Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
All US Presidents since Hoover have been Socialists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1223544" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Maybe the deeper question would be, is it correct to conflate capitalism with the idea of free markets or rather what I would call Freed Markets?</p><p></p><p>BTW: I don't. </p><p></p><p>But you would be right in defending against the idea of a truly freed market because in such <u>economy</u> and I choose that word purposely understanding it's latin (<em>oeconomia</em>) and greek (<em>oikonomia</em>) origins, both FedEx and UPS along with a whole lot more would likely not exist. Maybe as small shadows of themselves here and there but not as they exist today. </p><p></p><p>Hoax was correct that Presidents regardless of party or ideology are socialist in nature as they help create the mechanism upon which the costs of modern capitalism are externalized onto the backs of the taxpayer. They, the Presidents, don't single handedly do it but IMO they act as puppets and confidence men that in turn enables others to do so. bbsam, you should read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko#Career" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">Gabriel Kolko</span></a>'s book "The Triumph of Conservatism" and don't let the title fool you. Kolko also is no conservative, neither is he libertarian, fact is he's critical of and no advocate of the free market either. But his critique of the roots of political and crony capitalism in this country are so good, that in many circles of libertarian and free market anarchism, Kolko's work is considered a "must read" for his analysis of political economic history. IMO Kolko's work re-enforces Hoax original claim.</p><p></p><p> I often chuckle when I hear the mighty so-called free market "CAPITALIST", purely an actor of false rhetoric IMO, decry the tragedy of the commons as I know full and well his own profits would be impossible if the cost burdens of his economic and business model weren't shifted onto the <strong>backs of the taxpayer</strong>. Now there is the real tragedy of the commons. Even the so-called libertarian/free market Koch Bros. would not be where they are without gov't market interventions and trust me they know it. Research the term Kochtopus and see what some quarters of libertarian thought think of the Koch Bros. You think the so-called political liberal criticisms of the Kochs are harsh. Like Buffet and others, they know where their bread if buttered.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Looking up the roots of the term Laissez faire and how that term came into being as it applies to economics is a very interesting read. According to some, a french mercantilist minister by the name of Colbert went to a local french village and asked the business folk what he could do for them. A man by the name of Legendre responded, "laissez nous faire" or leave us be or let us do. You could say that Legendre was saying don't interfere or intervene in our economy. What Legendre's motives were may be another question but in the case of Ike, was he "letting do" in the case of the economy? Just for starters with the case of the overthrow of the gov't of Iran in 53' (for BP oil's interest) and the gov't of Guatemala in 54' (for United Fruit interests) purely for business (eg capitalist?) reasons raises serious questions about Ike's laissez faire pedigree.</p><p></p><p>jm(radical)o!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1223544, member: 2189"] Maybe the deeper question would be, is it correct to conflate capitalism with the idea of free markets or rather what I would call Freed Markets? BTW: I don't. But you would be right in defending against the idea of a truly freed market because in such [U]economy[/U] and I choose that word purposely understanding it's latin ([I]oeconomia[/I]) and greek ([I]oikonomia[/I]) origins, both FedEx and UPS along with a whole lot more would likely not exist. Maybe as small shadows of themselves here and there but not as they exist today. Hoax was correct that Presidents regardless of party or ideology are socialist in nature as they help create the mechanism upon which the costs of modern capitalism are externalized onto the backs of the taxpayer. They, the Presidents, don't single handedly do it but IMO they act as puppets and confidence men that in turn enables others to do so. bbsam, you should read [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko#Career"][COLOR=#ff0000]Gabriel Kolko[/COLOR][/URL]'s book "The Triumph of Conservatism" and don't let the title fool you. Kolko also is no conservative, neither is he libertarian, fact is he's critical of and no advocate of the free market either. But his critique of the roots of political and crony capitalism in this country are so good, that in many circles of libertarian and free market anarchism, Kolko's work is considered a "must read" for his analysis of political economic history. IMO Kolko's work re-enforces Hoax original claim. I often chuckle when I hear the mighty so-called free market "CAPITALIST", purely an actor of false rhetoric IMO, decry the tragedy of the commons as I know full and well his own profits would be impossible if the cost burdens of his economic and business model weren't shifted onto the [B]backs of the taxpayer[/B]. Now there is the real tragedy of the commons. Even the so-called libertarian/free market Koch Bros. would not be where they are without gov't market interventions and trust me they know it. Research the term Kochtopus and see what some quarters of libertarian thought think of the Koch Bros. You think the so-called political liberal criticisms of the Kochs are harsh. Like Buffet and others, they know where their bread if buttered. Looking up the roots of the term Laissez faire and how that term came into being as it applies to economics is a very interesting read. According to some, a french mercantilist minister by the name of Colbert went to a local french village and asked the business folk what he could do for them. A man by the name of Legendre responded, "laissez nous faire" or leave us be or let us do. You could say that Legendre was saying don't interfere or intervene in our economy. What Legendre's motives were may be another question but in the case of Ike, was he "letting do" in the case of the economy? Just for starters with the case of the overthrow of the gov't of Iran in 53' (for BP oil's interest) and the gov't of Guatemala in 54' (for United Fruit interests) purely for business (eg capitalist?) reasons raises serious questions about Ike's laissez faire pedigree. jm(radical)o! :wink2::peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
All US Presidents since Hoover have been Socialists
Top