that force local farmers and industries out of business because they are unable to compete, and forces the people, if they wish to survive, to work for someone else. Historical examples of this include the industrial revolution, and the acts of parliament that forced peasants off their land; neocolonialism in Africa and the Caribbean, which forces them to compete against Western industries because protective tariffs are “unfair;” the manipulation of market demand to extract very high payments out of a poor economy for a desperately needed resource, etc.

    Capitalism does not, by its nature, generate wealth, but moves it around.

  31. Professor Crumb,

    “Capitalism does not, by its nature, generate wealth, but moves it around.”

    Haaaa?

    The United States didn’t get to the top of the pyramid by embracing socialism, or Marxism, or communism, it did so with capitalism.

    And now that we are falling from that pinnacle?

    It is American embrace of the irresponsible socialist monetary principles that you love that are guaranteeing and hastening our fall.

    Capitalism gets none of the blame.

  32. In response to:

    “So you do not believe in income tax, thank you.

    That argument comes from a clear understanding of industrialising forces, that force local farmers and industries out of business because they are unable to compete, and forces the people, if they wish to survive, to work for someone else. Historical examples of this include the industrial revolution, and the acts of parliament that forced peasants off their land; neocolonialism in Africa and the Caribbean, which forces them to compete against Western industries because protective tariffs are “unfair;” the manipulation of market demand to extract very high payments out of a poor economy for a desperately needed resource, etc.

    Capitalism does not, by its nature, generate wealth, but moves it around.

    By: crumbunist on November 14th, 2008 at 2:27 am”

    Since I was born on a family farm nearly 48 years ago and that farm is still a family farm owned by my parents and brothers, not a corporation, I would suggest that your broad brush view has a lot of holes in it. In fact, that very farm was started by my Grandfather who came to the U.S. through Ellis Island from Ireland. They still compete nicely today and owe their success to hard work, capitalism, and a love for what they do. I personally didn’t care for cow manure that much and left for the U.S. Navy in 78.

    As for: “So you do not believe in income tax, thank you”. I take it then you don’t believe in the views of this nations founders. After over 230 years I’d like to think they were on the right track. We’d be in far better shape had we stayed with their views instead of allowing creeping socialism to cause so much damage.

    Your response has a couple of more holes. For one thing you have to believe in a “zero sum gain” whereas wealth is a finite instead of created. Any new invention or method of production creates wealth. The computer, Microsoft, even AOL are examples of wealth creation and this is just a spec……

  33. Cont.,

    ………. spec of the totality of wealth creation. As wealth expands so does currency and goods to represent it. As population expands it too must effect the currency in order to carry the wealth in a recognized means for trade. The current recession is a fine example of imbalance self correcting. When currency is over produced to it’s ration that represents wealth it devalues the currency and socialist views tend to do just that, devalue currency. Simply put, you can’t just print wealth.

    Another problem you have is that when market demand goes up it is followed by higher prices, but you missed the part where the higher prices become the incentive to add competition and innovation, thus bringing prices down. I’m sure you’ve heard that “Necessity is the mother of invention”. The current oil prices reflect this event. Demand goes up, refineries are down, price goes up. When so much as even the hint of competition from other sources of energy come out the oil price falls. Refineries increase and expand, oil price comes down. New sources of oil, price comes down.

    Oil cartel cuts production to try to raise oil prices, but the cartel is not all encompassing so prices continue to come down. The only problem I have with the market on the oil note is the President George Bush pushed for and got passed the ability of the oil trade to be allowed into the futures market. Any time you add a middle man prices go up. That’s one of two problems I had with President Bush.

    While individuals do attempt to move markets to favor their position, the effect is temporary due to basic laws of supply and demand coupled with competition be it existing or newly created. The problem comes when government tries to affect the situation thereby causing a carpet to be placed or the rug pulled out, both after people are already invested into their present means.

    The so called “playing field” is quite level, but the complexity of it is not understood by many…….

  34. Cont,.

    The so called “playing field” is quite level, but the complexity of it is not understood by many…….

    The final lynch pin is when people who lust for power be them, socialists, Marxists, communists, fascists, other military dictators, usually realize that control of wealth is control over the people and exploit that for their own gain.

    It is creeping socialism that has brought us to the economic downturn we see today. The policies of every Marxist design attempt to be forced on the people have resulted the same way. Some will argue a purity of Marx has not been tried, but so long as just one soul somewhere in the world refuses to go along with such a design that design ultimately has to use force of arms to achieve it’s goals. And that is where it fails. Marx is a dimensional fantasy, science fiction, and should be read as such. Nothing more.

    Care to try again?

  35. The West’s powerful economies were built on colonialism, resource extraction, slavery and wage labour, and industrial advantages.

    The farmers who can not compete that I am referring to are typically non-Western farmers, who do not have the benefits of cheap technology, pesticides and subsidies and cannot compete on the global market or even the local market. The West can mass produce almost anything, and subsidies make things even cheaper to manufacture, process or grow. There is more to the world than just America and its own internal economic transactions.

    The wealth of the West was acquired from the colonized world – Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia etc. Material wealth and capital wealth were transferred from these regions into the imperial metropoles over a period of almost 500 years, and continues today.

    Invention/creation of knowledge/science wealth is mostly limited to those countries and regions that have the necessary resources to invest in research, development and production. Microsoft, Apple etc are notably all Western companies.

    The actual wealth of those companies is acquired through transactions, where the consumer pays more than what the product is worth so that the company can make a profit [grow its wealth]. This isn’t really a problem when the consumer has disposable income they don’t need. Capitalist exchanges can be very exploitive when the consumer has little wealth and needs the goods – real estate, to build a farm or house; water; food; etc. When demand rises, corporations/capitalists tend to increase prices, and gouge the needy when they are most desperate. It’s highway robbery.

  36. A fair capitalist exchange, in the vision of Adam Smith, is one in which each party has an equal gain due to comparative advantage. Farmer Brown has lots of milk, but needs chicken feed. Farmer Smith has lots of feed, but needs milk. They each gain equally by the transaction. Where modern capitalism is thieving is in its exchanges with unequal trading partners. One side gains greatly, while the other side gains little or suffers a loss.

    I believe that is a more fleshed out version of the argument that capitalism is theft, but I’m sure I left out details I read. The point was, someone can just as easily point to YOUR system and say that it is theft, as you can point to another and say that it is theft. Something important you should consider.

  37. Also: in a monopolistic setting, prices do not come down. Much like Wal-Mart’s strategy in smalltown America, Western companies go into other countries and, thanks to free trade agreements, are not limited by any protective tariffs or taxes. They have all of their unfair advantages over the local industry, and can purposefully undercut it with ‘loss-leaders’ – items that are extremely cheap, to lead consumers away from your competitors at a small loss to your profits. Smaller businesses cannot compete with large corporate loss-leading strategies, and fold. Then, when the competition is gone, prices rise again.

  38. Crumb seems to be spending a lot of energy explaining the evilness of capitalism, but has spent little time explaining how socialism would create wealth and jobs. A lot of the problems Crumb explains are government created problems and not inherent to capitalism (tariffs, monopolies, colonialism, etc). As far as the people at the top taking all the credit for a business’ success; most realize that they must pay a decent wage to people who help them in their success in order for that success to continue. And, since they are the ones taking the heaviest risk, they should reap the biggest reward. Low wage jobs are usually paid for unskilled labor, which can easily be replaced by the next unskilled laborer.

    How would socialism create jobs and how is it not the “moving around of wealth”.

    Also, the evidence for this piece are all over youtube and the internet. I have heard Obama say “spread the wealth” and to use a graduated tax system to tax a disproportionate share from the successful. I have seen what his supporters do to dissenters like Joe the Plumber. Obama kicks reporters off of his plane and refuses interviews to those who ask tough questions.

    As a person who is not wealthy, but has worked hard for every dime for almost 30 years, I do not think Obama’s tax plan is “fair” and believe it will damage the economy further. Since when has a welfare system improved anything? It does not help people out of the bottom, it keeps them there. The people who make money on a welfare system are the administrators. And, if you want to see how any of Obama’s efforts have improved anything, you won’t because they haven’t. The south side of Chicago is in the same condition today that it was in when Obama first started “organizing”.

  39. To John Campbell

    You ask me: “When is the last time you went to a poor man to get a job? Why should someone with money give it to you? What makes you think you are somehow entitled to the friuts of my labor? What makes you think that having a government do your stealing for you is OK?”

    I don’t think you quite understand fairness. Fairness means equality, it means for resources and power to be distributed democratically across society. If people don’t have an equal amount of resources that help influence government then that means some have more power than others in society. This situation would be (and is currently) undemocratic and needs to be corrected. But democratic resource allocation doesn’t have to be done by the state, it can be done by locally democratic and egalitarian cooperative associations operating in competition with each other to generate wealth and then distributing their profits fairly among their membership. The only role for central government is ensuring that no one cooperative or set of cooperatives becomes over-powerful and that basic laws of decency are followed. Remember, there is no ‘me’ or ‘you’ there is only ‘we’ 😉

  40. In response to:

    “To John Campbell

    You ask me: “When is the last time you went to a poor man to get a job? Why should someone with money give it to you? What makes you think you are somehow entitled to the friuts of my labor? What makes you think that having a government do your stealing for you is OK?”

    I don’t think you quite understand fairness. Fairness means equality, it means for resources and power to be distributed democratically across society. If people don’t have an equal amount of resources that help influence government then that means some have more power than others in society. This situation would be (and is currently) undemocratic and needs to be corrected. But democratic resource allocation doesn’t have to be done by the state, it can be done by locally democratic and egalitarian cooperative associations operating in competition with each other to generate wealth and then distributing their profits fairly among their membership. The only role for central government is ensuring that no one cooperative or set of cooperatives becomes over-powerful and that basic laws of decency are followed. Remember, there is no ‘me’ or ‘you’ there is only ‘we’

    By: Lefty Liberal Communist Scum on November 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm”

    Now I think I’ve heard it all.
    Fairness does not mean equality and it negates reality off the page. I’m quite sure their are some people somewhat smarter than I am and their are those not quite as intelligent. This is by nature, not someones version of discrimination. It would be impossible to have everyone have the same inventive intelligence, but there’s more. No two people have the same amount of drive to create, innovate. No two people have the same exact wishes for a finite level of life style.
    Your assertion suggests that fairness means if one person has a snowmobile then all must or no one does. It also suggests communes which I find abhorrent.

