D
Deleted member 541
^^^^^^^^^^. @scout86 Loved it, all of it!!!!!
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News Us politics - read first post before comment
- Post starter anthony
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 41765
@scout86 I did as well!
The difficulty with picking a state sector actor as an example of authoritarian "capitalist" is that by definition, the state is an instrument for coercive control by a group of concrete individuals that styles itself (or conflates itself ) in the abstract with "society", "the community" "the things we do together"
There's no doubt at all that some capitalists/plutocrats flocked to even the worst dictators (at least one of the early Soviet five year plans was prepared for Lenin and Trotsky by a firm of American business consultants!).
A favourable interpretation is that they were seeking to protect their own interests
A less favorable interpretation is that if the state controls business, they want to control the state, and I think that that attitude best explains the likes of the Morgans, Rockefellers, Gugenheims etc during the"progressive era" and Onwards.
Big business is always trying to "socialise" its costs, for example state funding of the education of engineers, using the military funded interstate highways for distribution, and most egregious of all the bailouts, subsidies and tarriffs that constitute corporate welfare.
It can be argued very strongly that American involvement in the war to make a world safe for Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, was very heavily influenced by Morgan interests
In the mid 1920s there were serious newspaper articles talking about a looming war between Britain and the united state, over control of oilfields and refining in Iran and Azerbaijan- that would have been the united state government going to war in support of Rockefeller's standard oil, in opposition to the interests of the Morgans and Rothschilds in Royal Dutch-Shell.
American involvement in the war to make a world safe for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceacescu...
Was in the Rockefeller interest in Asia, and in the Morgan interests in Europe
Post war, with the Eisenhower regime, the CIA and the state department were run by three Dulles siblings
Link Removed
And so it goes on. The family links between key Morgan and Rockefeller people and key positions in the state administration go on and on and on, to the extent that we're probably far more likely to win the lottery, than those links are to be pure chance.
Hence my suggestion of an in specified Rockefeller as the archetype of an authoritarian capitalist.
Regarding the dictators who are generally portrayed as the extreme coercive end of capitalism
Mussolini, life long described himself as a socialist, he was leader (Duce) of a general strike of Italian construction workers in Switzerland, and published a Marxist newspaper.
With the start of the war to make a world safe for Lenin, Trotsky and, well, Mussolini himself
Mussolini realized that the chances of an international socialism were finished, so he and the brains behind him (especially his mistress, Margherita Sarfati - who also happens to be Jewish) set about coming up with a nationalist socialism.
Mussolini's Italian socialism was collectivist to the core, from its emblem, the fasci - a bundle of arrows, alone, one could be broken, together they were unbreakable -
To his catch phrase "all within the state, non outside it, none against it" which is a restatement of Fichter.
He was a socialist
He communicated with Lenin and Trotsky, throughout their lives, and they took a keen interest in each others "social experiments"
After Lenin's death, Trotsky began to express the opinion that Mussolini's was perhaps the more promising path to achieving socialism.
Mussolini was also a darling of the British and American leftists and progressives, right up until 1935 and the invasion of Ethiopia.
That was the event which threw him into the arms of his little follower in Germany, whom he had scorned up to that point.
Incidentally, Hitler's party was explicitly socialist, NSDAP stood for national socialist German workers party.
So, yes, some capitalists are right in there, courting dictators and pushing them along, but the coercive/authoritarian regimes tend to be more socialist, in seeking state controls over massive areas of the economy and of every other aspect of life.
There's no doubt at all that some capitalists/plutocrats flocked to even the worst dictators (at least one of the early Soviet five year plans was prepared for Lenin and Trotsky by a firm of American business consultants!).
A favourable interpretation is that they were seeking to protect their own interests
A less favorable interpretation is that if the state controls business, they want to control the state, and I think that that attitude best explains the likes of the Morgans, Rockefellers, Gugenheims etc during the"progressive era" and Onwards.
