Split Thread Conservative Voices (Split from Muller Investigation)

[Belz...]

You could make a fair to decent argument that a balanced, vague "Sorta socialist on some of the big things, mostly capitalist on most of the small things" has become the unofficial official way for any country that isn't an extreme isolationist.

"Mostly Capitalist, Sorta Socialist" would be really nice on a national coat of arms.

 

[lomiller]

So major American corporations are forced to bid on these project at gun point? And they lose money in this obligation?

Irrelevant. The criteria of many buyers and many sellers has already been violated so the real market will not function as an idealized free market would.

 

[acbytesla]

On that note: how do you feel about a nationalized universal basic income program? How do you feel about capitalism?

It is fairly accurate until it calls it synonymous with “leftism” or “welfareism” which have little to do with social ownership of economic infrastructure.

More importantly it just doesn’t describe Democratic policy which generally seeks to address market failures and optimize market efficiency. Contrary to typical Fox news claims this type of policy falls firmly in free market territory, in fact it can’t be anything else since market failure and market efficiency are outgrowth of free market theory.

There are potential advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed against each other and this is impossible without a fully fleshed out description of the program and how it would fit into the current economy. Absolute support or opposition based on such an oversimplified description would be wrong.

I’m a supporter of free markets but I recognise and accept the reality of market failures. I also recognise and accept the reality of government failures and think the best approach is to balance actions to address market failures with the possibility of government failures as best as possible with the aim of maximizing overall market efficiency.

River made a huge mistake using a dictionary definition of socialism. Socialism is an all encompassing word that may have a general definition, but in practice is a set of widely varied policies. Nothing works as well as the free market. I'm personally against the UBI because I can't see how it can work in practice.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Nothing works as well as the free market.

as long as it is protected by a state with the rule of law

I'm personally against the UBI because I can't see how it can work in practice.

I agree that this is a big issue.

 

[Upchurch]

Nothing works as well as the free market.

Nothing works as well as the free market to do what?


eta: To expand a little, I think a government solely dedicated to, and centered around, capitalism is just as bad as a government solely dedicated to, and centered around socialism. A capitalist approach is better for handling some things. A socialist approach is better for handling other things. I don't want my first responders to be a capitalist system, for example. There is probably an optimum mix of the two, but I won't claim to know exactly what that mix is.

 

[kellyb]

Linky?

And thank you for your answer above.

No problem.

It's a thread with thousands of posts, but this starts on the second to last page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330639&page=36

You can also read Rolfe's posts in the thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=4554315

And there are other people with views similar to yours. It's a "very spirited debate", but it's definitely not an echo chamber. It is not atheism+. LOL

 

[lomiller]

Another article of his that rings true to me:

https://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/

The moment required getting banks back on their feet and generally speaking it was Republicans that opposed doing so.

I think it’s true that those most responsible generally faced few repercussions while those most harmed received little assistance. IMO the blame for this falls largely on Republicans who thought letting the banking system fail was a legitimate option and wanted no action or bailout whatsoever. The compromise ended in assisting the banks and no one else, which was the absolute minimum required.

At some point I think Democrats need to stop playing into the game where Republican support the crazy road to disaster, Democrats support what should be done and the two meet in the middle and do either the barest minimum or less. The banking crisis, however, was NOT the time to do this.

 

[kellyb]

Sorry if this has been defined in the thread and I just missed it, but what is this exactly?

It goes by a few names, and there are a few different proposed versions of it, and its had advocates across the political spectrum over the years.

Milton Friedman (and a lot of libertarians) have proposed/advocated it under the name "negative income tax":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNffhKX4KC8

Here's the Nation's take on a UBI (universal basic income):
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-promise-of-a-universal-basic-income-and-its-limitations/

Another acronym it goes by is BIG - Basic Income Guarantee.

 

[acbytesla]

You could make a fair to decent argument that a balanced, vague "Sorta socialist on some of the big things, mostly capitalist on most of the small things" has become the unofficial official way for any country that isn't an extreme isolationist.

I think Dogma and all encompassing labels are crap. I care about one thing and one thing only. How to build the fairest most efficient society. And sometimes, one must be sacrificed for the other. I don't care if the rich get richer as long as the middle-class and poor do to.

I get just as angry, probably even more angry then any raging conservative at wasteful government spending. But I never see that as a justification to kill government spending. I would love to work with conservatives to make our government more efficient. The problem always seems they are only interested in doing that as a pretense to kill it entirely.

 

[kellyb]

The moment required getting banks back on their feet and generally speaking it was Republicans that opposed doing so.