    Worse yet you…….

  41. Cont.,

    Worse yet you define fairness to be your own version of the world, but you describe communes with a co-op atmosphere thus trading nations for communes and then appointing a global governing body.

    Ultimately what you seek is a destruction of capitalism, competition, freedom, liberty, rights, and on a global basis. If you remove the right to fail you remove the incentive to succeed. There would me no motivation for anyone to do anything beyond a minimum because a government will set a minimum just to keep it “fair”.

    All it takes is just one individual to not wish to live under your rule and the fight is on. You ignore human nature and then define such nature as unfair. No doubt you would consider human nature that doesn’t go along with your view as somehow evil and justify it’s destruction. This logically followed from your views to the natural conclusion. If I (not “we”) decide I will not comply with your visionary what do you do about me? I do not recognize “we”, the collective, group think, as anything more than dictatorship. It is your desire to control and enslave me to benefit yourself while claiming to care more about others than anyone else. Nice try, but I’m not buying such an already proven failure that costs the lives of over 56 million people in the last century alone and still counting.

    You’ll have to do better than that.

  42. In response to :

    “Also: in a monopolistic setting, prices do not come down. Much like Wal-Mart’s strategy in smalltown America, Western companies go into other countries and, thanks to free trade agreements, are not limited by any protective tariffs or taxes. They have all of their unfair advantages over the local industry, and can purposefully undercut it with ‘loss-leaders’ – items that are extremely cheap, to lead consumers away from your competitors at a small loss to your profits. Smaller businesses cannot compete with large corporate loss-leading strategies, and fold. Then, when the competition is gone, prices rise again.

    By: crumbunist on November 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm”

    Walmart is now a “monopolistic setting”???!!!

    Crumby, I have no idea what planet you are on, but I’m now quite certain it is not Earth. LOL

    Your assertion would suggest that Walmart now has every product in the world on it’s shelves, all at cut throat rates, and no one can compete. I have no clue what union garbage heap you got this one from, but suffice it to say I find it hilarious.

    I shop Walmart regularly and find the lies of the competitors beyond the pale. I get most of my daily staples for cleaning supplies and pet food there. Not much else though as I prefer a higher end product over what Walmart generally offers. For people on a tight budget though Walmart makes a lot of sense. They offer a middle of the road product level for the things they do carry and work hard to keep prices low thus benefiting families, the poor, elderly on a fixed income, and generally anyone looking for a good deal.

    I don’t use Walmart for grocery because I happen to prefer the Vons (Safeway grocery chain) for their meats and I dislike having to run around to buy groceries.

    Walmart is now a “monopolistic setting”. Thanks for the laugh! LOL

  43. I have to believe that if the would-be socialists running around spent half that much time working to improve themselves for their own futures they would finally realize that they not only are getting ahead in financial security, they would also have something for charitable help to give to those in need.

    I suspect that so called “fairness” would find a new definition as well.

  44. In response to:

    “A fair capitalist exchange, in the vision of Adam Smith, is one in which each party has an equal gain due to comparative advantage. Farmer Brown has lots of milk, but needs chicken feed. Farmer Smith has lots of feed, but needs milk. They each gain equally by the transaction. Where modern capitalism is thieving is in its exchanges with unequal trading partners. One side gains greatly, while the other side gains little or suffers a loss.

    I believe that is a more fleshed out version of the argument that capitalism is theft, but I’m sure I left out details I read. The point was, someone can just as easily point to YOUR system and say that it is theft, as you can point to another and say that it is theft. Something important you should consider.

    By: crumbunist on November 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm”

    So if I want to buy something from the ChiComs and they want more for that product than what I want to pay for it I just call Crumby and say it’s not fair and the ChiComs will get a call from Crumby telling them to lower their price or else.

    I’ll have to try that theory sometime.

    LMAO!!!

  45. Fairness? Equality? Humans are equal because they are humans. They deserve respect and dignity. And, our constitution gives them freedom; the freedom to work hard and make something of themselves and support their families or the freedom to live in a shack should they desire or not have the drive to work. As humans, we can and should desire to help those who truly need it. But, we should not be expected to work hard for those who won’t.

    I have a sincere sympathy even for those who have come into addictions and find themselves on the street. Most of them are victims of some sort of abuse. However, the government is not the vehicle for solving these problems. It can play a role of assistance, maybe. As Mark Steyn says, “The government is an inefficient spender of money.” Look at the billions of dollars that have gone to New Orleans after Katrina and the lack of progress there. Individual citizens and private organizations (Habitat for Humanity) have accomplished more.

    In the 70’s the liberal mantra was “you can’t legislate morality.” They were speaking to the abortion issue. But, it holds true for using the government to force taxpayers to help their neighbors. It will only cause resentment as the economy further erodes and jobs are lost.

    The public school system is another example. My property tax went up 35 percent in one year. An absolute fraud was committed, the projected raise was 11% and the bill was 35%. No one was held accountable. And, what have I got for it? Kids (other peoples’, mine have graduated) that still can not speak in complete sentences and probably will not be able to compete in the global market.

  46. I like your site. I wish more average Americans had a chance to talk with people who have served in Iraq. I don’t know where they get the notion that we just go to bomb other countries. What I hear from the soldiers that have served there is about the medical care that they have provided, buildings being built for schools, protecting innocent civilians from insurgents, providing wheelchairs and aid from people back home etc. Our presence is going to change their lives forever and probably for the better, especially for the women and children.

  47. I saw and Eagle this morning here in Alaska. I was impressed by how loud and big it was! The other birds, even the Ravens seemed dwarfed next to the Eagle. I hope that is how our country remains, true to that majestic symbol.

  48. You misinterpreted what I said. I compared Wal-Mart’s practices to the specifically monopolistic activities of Western companies using free trade to destroy local industry. I did not equate them.

    I never said anything about a “fairness regulator” in international trade. I said that Adam Smith’s formulation of liberal economics only took into consideration the European nations, which were relatively equal. When Smith’s theories are applied outside of a fairly balanced system, they fail because of the vast discrepancy between the two parties – one can easily dominate the other through economic force. That’s why [neo]colonialism is even possible.

    Fairness basically means equal in that it refers to balance, justice, etc.

    airbrat: What are some investments that the wealthy can shift around to avoid taxes, that would not employ people? I do not know and am curious.

  49. And I’m pretty sure that Communist Leftist Scum didn’t say anything about equality of personal traits, but specifically

    “resources and power to be distributed democratically across society. If people don’t have an equal amount of resources that help influence government then that means some have more power than others in society”

    Some people can bribe politicians or donate large amounts of money to get them elected, but others cannot. Usually it’s the corporate-friendly Republicans that get the donations and the welfare-state supporting Democrats that have to get by some other way. This election was a refreshing turnaround, with the Democrats getting an enormous cash booster.

    I would hardly call it fair either way, as it changes from a political competition into a financial one, that biases the media and public consciousness toward one candidate or the other based on who has the most ad space.

  50. As for people becoming dependent on welfare:

    “A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.”

    http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
    http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=885850235525+23+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    • Its like you review my mind! You apeapr to find out so very much about this, like you wrote the publication in it or something. I think which you can do with some pics to generate the message home just a little bit, but other than that, this is outstanding blog.

  51. Crumby,

    Your latest posting is not only off topic, it’s out dated and a report from a government interest group whose efforts are only to get more government funding for the themselves. (first link)

    Your second link is dead.

    The assertions have not only been proven wrong, I have personally witnessed first hand many people who instead of trying to improve their financial situation instead lower their sustainability requirements to fit within government handouts supplemented with whatever they can beg, borrow, or steal. This from all over the lower 48 continental States.
    By the way, welfare is now a one year only item. Other programs though have taken up where welfare left off including people intentionally having themselves declared mentally unstable or afflicted to garner other social programs.

    Additionally, the latest report to come out this year shows that 25% of people who are continually on government subsistence rolls have no will nor intent to ever leave them. This by survey of the very people on those rolls. I’m not going to look at people who claim themselves that they intend to continue their existence on tax payers dollars and then say they didn’t mean what they said.

    Nothing of what you’ve posted supports a will of the people to sign onto socialism, be it a communist or fascist variety. It certainly doesn’t give me cause to change my mind. Obama is going to have to tow the line for capitalism and freedom or else he’s going to lose the Democrats Congressional seats in two years and his own office in four.

    Trying to use psychobabble to throw someone off the scent for what you stated about Walmart isn’t going to work either. You certainly did equated Walmart to a monopoly and did so with a false premise for a foundation as well. Also, the last time I checked the U.S. doesn’t have colonies. I’m not here for a discussion of globalist think that builds a false footing on wannabe one world government.

    You claim “fairness” in…….

  52. Cont.,

    You claim “fairness” in economics, but neither set nor suggest what constitutes “fairness”, only wealth redistribution is your answer to a problem that doesn’t exist. Wealth is still created, not a finite, and anyone can produce wealth if they apply themselves.

    Simply put you intend to take it from me to give it to yourself or someone else. At this time you have not stated what you believe constitutes the rightfulness of you to take my money from me for anything let alone so called “fairness”. Furthermore, you suggest my employment of others constitutes “Slavery” without anything to back it up. Frankly, you make a lot of claims and all without any basis in fact nor foundation.

    In a nation where poverty is defined by the number of TV’s in your home, cars in your garage, and shoes in your closet I find it hard for anyone to cry foul. I’ve yet to see where anyone in the U.S. has died from starvation brought on by lack of finances. I have seen reports of people dying from lack of medical care in socialist countries due to socialist medicine being instituted and dying from lack of food as well. When your life is but a mere price tag based in someone else’s view of your worth I don’t see “fairness” in that. Yet these are the types of programs you support. People still flee socialist dictatorships to come to the U.S. They risk being executed to escape. Tell them how unfair we are.

    Go back to the drawing board.