Big business is always trying to "socialise" its costs, for example state funding of the education of engineers, using the military funded interstate highways for distribution, and most egregious of all the bailouts, subsidies and tarriffs that constitute corporate welfare.
It can be argued very strongly that American involvement in the war to make a world safe for Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, was very heavily influenced by Morgan interests
In the mid 1920s there were serious newspaper articles talking about a looming war between Britain and the united state, over control of oilfields and refining in Iran and Azerbaijan- that would have been the united state government going to war in support of Rockefeller's standard oil, in opposition to the interests of the Morgans and Rothschilds in Royal Dutch-Shell.
American involvement in the war to make a world safe for Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceacescu...
Was in the Rockefeller interest in Asia, and in the Morgan interests in Europe
Post war, with the Eisenhower regime, the CIA and the state department were run by three Dulles siblings
Mods, the quote is from a copy left source
Link Removed
And so it goes on. The family links between key Morgan and Rockefeller people and key positions in the state administration go on and on and on, to the extent that we're probably far more likely to win the lottery, than those links are to be pure chance.
Hence my suggestion of an in specified Rockefeller as the archetype of an authoritarian capitalist.
Regarding the dictators who are generally portrayed as the extreme coercive end of capitalism
Mussolini, life long described himself as a socialist, he was leader (Duce) of a general strike of Italian construction workers in Switzerland, and published a Marxist newspaper.
With the start of the war to make a world safe for Lenin, Trotsky and, well, Mussolini himself
Mussolini realized that the chances of an international socialism were finished, so he and the brains behind him (especially his mistress, Margherita Sarfati - who also happens to be Jewish) set about coming up with a nationalist socialism.
Mussolini's Italian socialism was collectivist to the core, from its emblem, the fasci - a bundle of arrows, alone, one could be broken, together they were unbreakable -
To his catch phrase "all within the state, non outside it, none against it" which is a restatement of Fichter.
He was a socialist
He communicated with Lenin and Trotsky, throughout their lives, and they took a keen interest in each others "social experiments"
After Lenin's death, Trotsky began to express the opinion that Mussolini's was perhaps the more promising path to achieving socialism.
Mussolini was also a darling of the British and American leftists and progressives, right up until 1935 and the invasion of Ethiopia.
That was the event which threw him into the arms of his little follower in Germany, whom he had scorned up to that point.
Incidentally, Hitler's party was explicitly socialist, NSDAP stood for national socialist German workers party.
So, yes, some capitalists are right in there, courting dictators and pushing them along, but the coercive/authoritarian regimes tend to be more socialist, in seeking state controls over massive areas of the economy and of every other aspect of life.
The confusion over what is "left" and what "right" is almost total and absolute. There's probably no area where there isn't contradiction.
The place where the terms "left" and "right" come from was the seating in the French parliament. Frederic Bastiat the leading French free trade and laissez-faire radical, sat on the left
and I'm happy with that - to me - coercive interference by the state with consensual exchanges, is the stuff of pro corn law Tories, and of the monopoly east India companies.
The Italian Communists are radically Pro a right to hunt and to own guns
Ceacescu, the late soviet puppet dictator in Romania, outlawed abortion, and declared the unborn feotus "socialist property of the Romanian state"
The place where the terms "left" and "right" come from was the seating in the French parliament. Frederic Bastiat the leading French free trade and laissez-faire radical, sat on the left
and I'm happy with that - to me - coercive interference by the state with consensual exchanges, is the stuff of pro corn law Tories, and of the monopoly east India companies.
The Italian Communists are radically Pro a right to hunt and to own guns
Ceacescu, the late soviet puppet dictator in Romania, outlawed abortion, and declared the unborn feotus "socialist property of the Romanian state"
Justmehere
Sponsor
I interupt this thread with a moment of important advice for all the parents out there: How to Talk to Your Teen About Colluding With Russia
"Posting a selfie with a Russian aluminum magnate or “checking in” to a Kremlin safe house can have ramifications that are difficult to erase later on."
