America Ain’t That Great?

[BjornP]

It's amazing how anyone needs to theorize and speculate about what women want in societies made up of more than 50% of them.

[Martin Hash]

I guess I don’t have the training you do? Why people do things has always fascinated me. (See my book, “Philosophy of an Old Cyber-Cowboy,” available on Amazon.) I have found that all motives boil down to base emotions; “control” being one of the most explanatory.

[Hastur]

It’s a fine line Hastur between unfettered capitalism that gave us the Rockefeller’s, Morgan’s, and Carnegie’s who made more money than the gov’t. And during the Depression those mostly phony WPA programs under Roosevelt kept money circulating and people from starving.

Capitalism knows no moderation. Capitalism devours anything and everyone just for the stock to go up a half a point. We still need a safety net that socialism can provide. We need socialism to maintain a military devoid of mercenary tyrants. Unfortunately our gov’t is purposely slow moving by the constitution where we are in the lightning fast digital world.

Those people in Silicon Valley aren’t doing this for the greater good. There’s nothing altruistic what they have wrought. So when the next proverbial “Triangle Street Fire” happens we will finally break them down into smaller pieces and new growth will take over old monopoly and oligopolies.

So yeah you definitely know and lived under Socialism far better than me, but in the US socialism is a boogey-man’s term unless it’s your last hope.

You don't need socialism for anything. A national military isn't socialism. Neither is public health insurance. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production, not public goods. The cure for rampant capitalism is proper regulation. Keeping corruption in check is equally important. Socialism doesn't give you any advantages in combatting corruption or protecting people and the environment from exploitation. Quite the opposite is true.

[HarryK]

We still need a safety net that socialism can provide. We need socialism to maintain a military devoid of mercenary tyrants.

So yeah you definitely know and lived under Socialism far better than me, but in the US socialism is a boogey-man’s term unless it’s your last hope.

Hastur has never lived under Socialism, a "safety net" does not equal Socialism, and I'm not even sure what "military mercenary tyrants" are, but can't see what good Socialism what do about it. Boogeyman terms are bad, sure, but maybe try and find out what something REALLY means, then, instead of deducing that :"If the bad guys say this is bad, it must really be good".

My apologies BjornP. Socialism in the American sense is not the same term as you’ll will find in the economic textbooks or the correct term for Europe. Bear with me for one moment

For example: Ronald Reagan before he was president railled against Medicare providing Healthcare to the elderly via taxpayer dollars. He would state in those records that Medicare would “Destroy Capitalism and send us on the road towards socialism.”

Whenever Social Security, aid to the poor, and things like that gets slashed from the budget, a popular talking point is that we do this in order to not slide into “Socialist tendencies.”

When Nixon abolished the draft, some would say we’ve lost that “Socialistic cohesion” and become mercenaries instead of soldiers.

I’ll fully admit this is not in my wheelhouse whatsoever. But in the US we toss around “Socialism” just as much as we say fuck.

My apologies BjornP.

[Ph64]

There was a classic Steve Harvey (not particularly a fan, but it was funny) video... like 8-10 professional black women, college educated, good careers (lawyer, etc), good income, all around a table lamenting how they were in their 30s and couldn't find a "good man" worthy of serious dating/marriage. So he comes over and asks them what they are looking for.

To a "T" they all wanted a man who was educated, masculine, and earned at least as much or more than them so he could "take care" of her.

Meanwhile, if you look at statistics, something like 65% of college graduates are women these days. It's not rocket science, it's basic elementary school math, that if 65% are women then only 35% are men. Not counting "gender queer" and the like, that by itself means 30% of college graduating women aren't going to find college educated men?

Or, in simpler terms, they've done it to themselves.

Small wonder that statistically men's happiness has remained fairly constant while women's happiness has declined in the past 3-4 decades.

[Martin Hash]

The distinction between collectivism (military, healthcare, judiciary, environment, Welfare) and socialism is still not widely understood in America; it’s all still called socialism by The Right. However, Democrats are calling for real anti-Capitalist, State-owning Socialism.

[Hastur]

The distinction between collectivism (military, healthcare, judiciary, environment, Welfare) and socialism is still not widely understood in America; it’s all still called socialism by The Right. However, Democrats are calling for real anti-Capitalist, State-owning Socialism.

[BjornP]

I guess I don’t have the training you do? Why people do things has always fascinated me. (See my book, “Philosophy of an Old Cyber-Cowboy,” available on Amazon.) I have found that all motives boil down to base emotions; “control” being one of the most explanatory.

I don't think you need much training to find out what people want. Everyone's perfectly willing to tell you if you ask. The longer you get them to talk, I find, the better view you get about what drives them.

[Martin Hash]

You’d think as a practicing attorney & doctor, I would have some experience talking with clients & patients about what they want? Plus, I’ve been married to a woman for 40 years, and have grown daughters. It must be my Toxic Masculinity preventing me from knowing what women want.

[HarryK]

It’s a fine line Hastur between unfettered capitalism that gave us the Rockefeller’s, Morgan’s, and Carnegie’s who made more money than the gov’t. And during the Depression those mostly phony WPA programs under Roosevelt kept money circulating and people from starving.

Capitalism knows no moderation. Capitalism devours anything and everyone just for the stock to go up a half a point. We still need a safety net that socialism can provide. We need socialism to maintain a military devoid of mercenary tyrants. Unfortunately our gov’t is purposely slow moving by the constitution where we are in the lightning fast digital world.

Those people in Silicon Valley aren’t doing this for the greater good. There’s nothing altruistic what they have wrought. So when the next proverbial “Triangle Street Fire” happens we will finally break them down into smaller pieces and new growth will take over old monopoly and oligopolies.

So yeah you definitely know and lived under Socialism far better than me, but in the US socialism is a boogey-man’s term unless it’s your last hope.

You don't need socialism for anything. A national military isn't socialism. Neither is public health insurance. Socialism is about ownership of the means of production, not public goods. The cure for rampant capitalism is proper regulation. Keeping corruption in check is equally important. Socialism doesn't give you any advantages in combatting corruption or protecting people and the environment from exploitation. Quite the opposite is true.

My apologies Hastur but in the US “Socialism” is a verb not so much an economic theory as I’ve apologized to BjornP as well.

There is no economic theorem that can function at 100% capacity without problems or issues. And proper regulation is impossible when the so called “capitalist” writes their own legislation. Corruption is in the headlines every single day, however if you’re just scrapping by, you kinda of too busy saving your own hide first and let someone else fight the corruption for you.

He’re an example. Sen. Mark Rubio (R-FL), if I wanted a Real Estate question answered whether its zoning, construction , buyer’s protections etc. he’s the lawyer I would hire. But let’s say foreign policy he relies upon lobbyists and his patrons to depend upon his “yes or nay” vote. If the people he relies on are corrupt isn’t his vote by extension corrupt?

So sure if we all played nice in the sandbox Capitalism may be the best way to go. However history dictates that we’re greedy hogs and will destroy the very places we love like a Capitalist would. Being suffocated by capitalism makes me kind of want to see if the grass is truly greener on the other side of the fence.

Once again my apologies.