  53. John Campbell,

    You say: “It would be impossible to have everyone have the same inventive intelligence, but there’s more. No two people have the same amount of drive to create, innovate. No two people have the same exact wishes for a finite level of life style…Your assertion suggests that fairness means if one person has a snowmobile then all must or no one does.”

    I have no problem with people having different abilities. Wealth can also be used in many ways to do different things, you are right. I might want to buy a snow mobile with the money I gain from working in the co-op or I might want to buy a caravan. The point is that when I have more substantially more wealth than another person I acquire more power than the other person that is unfair in a democratic society built on the principle of equality.

    ‘Hard work’ is not a basis for distributive fairness. To suggest that we distribute rewards in society based on whether certain people have an inherent propensity to ‘work’ harder than others, or are more intelligent than others by nature would be no different to distributing rewards based on the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation. The way rewards should be distributed is based on need, not on your arbitrary definition of whether someone has ‘worked hard’ or not. This is the only proper way of defining a fair or just society, because needs are objectively identifiable whereas ‘hard work’ is purely arbitrary.

  54. You also say: ‘If you remove the right to fail you remove the incentive to succeed.”

    How is there a ‘right to fail’? I do not remember this being written into the bill of rights you so adore (correct me with a reference if you think I’m wrong). So you are suggesting that we have a ‘right’ to live in poverty? An interesting twist on the concept of a ‘right’. Furthermore, to suggest a right to ‘fail’ would be to also suggest the possibility of ‘success’ in the first place, a possibility that is non-existant for millions of people across the world due to the structure of global capitalism.

    Yopu go on: “You ignore human nature and then define such nature as unfair. No doubt you would consider human nature that doesn’t go along with your view as somehow evil and justify it’s destruction.”

    So do you. For you, any human nature that isn’t inherently self-referential and eqotistical must be evil (for instance, my conception). Human nature changes over time based on the socialising tendencies of economic and political systems. If anything, the selfish human nature that according to youi exists only does so because it has been created by capitalism and liberalism, the ideologies of the individual where many individuals (indeed, most of them) live in abject poverty and are simply ignored.

    And finally: “If I (not “we”) decide I will not comply with your visionary what do you do about me? I do not recognize “we”, the collective, group think, as anything more than dictatorship.”

    If you do not want to live in a fair and just democratic system then you have the right to opt out. However, it is my duty (I believe) to persuade you otherwise, just as you believe it is your duty to try and argue against this democratic system I am portraying.

  55. My last posting was on topic, as a response to airbrat.

    The American Psychological Association is a non-government organization of professionals.

    Anecdotal evidence is not as thorough as proper research. The second link is from the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 green book. This is what was cited by the APA article. Search for “welfare dependency”.
    http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/96GB/intro.htm

    Can you produce evidence of your numbers just as I have produced evidence?

    Obama IS going to “toe the line” because he’s not a communist or a fascist. Modern ‘socialism’ is just welfare statism, and that is what he will continue to pursue in all likelihood. Any fears that he’ll be a Maoist totalitarian are baseless and exaggerated.

    Your lack of understanding of global forces does not disprove my argument. The United States is a NEOcolonial power, just like Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the other developed nations. And America still has colonies left over from the previous imperial era.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

    Wal-Mart’s strategy parallels that of neocolonial states and businesses, that use free trade to enter new markets without handicaps, and proceed to undermine local business at a personal loss, so that they can destroy competitors.

    I explicitly stated what fairness entailed, economically. I was talking about Adam Smith’s liberalism, which involved trade between roughly equal partners for roughly equal mutual gain. This is a pretty fair system, I think. The problem of liberalism is that not every market has equal purchasing power, or even close to it, and Euro-American businesses/economies have unfair advantages that let them exploit those markets. There is a one-sided gain there.

    Material wealth IS finite. There’s only so much gold, petroleum, food, water, and arable land in the world.

  56. When did I ever accuse you of slavery? In fact, it was YOU who accused ME of trying to enslave you.

    “It is your desire to control and enslave me to benefit yourself while claiming to care more about others than anyone else.”

    Your next sentence becomes a bit ironic, doesn’t it?

    “I’ve yet to see where anyone in the U.S. has died from starvation brought on by lack of finances.”
    Look harder then, because it does happen.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051029093925.htm

    “Yet these are the types of programs you support. ”
    Thanks for putting words in my mouth. No, I do not support Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist Socialism. I support the type of socialism that is used by the developed Western nations, which is the perfection of capitalism in that it maintains the parts of the machinery. Yes, it sacrifices extraordinary growth of profits, but it keeps the economic machinery running smoothly. Note that Canada and Europe are not as hard hit by the financial crisis as America, and those countries also tend to have higher life expectancies, less poverty, and still manage to be among the wealthiest in the world.

  57. Before John responds, I would like to suggest an example of a working, co-op, democratic society, where rewards are given based on need, and where altruism is more valued than individualism.

    The family!

  58. In response to:

    “By: Lefty Liberal Communist Scum on November 17th, 2008 at 8:06 am”

    “The point is that when I have more substantially more wealth than another person I acquire more power than the other person that is unfair in a democratic society built on the principle of equality.”

    The fallacy with this is we do not live in a society “…….built on the principle of equality.” We live in a society built on the foundation of rights and the protection of those rights. So called equality does not and cannot exist because each individual determines their own view of such. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that in no way enslaves everyone else to provide the means. Such is up to the individual.

    You state:

    “Hard work’ is not a basis for distributive fairness. To suggest that we distribute rewards in society based on whether certain people have an inherent propensity to ‘work’ harder than others, or are more intelligent than others by nature would be no different to distributing rewards based on the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation. The way rewards should be distributed is based on need, not on your arbitrary definition of whether someone has ‘worked hard’ or not. This is the only proper way of defining a fair or just society, because needs are objectively identifiable whereas ‘hard work’ is purely arbitrary.”

    Your analogy does not match reality. More to the point is the idea of a wealth being “distributed”. You treat wealth as though it was held by a governing body or individual who just hands it out as though it came from some endless supply bucket or the horn of plenty. Again, by what method do you justify MY fruits of MY labor being TAKEN from ME and given to someone else? That’s theft.

    I think at this point you need to answer the question.

    By what method do you justify MY fruits of MY labor being TAKEN from ME and given to someone else?

  59. In response to:

    “If you do not want to live in a fair and just democratic system then you have the right to opt out. However, it is my duty (I believe) to persuade you otherwise, just as you believe it is your duty to try and argue against this democratic system I am portraying.

    By: Lefty Liberal Communist Scum on November 17th, 2008 at 8:16 am”

    As to your view of Democracy I’ll defer this one to the experts.

    “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

  60. In response to:

    “By: Lefty Liberal Communist Scum on November 17th, 2008 at 8:16 am”

    “You also say: ‘If you remove the right to fail you remove the incentive to succeed.”

    How is there a ‘right to fail’? I do not remember this being written into the bill of rights you so adore (correct me with a reference if you think I’m wrong). So you are suggesting that we have a ‘right’ to live in poverty? An interesting twist on the concept of a ‘right’. Furthermore, to suggest a right to ‘fail’ would be to also suggest the possibility of ’success’ in the first place, a possibility that is non-existant for millions of people across the world due to the structure of global capitalism.”

    In fact you do have the right to live in poverty. You do have the right to both succeed and fail.

    You claim “global capitalism” is the problem, but you fail to mention the fall of the former USSR, China, and a host of nations who are not exactly bastions of prosperity, all who have used socialist methods. You also failed to mention the bloodshed they’ve perpetrated against their own countryman as well as the walls they built, not to keep people out, but to keep people in. In fact, since capitalism became the standard for many nations it has proven to be a boon that raises all.

    The first settlers to the “New World” tried your method and found as a result that it didn’t work. All of them perished from hunger and the elements. In the second attempt the model was changed. Welcome to the at least surviving British Colonies.

  61. In response to:

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am

    “The American Psychological Association is a non-government organization of professionals.”

    The APA is also a receiver of government grants, my tax dollars, that on one hand goes to actual work, but on the other promotes it’s own self interests of self preservation. The more they inflate numbers and the more they assign doom and gloom the more they get grants from decidedly leftist influence.

    Cont.,

  62. Cont.,

    In response to:

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am

    “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America.”

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt

    If you want a *cause and effect* results from such policies try this one:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html

  63. In response to:

    “By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am

    Obama IS going to “toe the line” because he’s not a communist or a fascist. Modern ’socialism’ is just welfare statism, and that is what he will continue to pursue in all likelihood. Any fears that he’ll be a Maoist totalitarian are baseless and exaggerated.

    Your lack of understanding of global forces does not disprove my argument. The United States is a NEOcolonial power, just like Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the other developed nations. And America still has colonies left over from the previous imperial era.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

    Now this is funny! LOL

    You site a link for Wiki that even in it’s pages admits who the source of a made up word is, “NeoColonialism”, and anyone who bothers to actually read the news knows that the sources are agents of communist overthrow, I might add by force of arms, and are backed by the ChiComs. Angola is my specialty on this one and I’m watching closely what Obama does with Executive Orders when he takes office as I am without a doubt what at least one of them will be. Stay tuned because the moment I read that one Executive Order I’m going to see to it that it’s wide spread across the Internet if it takes my dying breath to do it.

    You couldn’t have exposed yourself any better than you just did. Read your own link and do the research.

    With this one link you have proven every point I’ve stated. Do the research.

  64. In response to:

    “By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am”

    “Wal-Mart’s strategy parallels that of neocolonial states and businesses, that use free trade to enter new markets without handicaps, and proceed to undermine local business at a personal loss, so that they can destroy competitors.”

    Walmart does nothing of the sort and I defy you to site just one case where Walmart has went in, destroyed local competition, and then raised their prices to exploit their newly created monopoly. I’ve seen claims from unions so ridiculous that they claimed that Walmart created a ghost town. They didn’t mention that the town had only one industry and it moved. Somehow that was Walmart’s fault?

    Walmarts have been around for many years now and despite that Walmart has not destroyed local business, in fact they’ve helped create business world wide. Anyone attempting to create a new product for home use today now tries to get their product put into Walmart stores. Walmart even has programs to help them.

