Communists' ranks swell as Japanese economy tanks

[Jimaz]

With all the recently contrived hyperbole about communist socialist nazi extraterrestrial liberals, this article from today's Free Press caught my eye: Communists' ranks swell as Japanese economy tanks (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009904190478).
TOKYO -- Under a big red flag, the headquarters of the Communist Party of Japan are the center of the most vibrant grassroots movement in the country. The party's ranks are swelling, it has 24,000 branch offices and more than 1 million people read its newspaper. Only one party -- the one that runs the country -- beats it at fund-raising....Maybe there's some conspiracy theory out there explaining why neocon new-world-order policies were intended to have this effect?

[ccbatson]

Same issue as here...uninformed and unhappy liberals in the populace being fooled into believing that more of the cause is a solution to itself. Communism being a more extreme form of socialism...which is the bane of their (and becoming our) economies' existence.

[d.mcc]

Same issue as here...uninformed and unhappy liberals in the populace being fooled into believing that more of the cause is a solution to itself. Communism being a more extreme form of socialism...which is the bane of their (and becoming our) economies' existence.

Can you even explain why communism is bad? Is Jesus bad???

[CountrySquire]

Communism suffers from the same basic pitfall that Capitalism does. Corruption, when those in power manipulate the system so that only to a few will benefit. While millions of Russians stood in bread lines, the friends of the politiboro enjoyed comfortable lifestyles. In GWB's America while millions are out of work, a few lucky devils enjoy stock options and bonuses.

[ccbatson]

The premise of communism is to have central government supersede and oppress the individual for the claimed benefit of the collective (specifically, for the erroneously perceived formerly oppressed workers/proletariat).

The opposite of capitalism and systemically, as well as ideologically corrupt.

Is Jesus bad? Not entirely good, or entirely bad in my opinion. The collectivist elements are bad, but well intentioned...with the road to heck paved by good intentions.

[Detroit Stylin]

Is Jesus bad? Not entirely good, or entirely bad in my opinion. The collectivist elements are bad, but well intentioned...with the road to heck paved by good intentions.



GTF outta here....

[Flanders]

Same issue as here...uninformed and unhappy liberals in the populace being fooled into believing that more of the cause is a solution to itself. Communism being a more extreme form of socialism...which is the bane of their (and becoming our) economies' existence.

Funny how objectivists condemn liberals as socialists, all the while championing global corporate capitalism that now exploits the labor of communists, and fooling the ignorant and selfish middle-class conservatives in the populace into believing that tax cuts for the wealthy will still create and preserve jobs, when in fact they no longer do, in the face of continued offshoring and outsourcing, which is the bane of our economy's continued existence.

[ccbatson]

When/where did I endorse corporate socialism?

Tax cuts for everyone, not just wealthy, or poor.

Outsourcing results from anti free market liberal ideas such as bloated organized labor, and heavy business taxation...look in the mirror for the problem and solution both liberals.

[Flanders]

When/where did I endorse corporate socialism?

Tax cuts for everyone, not just wealthy, or poor.

Outsourcing results from anti free market liberal ideas such as bloated organized labor, and heavy business taxation...look in the mirror for the problem and solution both liberals.

Outsourcing and offshoring is the direct result of corporate greed, and since jobs that were never held by organized labor (ie white collar jobs) are vulnerable as well, your objectivist ideals fail miserably. Not to mention that the so called "heavy business taxation" is a myth, considering the US leaky tax code that permits business, both foreign and domestic, to avoid paying any federal taxes at all.

[ccbatson]

Objectivist ideals, even in the early industrial age, were never realized...we have always been no more than a mixed capitalist/socialist economy. On the other hand, if we were to approach that ideal, prosperity would be unprecedented.

[Flanders]

Objectivist ideals, even in the early industrial age, were never realized...we have always been no more than a mixed capitalist/socialist economy. On the other hand, if we were to approach that ideal, prosperity would be unprecedented.