Wise words.
"Posting a selfie with a Russian aluminum magnate or “checking in” to a Kremlin safe house can have ramifications that are difficult to erase later on."
Wise words.
- Post starter
- Admin
- #378
anthony
Founder
That is me. I try not to take sides. At each election I look at each candidate and look into their actual policies, and those policies positions in real economic status -- can they sustain their hype? or are they just hype?
I'm not one side or the other -- I'm for the person who I think can bring the most to the table at that election, and actually believe they can follow through on half of it, minimum.
Once again, I don't align with a lot of things trump says, however what is interesting is that he IS following through with his campaign promises whether it be a wall or his temporary ban on travel from certain countries. Although some things seem a bit over the top, it is refreshing that he didn't just get elected and not do any of the things he campaigned on like previous administrations. I believe him when he says Mexico will pay for the wall too bc I think he will tax any product coming out of Mexico so heavily it will pay for the wall. We have to be careful though bc we buy a few products, like fly ash a key component in concrete and gypsum which makes Sheetrock, in such large bulk it could have staggering effects on the building industry in this country. However, now he has figured out that he can put solar panels on the wall and the revenues from that would pay for the wall in total. The guy isn't dumb. He is a terrible personality, but he isn't dumb. Although over the top, his take on media reporting fake news is really spot on. CNN has even busted recently for reporting unsubstantiated news. The media has no scruples. They are all guilty of reporting things in a light that meets their agenda. It's upsetting. However, he promised to add more jobs and we are in yet another month where more jobs have been added and it appears as if GDP numbers are climbing for the first time in a decade. Oh well, each day brings something new with this guy. I just wish they could take his twitter account away!
- Post starter
- Admin
- #380
anthony
Founder
I wouldn't put much stock in Trump being responsible for new jobs, not this early in. Jobs take years of planning. That would be from past administration. If it continues in the coming years, then sure, Trump is doing that. But too often leaders take credit for a lot of things that the past administration put in place and are now coming to fruition.
Eh I kind of disagree... what made the difference in added jobs here was his commitment to lowering corporate taxes. We had several companies who were committed to leaving the US for Mexico, Carrier and GMC were two biggies. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. I know for a fact that both companies pulled back on shifting those jobs out of the country based on his election. They absolutely will not play politics and be involved with making a public statement saying that. Companies cannot afford to become enmeshed in politics these days. As well, he soaring stock market had nothing to do with Obama. Those sectors have added jobs. The construction market is booming again. In that sector there aren't enough employees to meet demands. That definitely isn't an obama driven market. We had 10 years of a 0% fed rate basically and no growth in that sector. People were too afraid to invest in the building industry bc there were no assurances on long term risk models. Obviously, my opinion based on what my experiences are in the American job market. Being here and talking with actual CEO's and board members of these companies is drastically different than what you may read on the internet or what the media reports. Most large corporations are pro-trump based on his capitalistic views therefore they have made longer term investments into the American job growth sectors vs taking those jobs overseas.
D
Deleted member 541
Trump on jobs!!!!!
lancasteronline.com | Lancaster County's leading source of news and information
GM Jobs Touted by Trump Were in Works for Years
U.S. Jobs Market Under Trump Looks a Lot Like It Did Under Obama
The wall????? Yeah sure, put tariffs on products from Mexico, and Mexico will slap tariffs on us. Tit for tat. It won't work. We will build a wall, ok, so maybe not a wall, maybe a solar wall. OMG!!!! Maybe everyone can go to the wall and get a tan too!!! Just stupidity....
lancasteronline.com | Lancaster County's leading source of news and information
GM Jobs Touted by Trump Were in Works for Years
U.S. Jobs Market Under Trump Looks a Lot Like It Did Under Obama
The wall????? Yeah sure, put tariffs on products from Mexico, and Mexico will slap tariffs on us. Tit for tat. It won't work. We will build a wall, ok, so maybe not a wall, maybe a solar wall. OMG!!!! Maybe everyone can go to the wall and get a tan too!!! Just stupidity....