    Any new business, no matter how big or small, is going to affect other local businesses who carry the same product line or service. If the existing businesses that carry that same line or service is tied up with their own overhead at one level and a new one doesn’t have as much overhead or has it better structured the existing business is going to have problems. The anti Walmart argument then fits any new business. So why the race to stifle competition thereby causing prices to go up?

    The unions saw big money with Walmart and that is the ONLY reason they have spent so much time trying to condemn them for the sheer purpose of trying to get their people to go union. Especially the grocers union. Walmart’s own people say no to unions and then the unions come out with outrageous lies against them. Typical union tactic.

    Remember what they tried to do with Coors Brewery? The union claimed that the only way for a woman to get a job at Coors was for her to give sexual favors to the HR manager. The husbands of the women who work there, the mangers wife, and especially the women who work there all were liabled, trashed, and righteously insulted by that claim. The union finally backed off that one. The union sponsored violence and death toll is another topic, but suffice it to say I have no wish to be associated with such murderers.

  65. Since both Crumby and Lefty have touched on this I have a simple question for both of them.

    Please provide what constitutes a Right without giving an example of one and contrast that with a privilege.

  66. And before I forget it, I still have not seen the report showing just one case in the U.S. where someone has died from starvation brought on by economic factors.

    There’s always the charitable help of neighbors, churches, various organization during tough times.

    I’ve personally went out to help people more times than I could count. Often times finding out I was taken for a ride by a con. And NONE of it did I write off my taxes.

  67. In response to:

    “Before John responds, I would like to suggest an example of a working, co-op, democratic society, where rewards are given based on need, and where altruism is more valued than individualism.

    The family!

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:39 am”

    Really? How much money do your children bring in? Where do they work? Do they own businesses?

    In my home the the rule is charity starts at home. That’s my family. After they are of age they are required to do for themselves, not me doing it for them.

    Based in your arguments I should provide for everyone else’s family at the suffering of my own and after they are of age they too would be required by force of law, force of arms, to provide for everyone else’s needs.

    Again, what do you do with people who choose not to go along?

    If you want to live in a commune that’s your choice, but forcing others to do so is a violation of rights. I would easily imagine that if your commune fails you’ll be quick to answer your belly and leave it for some real food. In such an event I have no doubt that you’ll be quick to blame anything but your commune existence and yourself for being so foolish.

    As for me I’ll remain the head of household, my castle, my keep, the sovereign.

  68. Crumb,

    There is a difference in the number of people employed when dollars are put into cash-holdings like trust funds and large bank accounts (especially offshore) and re-investing in the growth of business. My husband’s boss for example, grew a company (from a wheelbarrow to 400 employees) and invested capital in machinery to further grow his business. Someone built the machines (jobs), people run the machines (jobs). If he were to retire and keep his dollars, my husband will not be the only one to lose his job. And, that is exactly what he is talking about right now. If running his business is going to cost him more than the aggravation it is worth, what is the point? He is 62 and I couldn’t blame him, but who will bail me out of my mortgage? Obama’s $1,000 tax credit wouldn’t feed us for a month let alone pay my mortgage!

  69. John Campbell,

    You are a better man than me, but that’s OK cause I am not a man.

    Your conversation with crumbunist is intelligent and full of interesting information. But, it always seems to be so futile to try to discuss important issues when someone appears to be so fully indoctrinated.

    My boss and his wife are liberals and in discussing why she was voting for Obama she said, “Don’t you want to stick it to the rich people?” I laughed at her and said that I am not jealous of them. I am a bookkeeper. I don’t make much money. But, I have my job because some wealthy people own more than one home and we manage them. My boss and his wife have made a tidy little income from it. They went to Paris last year. So, I really don’t get them!

  70. Lefty Liberal Communist Scum,

    You are a better man than me, but that’s OK cause I am not a man.

    Your conversation with john campbell is intelligent and full of interesting information. But, it always seems to be so futile to try to discuss important issues when someone appears to be so fully indoctrinated.

    My boss and his wife are conservatives and in discussing why she was voting for McCain she said, “Don’t you want to stick it to the poor people?” I laughed at her and said that I am not jealous of them. I am a bookkeeper. I don’t make much money. But, I have my job because I offer a service that is demanded in the market. My boss and his wife have made a tidy little income from it. They went to Paris last year. So, I really don’t get them!

  71. Campbell:

    Obviously I cannot have a discussion with you on these issues, given that you reject research and years of study because it disagrees with your ideology. I mean, neocolonialism is made up? I am sure that you know better about sociology, economics and history than sociologists, economists and historians. I have no idea what China has to do with this, either.

    Note that my criticisms actually cite large bodies of research from credible organizations and researchers, whereas your criticisms are powered by flat denial, ideological accusations, and a scarcity of supporting evidence.

    The reason that I ignore your arguments isn’t that I am ideologically biased against them, but because they are weak or non-existent arguments that assert things that vast amounts of research and much stronger arguments have proven wrong years ago. Certainly, you will say the same about me, and you will be plainly wrong, but you will continue to charge ahead and we will get nowhere. This debate cannot go anywhere.

  72. In response to:

    “John Campbell,

    You are a better man than me, but that’s OK cause I am not a man.”
    By: airbrat on November 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    I thank you for your kind words, but I’m not fool proof and have made many mistakes over the years. Hopefully I’ve learned from them.

    This subject is a very intense one for me. I’ve made a number of typo’s, word errors, and I’m actually surprised that Crumby has not chosen to use them for his debate. Sort of a testimony to Crumby in a way.

    If not for being well traveled over time and experienced in research from fighting the antigun agenda I doubt I could make half of the argument that I do. I owe a great deal to the works of others before me, many who actually survived various historical events and others who recorded them. Much of today’s debate is a repeat from not so long ago and is the result of the Left intentionally attempting to indoctrinate the youth of this country in order to build a political base.

    Sadly, much of what we see and hear today, while a repeat of the same false claims of the past, is promoted within the public education system. That is by design which was started in earnest back in the late 50’s, early 60’s. From the 60’s on I lived through various events unfolding and watched in utter dismay, sometimes outright shock, at the results for they seem to be beyond any sense of rhyme or reason.

    While I have no allusions for any success in trying to show socialism in all it’s forms for the evil it is I still feel bound to try. So many lives lost in the last 9 decades thanks to socialist venture can’t be lost on the scrapbook of history only to devastate lives of tomorrow. At least not if I can do something about it.

    Surely there are better qualified people than I for this task and I would only ask that you continue to read and comment as well as bring others to this debate who are of better qualified knowledge.

    Thank you

  73. In response to:

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    “Campbell:

    Obviously I cannot have a discussion with you on these issues, given that you reject research and years of study because it disagrees with your ideology. I mean, neocolonialism is made up? I am sure that you know better about sociology, economics and history than sociologists, economists and historians. I have no idea what China has to do with this, either.”

    Just to show how wrong you are about me with regard to the claim that I reject research maybe you should go back and read your own posts and your own alleged research material. It was your posting of a web link that took me to your “Neocolonialism” baloney and in that very web site I realized where it came from. Later I found it was added to the dictionary in 1961 by the very people you support. So tell me again how shocked you are by my statement of a made up word.

    In reality I actually feel sorry for you as you have obviously been indoctrinated by leftist propaganda and now want the world to bend to your will. If you are old enough I have no doubt that you will vote for the Leftist will, a will that is enforced in rule of law by people with guns. Ask the Korean, Laotian, and Vietnamese nationalized citizens how they feel about such events. Start with the Hmong. I’m sure they’d be interested in your views.

    The years of study you attempt to claim from “sociologists, economists and historians” is full of holes for their own sources. You apparently discount the Cato Institute as a legitimate source since with my first reference to them you are now quitting.

    You also discount the founding fathers of this nation as a legitimate source since the quote I made in regard to your “democracy” where I referenced deferring to the “experts” was from Federalist Papers #10.

    Please tell me again about your “research and years of study” that you site.

    And you respond to me with:

    “Note that my criticisms actually cite large bodies of research from credible organizations and researchers, whereas your criticisms are powered by flat denial, ideological accusations, and a scarcity of supporting evidence.”

    The nice thing about capitalism is that it pays the bills. If you want me to tutor you there will be a fee and class starts promptly. You will need to relocate here temporarily so come prepared and bring plenty of pencils and notebooks. You will be expected to provide your own housing and sustenance during your stay.

    After you complete your education here I’ll refer you to Dr. Walter Williams of George Mason University for economics. I’ll note that he too is a capitalist and doesn’t work for free.

  74. Now I’m dismayed. Up until this point Crumby had not resorted to the childish, currently plagiarizing someone else’s posts and changing the names to forward his quitter status, in his rants.

    That’s too bad. I had high hopes he would at least try to learn, but his childish mentality is now presenting itself in print.

    I’ll also take this opportunity to point out that there are still several unanswered questions that have been posed to Crumby in this forum and based on his current quitter status I doubt he’ll make the attempt.

    Of course he could prove me wrong?

  75. One more thing.

    In response to:

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    “Campbell:

    Obviously I cannot have a discussion with you on these issues, given that you reject research and years of study because it disagrees with your ideology. I mean, neocolonialism is made up? I am sure that you know better about sociology, economics and history than sociologists, economists and historians. I have no idea what China has to do with this, either.”

    If you had actually researched who you were presenting as a source you would have known that the communist overthrow in Angola was one of the sources you provided from. China supplied the training, insurgency, and the arms.

    As for watching Obama’s moves I’ll give you a few hints.
    1) Executive Outcomes
    2) Executive order from former President Bill Clinton on operations in Angola.
    3)Executive order from President George Bush reversing President Clinton’s executive order.

  76. Thanks for proving my point. I cannot reason with you.

    Angola’s communist rebels/government were funded by the USSR and Cuba; China backed their opponents, the UNITA. America and South Africa also supported UNITA. Not that any of this disproves anything about neocolonialism.

    It is not worth responding to your comments because you will just pull the same sort of “uh EXCUSE me but COMMUNISTS supported this therefore it has zero basis in fact” ideological stunt.

  77. It will be nice when the baby boomers finally die off and our grandchildren don’t have to deal with this retarded grudge that conservatives and liberals hold against each other because of the 1960s.

  78. In response to:

    “Thanks for proving my point. I cannot reason with you.