Greed and exploitation created the need for organized labor in the early industrial age, else they would not have flourished. Now to avoid "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay", corporate capitalists have resorted to outsourcing and offshoring US jobs to communist and repressive nations, regardless of whether those jobs were formerly held by union labor or not. Prosperity for most can only be achieved through fair trade, regulation, and laws.

[Detroitej72]

Objectivist ideals, even in the early industrial age, were never realized...we have always been no more than a mixed capitalist/socialist economy. On the other hand, if we were to approach that ideal, prosperity would be unprecedented.

Show me one example and I don't mean some dime novel from an average writer, I want to see a real live country where it has been proven to work in principle.

[rb336]

Objectivist ideals, even in the early industrial age, were never realized...we have always been no more than a mixed capitalist/socialist economy. On the other hand, if we were to approach that ideal, prosperity would be unprecedented.

the same, Bats, can be said of Communist and Socialist ideals. the so-called communist states were in no way whatsoever communist -- they were essentially oligarchies where a party structure replaced the feudal structure. absolutely zero worker control of the means of production.

There is no hint at all that anything Randians call for would be beneficial for the vast majority of people, only for a tiny minority who would continue to consolidate wealth and power until we have a defacto return to feudalism under the guise of laissez faire capitalism

[Det_ard]

There is no hint at all that anything Randians call for would be beneficial for the vast majority of people, only for a tiny minority who would continue to consolidate wealth and power until we have a defacto return to feudalism under the guise of laissez faire capitalism

Yet even with the global economic mess we're currently in, more people have been lifted out of subsistence poverty by global capitalism in the last ten years than were ever helped by communism.

Only the wealthy benefit? Tell that to a half-billion people in China and India who are now part of their county's middle class. Would you sacrifice their improvement in living standards in order to take a small number of wealthy people down a few pegs? That's not compassion, that's spiteful vengeance.

[rb336]

Yet even with the global economic mess we're currently in, more people have been lifted out of subsistence poverty by global capitalism in the last ten years than were ever helped by communism.

Only the wealthy benefit? Tell that to a half-billion people in China and India who are now part of their county's middle class. Would you sacrifice their improvement in living standards in order to take a small number of wealthy people down a few pegs? That's not compassion, that's spiteful vengeance.

capitalism and randian philosophy are NOT the same thing, although rand cultists like to pretend they are

[Det_ard]

capitalism and randian philosophy are NOT the same thing, although rand cultists like to pretend they are
True, though there are of course vast overlaps between the two. Your criticism of Randianism

There is no hint at all that anything Randians call for would be beneficial for the vast majority of people, only for a tiny minority who would continue to consolidate wealth and power until we have a defacto return to feudalism under the guise of laissez faire capitalism

is similar to criticisms of global free market capitalism. Despite its imperfections global free market capitalism has done more good for more people than any other system or any other efforts by well-intentioned NGOs.

[rb336]

True, though there are of course vast overlaps between the two. Your criticism of Randianism


is similar to criticisms of global free market capitalism. Despite its imperfections global free market capitalism has done more good for more people than any other system or any other efforts by well-intentioned NGOs.

capitalism by and large is the best economic system we have ever come up with, BUT it must be a regulated capitalism or it will, as it has since the tulip bubble, create nasty situations as a result of its excesses. there is also a need to regulate worker safety, child labor, pollution, etc.

[ccbatson]

A simple intellectual exercise answers this debate. Without American capitalism, what would the world look like? Take any current measure of quality of life and trace the origins of any improvements back. Ultimately, the root will have been an idea, or an innovation born from the motivation of individuals inherent in a free market capitalist ideology.

[Detroitej72]

Problems with these two forms of governments:

Pure capitalism= Bad....you need some regulation, the foxes cannot be trusted to guard the henhouse, as has been proven.

Pure socialism= Bad... the government cannot be all things to all people and function efficiently.