I think it’s true that those most responsible generally faced few repercussions while those most harmed received little assistance. IMO the blame for this falls largely on Republicans who thought letting the banking system fail was a legitimate option and wanted no action or bailout whatsoever. The compromise ended in assisting the banks and no one else, which was the absolute minimum required.

At some point I think Democrats need to stop playing into the game where Republican support the crazy road to disaster, Democrats support what should be done and the two meet in the middle and do either the barest minimum or less. The banking crisis, however, was NOT the time to do this.

They could have bailed out or at least helped the homeowners, too.

The argument against that was..."moral hazard", not "we can't afford it".

Also a lot of crisis was a result of FRAUD. Criminal FRAUD. But Eric Holder argued that even investigating the crimes would harm the economy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html

“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Holder said, according to The Hill. “

 

[Belz...]

I think Dogma and all encompassing labels are crap. I care about one thing and one thing only. How to build the fairest most efficient society. And sometimes, one must be sacrificed for the other. I don't care if the rich get richer as long as the middle-class and poor do to.

And there's good reason for that, as well. A healthy middle class and reduced poor class is awesome for the economy.

 

[lomiller]

River made a huge mistake using a dictionary definition of socialism. Socialism is an all encompassing word that may have a general definition, but in practice is a set of widely varied policies. Nothing works as well as the free market. I'm personally against the UBI because I can't see how it can work in practice.

That depends on the specific market. In some cases, free markets don’t work at all, and in most others they don’t work well without at least some measures to address market failures. What tends to happen is Republicans call this type of measures Socialism. IOW in Republican speak any measure that to make free markets work as intended is “socialism” which I find highly contradictory.

Something to keep in mind is that if you are a wealthy, powerful, business owner the last thing you want is a truly free market. It may be fine for everyone else but the real money is made in monopolizing your market and offloading your costs onto someone other that you or your customers. This does not represent a properly functioning, efficient, free market.

 

[kellyb]

I'm personally against the UBI because I can't see how it can work in practice.

I'm not completely sure it can work. I do think it might be able to, tho. It's just been hard to get the discussion rolling when a lot of the loudest voices in the area where politics and economics intersect are still peddling "Austrian economics" woo.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Something to keep in mind is that if you are a wealthy, powerful, business owner the last thing you want is a truly free market. It may be fine for everyone else but the real money is made in monopolizing your market and offloading your costs onto someone other that you or your customers. This does not represent a properly functioning, efficient, free market.

hence the massive lobbying industry in the US, where the market consists of Senators instead of customers.

 

[kellyb]

There is probably an optimum mix of the two, but I won't claim to know exactly what that mix is.

I think you can probably look at the rest of the developed world, from Scandinavia to Canada and Oz, and say "the sweet spot" is "somewhere in there." LOL

 

[Elagabalus]

To be clear on my perception, it would appear that the shift went from critical thinking to more of an SJW feel here over the years.

Are you sure it's just not you migrating from the Bigfoot Section? There does seem to be a lot of Right Leaning ISFers participating in that section as compared to the ISF in general. I've noticed that they like to come down and snipe at the participants of the Politics Section on occasion.

 

[lomiller]

And there's good reason for that, as well. A healthy middle class and reduced poor class is awesome for the economy.

The last thing you want is to exclude people from the economy. It reduces how much “stuff” that can be produced which lowers overall standards of living. So does limiting where people can slot into the economy by creating a ridged socio-economic ladder. (and compared to most rich western “socialist” nations the US has less movement up and down the economic ladder) Ideally you want to grant people enough support that they can change their circumstances but not so much they have no need or desire to change anything.


Also, look again at the discussion in the last page or two between “liberals” and take note of how much difference there really is. I’ll say it again. This forum isn’t “mostly left leaning” it’s thoughtful people on both left and right that oppose what the Republican party has become.

 

[Belz...]

The last thing you want is to exclude people from the economy. It reduces how much “stuff” that can be produced which lowers overall standards of living. So does limiting where people can slot into the economy by creating a ridged socio-economic ladder. (and compared to most rich western “socialist” nations the US has less movement up and down the economic ladder) Ideally you want to grant people enough support that they can change their circumstances but not so much they have no need or desire to change anything.

Well, I certainly didn't suggest otherwise. I was refering to a system limiting poverty and encouraging a middle class, not one that enforced them.

 

[River]

I'm curious to hear some of the posters reading this opinions on Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch. Do you like what Judicial Watch does?

 

[Upchurch]

I think you can probably look at the rest of the developed world, from Scandinavia to Canada and Oz, and say "the sweet spot" is "somewhere in there.

Maybe. I'm no economist/political scientist and I recognize that the details very quickly get lost on me the more I dig into it.

I do know that there are aspects of our society that we should most definitely share the burden on and some aspects that we should not.