    Angola’s communist rebels/government were funded by the USSR and Cuba; China backed their opponents, the UNITA. America and South Africa also supported UNITA. Not that any of this disproves anything about neocolonialism.

    It is not worth responding to your comments because you will just pull the same sort of “uh EXCUSE me but COMMUNISTS supported this therefore it has zero basis in fact” ideological stunt.

    By: crumbunist on November 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am”

    Crumby, this latest post of yours proves beyond any doubt that you know absolutely nothing of what you try to speak about. Again, try doing some actual research. I warned you earlier that the tragedy in Angola was my specialty and yet you chose to post inaccurate information in an attempt to personally hit me. You failed. Do some actual research before you publicly embarrass yourself again.

    Might I suggest researching some news accounts By Anthony C. LoBaido for starters. Try researching Bill Clinton’s executive orders where he threw in with the communists and funded it from Chevron, Shell, and Debeers diamonds finances.
    If you spent less time running your mouth (keyboard) and more time listening (reading) you would likely have less trouble.

  79. In response to:

    “It will be nice when the baby boomers finally die off and our grandchildren don’t have to deal with this retarded grudge that conservatives and liberals hold against each other because of the 1960s.

    By: crumbunist on November 18th, 2008 at 10:27 am”

    Ironically there was actually some fodder for Crumby’s cannon in the Angola tragedy which I’m surprised he didn’t pick up on. Then again, due to his willingness to run off at the mouth instead of doing some real research, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Ultimately Crumby shows his true colors with his above quoted statement. He has no respect for his elders nor anyone who disagrees with him and regardless of why.

    Countless millions of deaths in the last century alone (and continuing today) brought on by various socialist forms mean nothing to Crumby and his ilk. To the Crumby’s of the world there’s always that one last tweak on socialism that hasn’t been tried and it will without a doubt save the world and all will live happily ever after.

    What’s strange is after all these decades of the same excuse, all the millions of deaths, they never seem to figure out that the source of this has lied to them and they never question their source.

  80. In response to:

    “http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913773,00.html

    By: crumbunist on November 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm”

    I’m impressed. Crumby actually did some research, though extremely limited.
    The Times article is accurate for as far as it goes, but the volumes of information it left out tells the actual story. I still suggest researching the works of Anthony C. LoBaido who is the noted expert and has spent years on the ground in Angola reporting the events.

    One of the major events left out, likely due to leftist politics, was an executive order from then President Bill Clinton that turned Executive Outcomes, a mercenary force that had trained and fought along side UNITA against the communists, to now fight against UNITA and the rightful owners of the land, oil fields, and diamond mines. Executive Outcomes at that point is now fighting for the communists and with all the knowledge gained from having trained the UNITA and all of their assets, weaknesses, strengths, capabilities, and locations. Betrayal hardly describes the utter evil perpetrated by Bill Clinton and the financial backers, Chevron, Shell Oil, and DeBeers Diamonds. All of whom cut deals with the communists for their personal gain. That’s where Crumby’s argument of “NeoColonialism” might have had some drive, but in fact it was purely greed based evil of individuals who cared not whom was murdered and stolen from so long as they got their gain.

    At this point the MPLA is now supported by nearly all and with full communist equipping for the fight. Worse yet the U.S. is now in bed with the communists and all without the knowledge of the American citizenry. Such was never reported in any of the so called “mainstream media”. Notice as well that the link supplied by Crumby from Time.com also makes no mention of this.

    When President George W. Bush took office one of the first things he did was to reverse the Bill Clinton executive order with an executive order of his own

  81. Cont,.
    In response to:

    “http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913773,00.html

    By: crumbunist on November 18th, 2008 at 9:10 pm”

    That is one President Bush action I hold him in high regard for. Of course the public is not aware of that action thanks to a news media that doesn’t want to get caught supporting communists who murder for their gain. Better for them to stay silenced instead of exposing themselves.

    Can anyone imagine the public outcry if they found out the United States, thanks to Bill Clinton and the evil heads of DeBeers Diamonds, Shell Oil, and Chevron, were actively engaged in the murdering of innocent men, women, and children, the rightful owners of their land, in support of a communist overthrow and greed?

    The problem is the damage was already done. As of now I’m waiting to see what President Elect Obama does when he takes office. The fighting in Angola is still ongoing, though unfortunately not with all that it should have been for UNITA. Careful watch of executive orders is definitely on the menu.

  82. None of your Clinton criticism is relevant, because Angola only came up in the context of neocolonial criticism, which you denied simply because communists in Angola agreed that neocolonial systems exist. I do not know why you are going off on Clinton as though it was relevant to the topic of neocolonialism, or as if it actually criticised neocolonial theory in any way. In fact, if anything, it reinforces neocolonial criticism – the economically powerful nations continue to muck around in the economy and politics of newly independent colonies.

    None of this Angola tangent has anything to do with the reality of neocolonialism.

  83. clarification: None of what YOU are saying about Angola has anything to do with your rejection of neocolonial theory.

  84. And I have no idea why you were saying that the wiki page called the Angolan communists the source of the term. Especially considering that in the very first section it says that the first president of independent Ghana coined it.

  85. I brought up neocolonialism in the first place to illustrate a point. The point is that capitalist exploitation certainly does exist in this world, and it can be very, very severe. I don’t know if it’s necessarily exploitive in every situation. Adam Smith doesn’t think so, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

    Economic liberalism is not exploitive when the participating parties are roughly equal, like the European nations. Where the flaws in free market capitalism become obvious are in the cases where the relationships between the two parties is vastly different and unequal. The British Empire and Kenya, America and the Caribbean, France and Indochina etc. These policies are plainly exploitive in these cases and many more. When the parties are very unequal, free market capitalism does not work. That is my point; that capitalism is not perfect. This is not the fault of the victims of exploitation. This is not because of malice on the part of the exploiters. This is a flaw in the implementation of capitalist policies, which puts two parties on an “equal footing” when in reality it allows the wealthier party to be on much greater footing.

    This flawed implementation of capitalism, which often appears in the form of neocolonialism, can very easily be called theft.

    Before capitalism was formulated, wealth was believed to be finite. But back then, when people spoke of wealth they were talking about material wealth; gold and physical resources. In the capitalist era, we can come to consider knowledge as wealth. Knowledge-wealth was created before capitalism, though, and has been for millennia. The growth and creation of knowledge-wealth does not depend on capitalism. Capitalism is itself a piece of knowledge-wealth.

  86. Even though it monetizes knowledge, capitalism still does not create material wealth. It shifts it around, and always has, going back to Columbus. Plantations still exist; virtual slavery still exists in conditions of extreme poverty; the resource wealth of Africa is still exploited by foreign countries with no interest in leaving profits behind.

    It is very easy to make an argument that capitalism is theft along these lines. It is the locals who work the land, who mine the ore, who run the factories, but who profits from their sweat and blood? The capitalists, who do no work, take all the profits simply because they own capital. Did they earn it? Did they work hard to create it? How you answer these questions depends on your attitude towards capitalism. I can guess what your answer will be, though.

  87. So, the same way you call taxation theft, a critic of capitalism can call capitalism theft. How do you decide which is correct? Can they both be?

  88. In response to:

    “None of your Clinton criticism is relevant, because Angola only came up in the context of neocolonial criticism, which you denied simply because communists in Angola agreed that neocolonial systems exist. I do not know why you are going off on Clinton as though it was relevant to the topic of neocolonialism, or as if it actually criticised neocolonial theory in any way. In fact, if anything, it reinforces neocolonial criticism – the economically powerful nations continue to muck around in the economy and politics of newly independent colonies.

    None of this Angola tangent has anything to do with the reality of neocolonialism.

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am”

    Crumby, the relevance in this is the writers original column. Will Obama promote the failure of his brand of “fairness” or succeed with prudence.

    Furthermore, your version of the leftist made up word, “neocolonialism”, suggests a nation being behind an evil intent. Here in the U.S. the businesses of this country belong to individuals, not the government. The U.S. government does not administer colonies the likes of those once created by Great Britain nor does it conduct industry in other countries. That is specifically individual based.

    U.S. businessmen do business in any place that opportunity allows for a business to succeed and with the blessing of the governments involved as well as the people. Just because there are unscrupulous people around the world doesn’t make business, businessmen, and ventures in other parts of the world evil nor negatively exploitive.

    Your socialist views do not dictate nor come from righteousness. In fact it is your views that brought on the millions of deaths over the last century based in someone trying to appeal to the effects of others to support socialist overthrows of all forms.

  89. In response to:

    “clarification: None of what YOU are saying about Angola has anything to do with your rejection of neocolonial theory.

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am”

    And now you admit your “NeoColonialism” is “theory”, in other words, made up! LOL

    Actually I’ve read a number of articles referring to “neocolonialism” as “theory” and in each case it comes from those who spend their time complaining with an air of jealousy that someone else has something they do not. The complainers whine for not having riches or at least their version of *wealth* and feel that they are somehow entitled to such *wealth* along with believing that the reason they don’t have it is because someone else stole it from them. This goes right down the rat hole of jealousy and leads them into socialism. Instead of trying to get ahead by legitimate means they instead spend their time feeling sorry for themselves, selfishly never seeing the real world problems and responsabilities of others, and finally succumbing to the next wannabe dictator who promises salvation by way of them putting said dictator in charge. Hate is the number one tool from that point on. Lenin and Hitler used this very method and you are now promoting their methods. Simply substitute the Bourgeois or the Jews with “NeoColonialsim”.

  90. In response to:

    “And I have no idea why you were saying that the wiki page called the Angolan communists the source of the term. Especially considering that in the very first section it says that the first president of independent Ghana coined it.

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am”

    You might do a little research on the people you refer to. From the Wiki article associated to your claim:

    “Kwame Nkrumah, founder and first president of the modern Ghanaian state, was not only an African anti-colonial leader but also one with a dream of a united Africa which would not drift into neo-colonialism. He was the first African head of state to espouse Pan-Africanism, an idea he came into contact with during his studies at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania (United States), at the time when Marcus Garvey was becoming famous for his “Back to Africa Movement.” He merged the dreams of both Marcus Garvey and the celebrated African-American scholar W.E.B. Du Bois into the formation of the modern day Ghana.”