Solution= take the best parts of capitalism and socialism. Its not perfect, but its the best solution we can come up with.

[ccbatson]

Pure capitalism has a great deal of regulation...laws (the enforcement and interpretation of them) to secure just and free trade between all parties.

Your move Detroitej72.

[Detroitej72]

And we see it worked so well with Enron, Qwest, etc.

Also, the current banking crisis was caused by not enough regulation and oversight.

[rb336]

Pure capitalism has a great deal of regulation...laws (the enforcement and interpretation of them) to secure just and free trade between all parties.

Your move Detroitej72.


it does? what regulation is that? the great invisible hand fairy?

[ccbatson]

I can't sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, can I?

Why not? Laws (AKA regulations).

[Detroitej72]

I accept your defeat, Bats.

[ccbatson]

Not enough regulation of the government (Freddie and Fannie) is what caused the current crisis.

[Detroitej72]

Try companies like AIG who screwd the whole system by dabbling in asorted ventures so that no-one actually could tell what was wrong.

You continue to offer Fanny & Freddy as the cause, but in truth, they were only a small part of the bigger picture. I guess the righty talking heads don't tell you that.

[rb336]

Not enough regulation of the government (Freddie and Fannie) is what caused the current crisis.

it cracks me up how bats keeps coming back to the same misinformation even after allllll those links in the old forum where even well-respected conservatives debunked the notion

[ccbatson]

Your tactic of revisionist history is not only old, but transparent. No such links to any credible source exists. On the other hand the transcripts and audio/video of Frank/Dodd/Clinton/Shumer, and others denying the problem, and McCain/Bush/Greenspan (and others) raising the concerns are very real indeed.

[rb336]

Your tactic of revisionist history is not only old, but transparent. No such links to any credible source exists. On the other hand the transcripts and audio/video of Frank/Dodd/Clinton/Shumer, and others denying the problem, and McCain/Bush/Greenspan (and others) raising the concerns are very real indeed.

bats, bats, bats. it is your team that is trying to revise history -- and most of the respected economists from your side agree with me on this and admit they were wrong to take deregulation so far. your chicago school has been thoroughly discredited here, so you have to scramble the facts, ignore the facts, or just plain make shit up to assuage your embarassement. it is so sad that all of your type who keep talking about "personal responsibility" are never willing to take responsibility when your dogmatic vision causes a semi-catastrophy like this supply-side induced economic crisis

[Flanders]

Yet even with the global economic mess we're currently in, more people have been lifted out of subsistence poverty by global capitalism in the last ten years than were ever helped by communism.

Only the wealthy benefit? Tell that to a half-billion people in China and India who are now part of their county's middle class. Would you sacrifice their improvement in living standards in order to take a small number of wealthy people down a few pegs? That's not compassion, that's spiteful vengeance.

Estimates of the amount of peasants in Communist China that have been lifted out of poverty from unbalanced trade with the US are approximately equal to the total population of the US, with a billion remaining. Chinese leaders have stated that they intend to improve the standard of living for the remaining billion, so maybe you can sacrifice YOUR job to help the cause. My wife has already sacrificed hers to India, when the company she worked for outsourced her job. Now she works PT for minimum wage and has no heath insurance, pension, or 401k.We did our part, albeit involuntarily.

What has China done to help stabilize the Middle East? They import most of their oil from Iran, and yet they commit zero troops and money, other than what the US has indirectly borrowed from them @ exorbitant interest rates to fund the invasion and occupation of Iraq. US troops blood has been spilled and not one drop of a Chinese soldier has. In essence our troops are defending India and China's unhindered access to crude oil there as well as our own. Our reward for paying taxes towards the ocean of red ink that is the federal debt, is to have our jobs outsourced and offshored by the global corporate capitalists, while our government does nothing to stem the tide.