- Post starter
- Admin
- #383
anthony
Founder
I think you're confusing a bit of your own bias here. Presidents don't rule taxes... just like our prime minister does not. They can say what they want, but its the parliament (congress / senate for you) who rules such things. Heads of state have limited powers, to be honest. Nothing they do has immediate, long standing, impact. Think back... Trump got elected, stock markets plummeted at a global level.
Then they all bounced back, once people got their minds back and heads on straight.
Not much has really changed since then.
GM themselves stated their plans were in the making for years. Trump had nothing to do with it. Big corporations plan years, decades, in advance. One political ascension has nothing to do with their timed moves. You can try and link it, call it, own it, if you want... but it won't change the facts, they had plans in the making for years / decade or more.
I remember similar discussions here about vehicle manufacturing, and its all gone back overseas now, as our costs to do so are just too high. All these industries who had been in decline for years, a decade or more, all jumping on the bandwagon, claiming manufacturing losses costs on-flowing jobs. The truth though... on-flowing industries had been on the decline for beyond a decade. Seen in many big corporate vehicle sectors.
The simple truth was -- less and less people were fixing their own vehicles due to the increased technologies employed within the vehicles. This has been true since the inception of computers in cars. They have advanced... and now totally run our cars. You lift the bonnet of a new car -- there is no way you're going to try and fix an issue, unless you're an actual mechanic. Step back two decades, we could all figure it out and lower our running costs by doing much maintenance ourselves. Again -- computerisation has declined that, which has a flow-on to all automotive industries that supply parts and accessories.
Then you have industry computerisation that has occurred. Robots do it better than people. Less people needed.
There are many many factors associated in manufacturing for any industry. A leader is really just not one of them.
Justmehere
Sponsor
Five Thirty Eight summed it up this way:
"Even if the economy does start to change direction in coming months, it’s unlikely Trump or his policies will be the primary cause. Presidents in any case have little control over the economy, especially in the short-term."
Don’t Let Trump — Or Any President — Take Credit For Strong Jobs Numbers
Five Thirty Eight is equally critical of Bill Clinton's claim he was responsible for and the prosperity of the 1990's. They explain the error in assuming presidents have much/any role in short term job growth In this article: No, Bill Clinton Does Not ‘Know How’ To Fix The Economy. They explain that Bill Clinton did have a long term impact because he shares a small part, but still a part, in the responsibility of the recession in the 2000s and crash of 2008.
The Atlantic - referencing a well done paper out of Princeton - sums it up well. "Maybe we'd be better off thinking about international economics less like Washington's little private laboratory and more like the weather—a massive force we cannot hope to control, even as we debate how to respond to its worst excesses." More: The President of the United States Does Not Control the Economy
"Even if the economy does start to change direction in coming months, it’s unlikely Trump or his policies will be the primary cause. Presidents in any case have little control over the economy, especially in the short-term."
Don’t Let Trump — Or Any President — Take Credit For Strong Jobs Numbers
Five Thirty Eight is equally critical of Bill Clinton's claim he was responsible for and the prosperity of the 1990's. They explain the error in assuming presidents have much/any role in short term job growth In this article: No, Bill Clinton Does Not ‘Know How’ To Fix The Economy. They explain that Bill Clinton did have a long term impact because he shares a small part, but still a part, in the responsibility of the recession in the 2000s and crash of 2008.
The Atlantic - referencing a well done paper out of Princeton - sums it up well. "Maybe we'd be better off thinking about international economics less like Washington's little private laboratory and more like the weather—a massive force we cannot hope to control, even as we debate how to respond to its worst excesses." More: The President of the United States Does Not Control the Economy
- Status
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