    Both Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois were communists. Du Bois was a member of Communist Party USA and heaped praise on Joesph Stalin. Garvey was also a devout racist who espoused no love for whites nor even blacks not of his own darkness of skin.

    Kwame Nkrumah, founder and first president of the modern Ghanaian state saw these men as his guidance and “merged their dreams”? Guess what that makes Kwame Nkrumah? Yup! A communist. And guess whom coined your “NeoColonialism”!

    Crumby, I know not if there is hope for you yet. Will you continue to look for excuses to prop up your socialist agenda? Or will you reanalyze your own views? I would think that this post should give you serious pause to reconsider the people and views you champion.

  91. In response to:

    “I brought up neocolonialism in the first place to illustrate a point. The point is that capitalist exploitation certainly does exist in this world, and it can be very, very severe. I don’t know if it’s necessarily exploitive in every situation. Adam Smith doesn’t think so, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 12:19 pm”

    Crumby, you use the words “exploitive”, “exploit”, “exploiting”, and “exploitation” as though they are dirty words with willful and wanton harm intended. To exploit means simply *to make use of*.

    If I said “I was going to exploit my own talents to fix my car” does that mean I intend to harm myself?
    (Note: does not include skinned knuckles from slipping off a wrench.)

    If I hired you to do a job and I said I intend to exploit your talents to accomplish a task does that mean I’ve harmed you?

    Adam Smith had the same socialist tendencies that you espouse, and with the same end results as others had he succeeded in promoting them. Why is it you can’t see the ends of such efforts?

    This fantasy might look good to you on paper, but denying it’s a fantasy world will serve no one. Over 200 years ago the founders of this country recognized it for the fantasy it is and the violence it creates. Countless millions have died in the last 100 years in attempts to use such a fantasy and still counting today. When rights are thrown out by any form of government that government will not stand. History is replete with this. “NeoColonialism” is but another word in a long list of the same to promote socialism. In general the form is communism as an end goal. How many times and how many ways can you be shown this for what it is and still go on in a state of denial?
    Cont.,

  92. cont.,

    If you can’t tell the difference between an economic system that is the only one to work with the private ownership of property and protection of rights versus the acts of individuals of unscrupulous methods there is something wrong.

    Further, there is nothing unscrupulous about an individual who takes the financial risks associated with starting a business and going some place to start that business were the labor is cheaper in order to get the most from his business. In doing so he raises the standard of living for the people he employs and for the surrounding area.

    If that business doesn’t show up there is no business for those people to have jobs nor raise their standard of living.

    The businessman who does this has to risk a great deal of money and he can lose every penny of it the same as he can succeed. Whether he made the money from growing a business from a one man owner/operator company and then grew it to employ others or if he borrowed the money makes no odds. He’s not evil nor unjust, nor unfair just because of the money and he is obliged in no way to give his profits to anyone. He took the risk. Had he failed instead would all of the employees be obligated to give him everything he lost? Not hardly.

  93. In response to:

    “Even though it monetizes knowledge, capitalism still does not create material wealth. It shifts it around, and always has, going back to Columbus. Plantations still exist; virtual slavery still exists in conditions of extreme poverty; the resource wealth of Africa is still exploited by foreign countries with no interest in leaving profits behind.

    It is very easy to make an argument that capitalism is theft along these lines. It is the locals who work the land, who mine the ore, who run the factories, but who profits from their sweat and blood? The capitalists, who do no work, take all the profits simply because they own capital. Did they earn it? Did they work hard to create it? How you answer these questions depends on your attitude towards capitalism. I can guess what your answer will be, though.

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pm”

    Crumby, if I developed a peice of machinery, financed the mass production in a U.S. bank, mass produced it in Kenya thereby employing Kenyan’s, sold it throughout the world, that allowed people who bought it to always find their lost dog or cat with the press of a button please explain how such a device would only shift profits around and is not the creation of wealth.

  94. In response to:

    “So, the same way you call taxation theft, a critic of capitalism can call capitalism theft. How do you decide which is correct? Can they both be?

    By: crumbunist on November 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pm”

    Neither is correct and the condemnation of capitalism would be a lie. Capitalism has already raised the living standards of people all over the world even in places that don’t support capitalism and is far superior over socialist plans where not only have they not succeded in raising standards to as much of a degree, they have also found themselves in utter failures that impoverished masses and caused the deaths of millions. I’m surprised you missed that.

    Taxation is a given in regard to paying for a government and it’s legitimate functions, but a graduated income tax is nothing like an impost or excise tax and is theft.

  95. “neocolonialism”, suggests a nation being behind an evil intent.

    No it doesn’t. Clearly you did not read into it at all, nor did you read my actual post, which specifically denies allegations of malice or ‘evil’. Neocolonialism is critical of the corporations and the government policies that enable corporate exploitation on a large scale.

    Neocolonialism is not the same as the imperial colonialism. It is more like the old form of colonialism, with corporate entities such as the Virginia Company, the British East India Company, and the Dutch East India Company [which still operates as Shell today].

    “with the blessing of the governments involved as well as the people”
    Free trade agreements, tariff alterations and economic conditions and special permits are required on the part of the local government if they hope to receive World Bank aid. The World Bank and IMF set out “development goals” that tell the borrowing nation exactly what to do to develop their economy, but all it does is enable Western companies to come in and effectively plunder the nation, giving little to nothing in return.

    Your ignorance is inexcusable, as you have outright denied your willingness to read anything about neocolonialism because of purely ideological reasons.

  96. As I have said already, someone being a “communist” [read: Marxist] does not make them completely wrong in every case, always, no exceptions. You should criticize the argument, not the person. Of course, you refuse to inform yourself on the argument before you dismiss it.

    I am aware of the many meanings of exploit. I used it in this example not because it sounds bad, but because it is exactly what I meant. I don’t think it’s really humanizing to make use of someone solely for your benefit, do you? The problem is that this is not an exchange between equals, it’s the utilization of other human beings as objects for accumulating wealth for others.

    Adam Smith was a socialist? Really? The man who articulated liberal economics and the Invisible Hand of the market?

    The standard of living does not rise when large corporations move into poor countries to set up shop. In developed countries, sure, they have healthy competition for labourers and they have minimum wage laws. In Thailand and China and others, certainly not. It’s slave labour.

    “please explain how such a device would only shift profits around and is not the creation of wealth.”

    Because their money doesn’t come from nowhere. This machine would also be a piece of knowledge wealth combined with a piece of material wealth in the form of plastic and metal. I already said that knowledge wealth can be created.

    You are obviously very ignorant of the realities of human exploitation, poverty, government corruption, debt, and market domination in this world. And you’re clearly not going to change your mind, because that would disagree with your ideology [anyone who thinks capitalism is flawed is a communist and therefore always wrong!!!].

  97. In response to:

    ““neocolonialism”, suggests a nation being behind an evil intent.

    No it doesn’t. Clearly you did not read into it at all, nor did you read my actual post, which specifically denies allegations of malice or ‘evil’. Neocolonialism is critical of the corporations and the government policies that enable corporate exploitation on a large scale.”

    Your own earlier comments do not go with what you just stated above. You attack capitalism as somehow evil as an “exploitation” and “theft”. You charge that your “NeoColonialism” is capitalism (a financial system) and promote socialism (a form of government) as the cure without mentioning that what you are trying to suggest is overthrow of our Constitutional Republic in favor of socialism via condemnation of capitalism knowing full well that this form of government cannot exist under socialist terms and without a capitalist economy.

    You’ve attempted to play me for the fool with your comments and I would be insulted except your agenda has been so obvious from the start that even a blind man could see through you and your words by merely placing his fingers on the monitor screen without the benefit of brail!

    You ignore the fact that I post your entire quote before commenting on it. You make ridiculous, sometimes outrageous, claims. Your heroes are communists, communist sympathizers, and fascists, as I have so diligently showed here on this forum. You ignore the millions of people who were murdered for these socialist ventures. You jump the gun and incorrectly tried to suggest I was ignorant and after having showed you the proof and quotes from the sources, some that even you provided, and still you cannot admit of being wrong.

    Cont;.

  98. Cont,’
    In response to:

    ““neocolonialism”, suggests a nation being behind an evil intent.

    Crumby, I have read every last word you have posted and many, many times, over. I have read the articles and sources you have posted links to in your effort to try to back up your comments. I have posted here on this forum by copy/paste from the very sources you tried to cite as proof of your arguments only to find they hanged your argument instead.

    You have attempted to use every socialist source you can find, argued in favor of government control over everything financial, denied that the wave of capitalism floats all boats in spite of an entire world to show for it, and finally you make excuses for socialist dictators whose iron fist over the people do not allow the people to have a piece of the action from capitalism’s free trade by calling it a socialist created name of “NeoColonialism”. That too I showed for the source of and still you deny it, or ignore it, in spite of their own views being extremely accessible and very public.

    One very important detail you seem to have forgotten is that every word you and I both have posted here is still available for public view and review. If you wish to continue publicly embarrassing yourself by all means please continue to do so.

  99. Cont,’
    In response to:

    ““neocolonialism”, suggests a nation being behind an evil intent.

    Neocolonialism is not the same as the imperial colonialism. It is more like the old form of colonialism, with corporate entities such as the Virginia Company, the British East India Company, and the Dutch East India Company [which still operates as Shell today]. ”

    “with the blessing of the governments involved as well as the people”
    Free trade agreements, tariff alterations and economic conditions and special permits are required on the part of the local government if they hope to receive World Bank aid. The World Bank and IMF set out “development goals” that tell the borrowing nation exactly what to do to develop their economy, but all it does is enable Western companies to come in and effectively plunder the nation, giving little to nothing in return. ”

    So now you wish to argue the International Monetary fund and the World Bank?

    I have to wonder what stops any LOCAL entrepreneur from starting his own business. People do start out as a single individual, Owner/Operator, and build a company from the ground up. Economies are traditionally built and expanded in this way from the beginning of time. If the ability to do so doesn’t exist there has to be a reason for it. You don’t need the IMF, world bank, or any loan to do this. Simply ply your physical labor and build from there. It is the normal way of doing things.