[ccbatson]

"Most respected economists" Rb?? Could you think of a weaker response? More vague? More of an Ad Hominem? I can't

[rb336]

"Most respected economists" Rb?? Could you think of a weaker response? More vague? More of an Ad Hominem? I can't

and to whom, precisely, was the adhom directed? do you even know the meaning of the term?

[ccbatson]

Me, of course, and, yes, I know what it means.

Let me explain how to you. When you erroneously claim that "most respected economists" say something contrary to what I am saying, you are attacking me with a nonfactual argument..."attacking me" and "nonfactual" are the key elements defining Ad hominem. If you are still unclear, try Websters.

[rb336]

Me, of course, and, yes, I know what it means.

Let me explain how to you. When you erroneously claim that "most respected economists" say something contrary to what I am saying, you are attacking me with a nonfactual argument..."attacking me" and "nonfactual" are the key elements defining Ad hominem. If you are still unclear, try Websters.

ah, so you DON'T know what and adhom is. I attacked not you, but your ideas by stating that numerous authorities -- including some of the most conservative economists in the country, disagree with you. I will not re-post the several links I had to support that in the old forum

for a better understanding for ad hominem in a forensic setting, this comes from Skeptic's Dictionary (www.skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com)):

"Ad hominem is Latin for "to the man." The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody's claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted."

Even my comments about the various GC skeptic bullshitters is not ad hominem, because it falls under the "provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted"

[ccbatson]

Missed where I said that you were attacking "me", did you. " Me" as another form of "I"...maybe that is what threw you off.

[rb336]

rb336 (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/member.php?u=160) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/statusicon/user_online.gif | 05-01-2009, 04:49 PM | Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 235 #32 (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=14417&postcount=32) http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/report.php?p=14417)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson http://www.detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?p=14371#post14371)
"Most respected economists" Rb?? Could you think of a weaker response? More vague? More of an Ad Hominem? I can't

and to whom, precisely, was the adhom directed? do you even know the meaning of the term?



rb336 (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/member.php?u=160) | 05-01-2009, 04:49 PM | Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 235
#32 (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=14417&postcount=32) (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/report.php?p=14417)



Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?p=14371#post14371)
"Most respected economists" Rb?? Could you think of a weaker response? More vague? More of an Ad Hominem? I can't
and to whom, precisely, was the adhom directed? do you even know the meaning of the term?





05-02-2009 03:53 PM


ccbatson
Me, of course, and, yes, I know what it means.

Let me explain how to you. When you erroneously claim that "most respected economists" say something contrary to what I am saying, you are attacking me with a nonfactual argument..."attacking me" and "nonfactual" are the key elements defining Ad hominem. If you are still unclear, try Websters.



refresh your apparently very short memory?

[Detroitej72]

Me, of course, and, yes, I know what it means.

Let me explain how to you. When you erroneously claim that "most respected economists" say something contrary to what I am saying, you are attacking me with a nonfactual argument..."attacking me" and "nonfactual" are the key elements defining Ad hominem. If you are still unclear, try Websters.

Funny, now even that "most respected economist" Alan Greenspan(darling of free-market types) is saying he was wrong in the actions he took while heading the Fed.

FYI: Fannie and Freddy were but a small fraction of the problem. It has been stated by just about everyone except the right-wing parrots that corporate lenders like Country Wide were the biggest culprits by way of their bundling of lousy mortgages. But of coarse its easier for neo-cons to place the blame solely on the backs of Freddy & Fanny(who are, BTW, public companies) than to admit their policies were the root cause.

[ccbatson]

Considering that the very existence of the Fed is contrary to Alan Greenspan's earliest stated ideologies (when he was correct), it only makes sense that the actions of this ill conceived entity would be considered wrong.

[d.mcc]

Considering that the very existence of the Fed is contrary to Alan Greenspan's earliest stated ideologies (when he was correct), it only makes sense that the actions of this ill conceived entity would be considered wrong.

You need a woman...or...a man...I dunno, perhaps a dog or something

[ccbatson]

Got a wife...and 3 dogs...all set here.