    As for your IMF and World Bank argument, I seem to recall that recently many great indebtedness problems were “forgiven” by the these entities. In fact President George W. Bush had a hand in this. Making the world into a welfare state doesn’t seem to me to be the way to go and those were U.S. tax dollars that were lost. The process of incurring that debt was an interesting issue as well. Governments taking out loans they can’t repay? This wasn’t companies doing that. And those same governments in a number of cases were brutal communist……..

  100. Cont.,

    Cont,’
    brutal communist dictatorships and are still fighting today. In other cases attempted communist overthrow has resulted in the inability for anyone to prosper.

    Personally, I would not take the risk of starting a company in such places because the likes of people such as Chavez would steal it from me at the earliest chance and then murder me and anyone else who dared oppose them. In fact, most of what you cite and argue, correct me if I’m wrong, seems to be linked to the African continent. That continents history is replete with such problems. The U.S. pours foreign aid into it for decades, my tax dollars, as grants to the tune of billions of dollars every year, yet there is little improvement if any because of the very communist dictators there steal it for themselves if you don’t support them. Are you suggesting that a foreign business up start in Africa is somehow supposed to give the profits of their risk taking as some sort of grant to the people or the government? If so, what would be the point in even taking the risk?

  101. Cont.,

    If so, what would be the point in even taking the risk? For companies to try to exist under such circumstances there has to be enough gain from the risk so as to make it worthwhile. The security costs are astronomical and corruption is the common order of business from the government. Business up starts either comply or don’t exist.

    You can’t blame the IMF or World Bank for that nor the companies that at least try to give it a go because those companies try to help in part at the behest of the free governments who are trying to help.

    In attempting to use capitalism as a tool, in theory if the success of capitalism is seen first hand by all, those inclined to use corruption and socialist ways will stand down and reap the benefits of all having prospered. Unfortunately the theory often doesn’t work because those in power wish to remain so and others want to take power for themselves. As a result the fighting goes on until there is nothing left and I have constantly stated to others that such efforts, while filled with good intentions, only prolong the inevitable.

  102. No, I said that capitalism is not inherently exploitive of people. I said that its application in trade between widely disparate parties leads to exploitation by one party of the other.

    I also did not promote socialism; you are assuming that anyone critical of capitalism must want to remove it entirely, and that the only alternative is socialism.

    You did not offer any quotes, contrary to your claim, and that TIME article and the wiki article that I referred to do not ‘hang’ my argument in any way. You are arguing something completely different, something to do with Clinton and something to do with communists, which is irrelevant to whether or not neocolonial theory is valid.

    When did TIME magazine and wikipedia become socialist sources?

    Local businesses do exist in poor countries. They have existed for many years. But they are not capable of directly competing with Western and Chinese manufacturers. The industrial powers can produce much more of an product, much cheaper. Without the protection of import tariffs, local businesses are unable to compete with superior manufacturing capacity and the greater subsidy power of the United States and other powerful countries. Far from encouraging the growth of entrepreneurship and business in poor countries, free trade forces them to compete directly with a much superior producer, which they cannot keep up or long, if at all.

    Countries take out World Bank and IMF loans because they have no other choice. Great poverty prevents them from accumulating much in the way of tax dollars, and then they cannot develop their infrastructure, and cannot develop their economy. If they want to develop, they need outside assistance. And that assistance comes with conditions that may be intended to help growth, but which actually limit that country’s ability to grow, and traps them with rising debt.

    Most of those countries were never communist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Communist_countries.PNG

  103. Why take the risk? Countries are not in business to make a profit. They cannot bail out when things get bad. A country is made up of people with needs and skills and resources, and the goal of the state is to serve those people through whatever means are deemed appropriate.

    Does corruption not exist in capitalist organizations?

    The ways that companies set up shop in other countries is to literally set up sweatshops. The factories they set up are generally in “free economic zones,” which are not taxed. The workers are required to fill high quotas if they expect their pay, their pay is very little, and sometimes it is withheld in full or in part. Why do companies take the risk to set up in such dangerous countries? Because once they pay for security walls and guards, they get labour for nearly free. This system does not enrich anyone except the companies that set up. Low wages and little to no taxes are the primary reasons to set up in a developing country. It’s so cheap that they can afford to ship things in and out and still reap an enormous profit. And they are really not as dangerous for the companies as you act. Corrupt governments collaborate with the companies but are not concerned with their citizens. Government protection and inexpensive concrete and security labour makes it more profitable to operate a virtual slave plantation than an American factory with unions and taxes and respect for the workers.

  104. Ironically, you may have sunk your own argument by providing the key factor of neocolonialism.

    Companies take the ‘risk’ in these countries because security labour and factory labour are so cheap that even after paying everyone [or not] and shipping goods in and out of the country, there is a massive profit to be made. These companies pay very little to the workers and possibly less to the government in the form of taxes. They also employ the Iron Law of Wages: there is always somebody willing to do your work for less money than you are. When workers at the Kingston Free Zone in Jamaica demanded their pay [two weeks late], they were replaced by imported Chinese labourers. Their labour was so cheap that the manufacturer could afford to import people and still end up spending less than if they had used the local Jamaican labour. Not only that, but any benefits to the local economy were lost because there was no longer any tax or paycheck money flowing into the country from the Free Zone.

    The reason people work at those free zones in the first place is because there is nowhere in the country that they can make an equal or greater wage. Local businesses are unable to compete with foreign ones under a free trade regime. The local government cannot afford to spend as much money on subsidies as developed countries. Their manufacturing methods are not as cheap and productive as the developing countries. They lack the resources to invest in large-scale manufacturing equipment. They lack the incredibly cheap labour that the developed nations’ companies use. They simply cannot compete and cannot succeed when foreign goods can enter the country without having to pay a tariff. Local businesses cannot thrive, and cannot employ people at decent wages if they try to compete.

    Most educated people leave [Brain Drain] for wealthier countries in order to apply their knowledge, because there is no way for them to do it at home and succeed.

  105. With the country so impoverished, the government often lacks the necessary funds to develop economic, education, healthcare infrastructure etc. They have to go to foreign countries to get loans, and they have to go through the World Bank or IMF. These loans only come with conditions, that usually include removal of tariffs, and designation or even construction of free economic zones. The logic behind the IMF/WB on this is that

    1) Lower taxes encourage businesses to open factories in your country

    2) Free trade is fair

    But if the businesses that come do not leave any economic benefit, and free trade leaves you unable to compete with foreigners in your own local market, then how are you expected to develop with these restrictions? Another requirement is frequently that the borrower must devalue their currency. The logic behind this is that it encourages foreigners to invest in your country. But foreign investment is in enterprises that do not benefit the country, and those international loans must be repaid in whatever currency you borrowed. If you devalue your own currency, it becomes that much more expensive to buy the foreign reserves necessary to repay the loan. And these loans are often at exorbitant interest rates – up to 22% or more. How is an impoverished, undeveloped country that is dependent on slave labour and unable to compete in its own market, much less the world market, supposed to repay these loans? Despite what the lenders may think, their policies destroy the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and indenture them to the whims of foreign companies.

  106. And it’s probably not done maliciously. The US and other countries are not trying to lose money; they loan instead of donate because they want it back. When the IMF/WB has to forgive debts, it’s because these countries have proven incapable of repaying it, because the policies set by the IMF/WB have made them so. The US is not trying to lose taxpayer dollars, but it is because the companies moving into these countries are exploiting the IMF policies and exploiting workers and exploiting their market advantages in such unscrupulous and unfair ways that they undermine the entire scheme.

    Unless you think that the Iron Law of Wages is fair to workers. Or you think that free trade equals fair trade. Or you think that profit should come at the expense of national livelihood. Then this whole thing is just fine!

  107. In response to:

    “No, I said that capitalism is not inherently exploitive of people. I said that its application in trade between widely disparate parties leads to exploitation by one party of the other.

    I also did not promote socialism; you are assuming that anyone critical of capitalism must want to remove it entirely, and that the only alternative is socialism.”

    Crumby, you cite sources for your arguments from people who are devout socialists, especially communist, even members of the communist party, and then claim you are not promoting socialism. Now do you really think no one else is reading this forum? Your posts are here in print. Shall I repost your own statements in this very forum and the research that showed who these hero’s of yours are?

  108. I am supporting their positions on the flaws of capitalism, not their proposed solutions for it.

  109. In response to:

    “You did not offer any quotes, contrary to your claim, and that TIME article and the wiki article that I referred to do not ‘hang’ my argument in any way. You are arguing something completely different, something to do with Clinton and something to do with communists, which is irrelevant to whether or not neocolonial theory is valid.

    When did TIME magazine and wikipedia become socialist sources?

    By: crumbunist on November 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm”

    When has Time magazine NOT been a socialist source would be easier to answer. Time’s cover for “Man of the Year” has often been a joke and celebrating the likes of Arafat as well as various communist and military dictatorship figures over the years is not what I call positive for capitalism, rights, and especially freedom.

    As for wiki, I find it utterly impossible, if you read anything at all of news, to not know that wiki has been the subject of countless attacks by socialist agenda to rewrite history. The number one complaint is the ability of anyone to write anything they so desire without accreditation for the material and leftist slants inserted into everything deemed political. Even the press has been forced to acknowledge this after that information became wide spread across the Internet. Just go take a look at the bio on Joseph McCarthy. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Look up Alger Hiss. The soft peddling of a traitor is incredible!

    As for the accusation: “You did not offer any quotes, contrary to your claim, and that TIME article and the wiki article that I referred to do not ‘hang’ my argument in any way.”

    Stay tuned. This should be fun.

  110. In response to:

    “You did not offer any quotes, contrary to your claim, and that TIME article and the wiki article that I referred to do not ‘hang’ my argument in any way. You are arguing something completely different, something to do with Clinton and something to do with communists, which is irrelevant to whether or not neocolonial theory is valid.

    Crumby, it has occurred to me that the only way I can think of thus far to expose to yourself just how ridiculous your statements are is to copy/paste the very things you claim I never posted, straight from this page, this column. If being publicly humiliated is what you seek then pay close attention.

    From your post, Crumby:

    “Thanks for putting words in my mouth. No, I do not support Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist Socialism. I support the type of socialism that is used by the developed Western nations, ………”

    By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am

    I guess that won’t wash well with your latest claim of not supporting socialism. It’s your own words. Read them again. I await the *ya, but*.

    Remember this one, Crumby? How does this work with your later claim of:

    “I also did not promote socialism; you are assuming that anyone critical of capitalism must want to remove it entirely, and that the only alternative is socialism.

    By: crumbunist on November 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm”

    Twice before I have mentioned that some will claim the purity of Marx has never been tried, yes the same Marx who is the father of socialism. Each time they will tell us that it could have worked, but this or that has to be tweaked. This time it is different. Each time they will tell us that it’s not the same, give it a different name, condemn all that oppose with the very same words they used the last time, and yet the end goal and the end result is the same. Enslavement and dictatorship. Those who buy into such poison end up impoverished, enslaved, revolution after revolution, disease, starvation, ext……..

    Rights, Liberty, Freedom, need not apply.

    Now the creeping socialist version is upon us once again and look what has happened to the world economy. 85% of nations around the world have taken on socialist ways to one degree or another. Some hard core communist and some hardcore fascist as well. How many of them send foreign aid to the U.S.? Instead they try to blame the U.S. for all of their woes and frankly I’m at a point of saying enough is enough. Charity starts at home. No more foreign aid of any kind. Fend for yourselves. Don’t call us, we’ll call you. The only exception would be Israel and possibly Britain if war broke out and they were in danger of being overrun.

  111. Since both Crumby and Lefty espouse similar vein I responded with this:

    “As to your view of Democracy I’ll defer this one to the experts.

    “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    By: John Campbell on November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am”

    That quote I pasted here was from FEDERALIST PAPERS #10, the founding fathers of this nation. They already had experienced what you are trying to promote and didn’t abbreviate in their views of the results of such an experience. Are you now smarter than this nations founders? Do you dislike our form of government?

  112. I later posted a reply that contained your own copy/paste of your own post:

    “In response to:

    “By: crumbunist on November 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am

    Obama IS going to “toe the line” because he’s not a communist or a fascist. Modern ’socialism’ is just welfare statism, and that is what he will continue to pursue in all likelihood. Any fears that he’ll be a Maoist totalitarian are baseless and exaggerated.

    Your lack of understanding of global forces does not disprove my argument. The United States is a NEOcolonial power, just like Japan, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the other developed nations. And America still has colonies left over from the previous imperial era”

    Remember this one, Crumby? How does this work with your later claim of:

    “I also did not promote socialism; you are assuming that anyone critical of capitalism must want to remove it entirely, and that the only alternative is socialism.

    By: crumbunist on November 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm”

    Maybe I missed something, but I can’t find those “colonies” for which you claim “America still has colonies left over from the previous imperial era”. I’d really like to know about these colonies that you claim America set up.

    Either you support socialist ways or you don’t. It’s not that difficult to differentiate them. In fact this raises one of two possibilities. Either you are totally ignorant of what socialism is or you’re an agent of such attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of others. I suspect the former and pray it is not the latter.

    Have you actually read the news from Europe? They are in worse shape than we are and thanks to their socialist ways as well. Would you like me to quote the news media for this? Or can you do your own research?

  113. TIME’s man of the year award is given based on who makes the most news. Thus, Hitler, Arafat, Bill Gates etc.

    Wiki also had a scandal where employees of the Bush administration were altering pages to be easy on the government and its interests. It can be biased any way, and I only use it as an easy reference point since it collects general data in an easy to read location.

    I do not promote the socialism you’re criticising, which excludes “rights, capitalism, freedom” etc. I am in support of Western-style welfare statism. I hope that is clear enough.

    I don’t know what the failure of Marxist revolutions has to do with the criticism of capitalism. As I said, the solutions proposed by Marxists are not what I am supporting, but the criticisms of capitalism.

    The founding fathers went through the Cold War and communism?

    America siezed Puerto Rico and Guam from the Spanish in 1898, and they are still not incorporated as states or given full representation/self government. Hawaii was also colonized by America, but was granted statehood. In fact, the entirety of America is colonial, 13 Colonies ring a bell? Or the pursuit and persecution of natives across the west?

    In any case, you have not responded to my criticisms. Now that I’ve clarified my statements, maybe we can get on with this?

    Oh, right, I almost forgot.

    Adam Smith was a socialist? Really?

  114. In response to:

    “I do not promote the socialism you’re criticising, which excludes “rights, capitalism, freedom” etc. I am in support of Western-style welfare statism. I hope that is clear enough.”

    A.K.A. socialism

    “I don’t know what the failure of Marxist revolutions has to do with the criticism of capitalism. As I said, the solutions proposed by Marxists are not what I am supporting, but the criticisms of capitalism.”

    One is a form of government, the other an economic system. Between them they are incompatible. The rest is a result of trying to make them compatible.

    “The founding fathers went through the Cold War and communism?”

    The founders witnessed similar efforts of socialist design before it was labeled socialism.

    “America siezed Puerto Rico and Guam from the Spanish in 1898, and they are still not incorporated as states or given full representation/self government. Hawaii was also colonized by America, but was granted statehood. In fact, the entirety of America is colonial, 13 Colonies ring a bell? Or the pursuit and persecution of natives across the west?”

    Puerto Rico and Guam are not colonies. Hawaii chose statehood. Puerto Rico and Guam have held votes for independence and have voted to remain a territory. The are free to join the Union, leave their territory status or remain such.

    “In any case, you have not responded to my criticisms. Now that I’ve clarified my statements, maybe we can get on with this?”

    I have responded and laid waste to your “criticisms”. As I said before go back and read the posts. It does no good to repeat the same thing over and over again only to have you repeat the same nonsense later as though it never was addressed.

    “Oh, right, I almost forgot.

    Adam Smith was a socialist? Really?”

    No, Adam Smith has the same socialist tendencies you do. You have even admitted your own views in this and I have quoted your own words. What’s the point in doing so again?

    By: crumbunist on November 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  115. In response to:

    “Hey crumbunist and John Campbell why don’t you guys get a room?

    By: John Adams on November 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm”

    Sorry for the intrusion.

  116. There’s really no point in going on. You have very narrow views and definitions of almost everything, and it’s fruitless to argue.

  117. Let’s review what we’ve learned from this website!

    The poor do not deserve aid because they need it the most.

    The only reason people are poor is because they are lazy.

    But, success does not come from the bottom up, but from the top down, from CEOs to workers.

    But, if you have a good business idea, you can get up from the bottom no matter how few resources you have to get it off the ground.

    But, education is invalid as a source of ideas because it’s all liberal indoctrination and lies.

    The problem with welfare isnt the tiny fraction of taxpayer money it spends, but the fact that all people on welfare are forced by the government to become dependent on it.

    This isn’t an altruistic worry, but a purely selfish one. I do not want my tax dollars going to people who are universally lazy, greedy, and undeserving of any money whatsoever. Because all people on welfare are the scum of society that contribute nothing and stay on welfare because it’s easier than working.

    The scientific research and evidence says the exact opposite, but it cannot be true because all scientists are self-interested and just trying to get money for their next research project – apparently scientific research is only done in order to get more money for more scientific research, and none of it is valid except that which supports my view.

    All scientists are also educated and therefore socialists and wrong about anything. Except the ones who support my view, they are the “lucky exceptions” that do not at all disprove that education is indoctrination!

    The only thing that can be trusted in the free market is common sense, because education is never right or useful in business.

    CEOs deserve every penny they get because they are given it.

    The free market is the only fair way to determine value. This is why every good idea is always a massive success, and there is no corporate hierarchy or barriers to access in the market.

    Anyone who criticises capitalism in any capacity is a socialist.

  118. Anyone who supports welfare is a socialist.

    Supporting welfare is just as bad as being a mass murderer.

    Obama’s supporters are not only all socialists, but spearchuckers too.

    Socialists and supporters of the welfare state do not believe what they do because they want to help people. If they did, they’d believe in the free market, because the free market is perfect and has already solved the problems that socialists address.

    If someone cannot succeed in a perfect system like free market capitalism, then they do not deserve to succeed. And if they do not succeed, it must be because they are lazy and stupid. And if they are lazy and stupid, then they do not deserve assistance from the government or the people. And if they do not deserve success or assistance, then they deserve poverty and death.

    Socialists are not interested in helping others, but in helping themselves. They only support socialism because they are jealous of capitalists and want to steal their money. Even if these socialists are well off already, and are part of a hard-working, entrepreneurial middle class.

    There is no such thing as altruism, not even in a family. Everyone is only in it for personal gain.

    This is a just and fair system and it is the only morally right and perfect value system.

    The government and public service can never be trusted to serve the interests of the people because they are purely self interested. Welfare systems are corrupt and do not work because a fundamental flaw of all bureaucracy is that all bureaucrats only want more for themselves, because all people only want more for themselves, and never, ever want to help others.

    But you can trust the Republicans.

  119. Short version

    There is no such thing as altruism. All people are solely motivated by their own gain. Therefore, the free market is perfect and should be applied not just to business, but everything in society.

    The poor deserve their poverty and should not be helped. This is morally just.

    Because everything in society operates on selfish free market principles, you cannot trust anybody to do anything honestly. It’s all done just to get themselves more money and power.

    But, you can trust the Republicans.

  120. How did I forget the key to it all

    Anyone who opposes these universal truths is a mass murdering, genocidal, dictatorial, freedom hating, America hating, commie fascist nazi racist Marxist socialist that only cares about their own power. Which is just and fair in a free market system. Unless they try to take MY money away and give it to Obama’s spearchuckers.

  121. “I am always amazed at the debate about poverty, with one side cititng the need for changes in personal behaviors and the other for better social programs, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Obviously, both personal and social resposibility are necessary for overcoming poverty. When this absurd bifurcation is offered by ideological partisans on either side, I am quickly convinced that both sides must never have lived or worked anywhere near poverty or poor people. That there are behaviors that further entrench and even cause poverty is indipsutable, as is the undeniable power of systems and structures to institutionalize injustice and oppression. Together, personal and social responsibility creates the common good.” –Jim Wallis

Comments are closed.