Poverty, INC.

[Boris]

In the socialist fantasy world it is putting the means of production in the hands of the community so that everyone shares equally. In reality it is taxing people who are productive and redistributing the proceeds to everyone else (with an extra share or three going to those who do the redistributing).

Now you define it for me to the best of your ability.

I define it as greedy lazy people that are not willing to work hard or save for retirement an force those who do to make up the difference. Basically every liberal or a cheapskate conservative that hates Mexican migrants but loves cheap produce.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This looks really good (and I don't watch tv at all).

 

[Siro]

is it really that republican tho?

I mean it's hard to tell just from that clip-- but to me it seems more anti-NAFTA and anti economic imperialism more than anything (though it does have the angle of hand-outs not being really beneficial in the long-run).

You seem to understand the absurdity of conservatives throwing around empty buzz words (like using the word "socialism" as if it's the boogieman), but you're still comfortable doing the same with the leftist counterparts (economic imperialism). Using such terms in that context makes it easy for people who don't already agree with you to dismiss you as unreasonable and dogmatic. It reflects too strong a conviction about a subject that you could not have plausibly already fully figured out. You're too smart for that approach.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You seem to understand the absurdity of conservatives throwing around empty buzz words (like using the word "socialism" as if it's the boogieman), but you're still comfortable doing the same with the leftist counterparts (economic imperialism).

Hmm. I'll keep reading.

Using such terms in that context makes it easy for people who don't already agree with you to dismiss you as unreasonable and dogmatic. It reflects too strong a conviction about a subject that you could not have plausibly already fully figured out. You're too smart for that approach.

Firstly, it's a little apples-to-oranges to compare the slandering ability of "economic imperialism" to "socialism" or any sort of red-smearing that America has spent a century in participating in. The history of red-baiting is much more profound than any buzzword I could ever utter in these threads.

I don't think econ-imperialism is as nearly as much of a buzzword as something like "neoliberal" that some leftists are using to describe centrist Democrats around this year. I've never really considered it a buzzword at all-- to me it's the very real consequences of exerting power over vast regions through economic means, thanks to emerging globalization.


--

I do get what you're saying though-- but in the spirit of parsimony sometimes those words u tend to run into are the best way to disclose an opinion on a subject without further elaboration.

 

[Deleted member 848]

In the socialist fantasy world it is putting the means of production in the hands of the community so that everyone shares equally. In reality it is taxing people who are productive and redistributing the proceeds to everyone else (with an extra share or three going to those who do the redistributing).

Now you define it for me to the best of your ability.

Socialism isn't necessarily about more government-- in theory it's about democratic ownership and control of key economic industries and enterprises, while attempting to keep the political and administrative structures of society thoroughly democratized. The latter hasn't been maintained in the most extreme attempts at socialism in the 20th century, but there are dozens of current nations that would certainly classify as Democratically Socialist, enjoying liberties and living indices superior to that of America.

 

[Deleted member 848]

In the socialist fantasy world it is putting the means of production in the hands of the community so that everyone shares equally. In reality it is taxing people who are productive and redistributing the proceeds to everyone else (with an extra share or three going to those who do the redistributing).

Now you define it for me to the best of your ability.

it's also a little ironic seeing someone describe other political theories as "fantasy worlds" despite formerly disclosing full faith in a system that depends on the supremacy of the "invisible hand"

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

is it really that republican tho?

I mean it's hard to tell just from that clip-- but to me it seems more anti-NAFTA and anti economic imperialism more than anything (though it does have the angle of hand-outs not being really beneficial in the long-run).

Socialism isn't necessarily about more government-- in theory it's about democratic ownership and control of key economic industries and enterprises, while attempting to keep the political and administrative structures of society thoroughly democratized. The latter hasn't been maintained in the most extreme attempts at socialism in the 20th century, but there are dozens of current nations that would certainly classify as Democratically Socialist, enjoying liberties and living indices superior to that of America.

This is your case that the philosophies described in the trailer don't fall on the "republican" side of the spectrum? Seems pretty obvious to me that the social program solution to poverty is more to the left, and the jobs philosophy is more to the right. I really don't see any point in arguing over it.

 

[♪alt13]

Hmm. I'll keep reading.



Firstly, it's a little apples-to-oranges to compare the slandering ability of "economic imperialism" to "socialism" or any sort of red-smearing that America has spent a century in participating in. The history of red-baiting is much more profound than any buzzword I could ever utter in these threads.

I don't think econ-imperialism is as nearly as much of a buzzword as something like "neoliberal" that some leftists are using to describe centrist Democrats around this year. I've never really considered it a buzzword at all-- to me it's the very real consequences of exerting power over vast regions through economic means, thanks to emerging globalization.


--

I do get what you're saying though-- but in the spirit of parsimony sometimes those words u tend to run into are the best way to disclose an opinion on a subject without further elaboration.

Globalization has clearly benefited the portion of the worlds population that lives in extreme poverty. Their numbers have decreased despite ever increasing population within developing countries. You can make a convincing case that globalization has been bad for Detroit but I think it's much harder to make the case that it has been bad for developing countries.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Socialism isn't necessarily about more government-- in theory it's about democratic ownership and control of key economic industries and enterprises, while attempting to keep the political and administrative structures of society thoroughly democratized. The latter hasn't been maintained in the most extreme attempts at socialism in the 20th century, but there are dozens of current nations that would certainly classify as Democratically Socialist, enjoying liberties and living indices superior to that of America.

Hmm. I'll keep reading.



Firstly, it's a little apples-to-oranges to compare the slandering ability of "economic imperialism" to "socialism" or any sort of red-smearing that America has spent a century in participating in. The history of red-baiting is much more profound than any buzzword I could ever utter in these threads.

I don't think econ-imperialism is as nearly as much of a buzzword as something like "neoliberal" that some leftists are using to describe centrist Democrats around this year. I've never really considered it a buzzword at all-- to me it's the very real consequences of exerting power over vast regions through economic means, thanks to emerging globalization.


--

I do get what you're saying though-- but in the spirit of parsimony sometimes those words u tend to run into are the best way to disclose an opinion on a subject without further elaboration.

Ahh yes. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with ********.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Globalization has clearly benefited the portion of the worlds population that lives in extreme poverty. Their numbers have decreased despite ever increasing population within developing countries. You can make a convincing case that globalization has been bad for Detroit but I think it's much harder to make the case that it has been bad for developing countries.

Of course there's been improvement, but it's quite obvious that the developed world has reaped the rewards of globalization much, much, much more than the developing world has. Maybe not the middle class, but the investors & corporations themselves. There's tons of literature out there that discusses how much poor people *truly* benefit from global trade as presently constituted relative to the companies

 

[Deleted member 848]

Ahh yes. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with ********.

A rather Trumpian post

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is your case that the philosophies described in the trailer don't fall on the "republican" side of the spectrum? Seems pretty obvious to me that the social program solution to poverty is more to the left, and the jobs philosophy is more to the right. I really don't see any point in arguing over it.

Most people on the left-wing absolutely hate *charity* and find it damaging-- that's the link I was talking about. There's articles even on Jacobin blasting it.


I'm sure that blows your mind.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Really cool how this became, "is this video right wing or left wing propaganda?"

Good job guys. Really good job.

 

[♪alt13]

Of course there's been improvement, but it's quite obvious that the developed world has reaped the rewards of globalization much, much, much more than the developing world has. Maybe not the middle class, but the investors & corporations themselves. There's tons of literature out there that discusses how much poor people *truly* benefit from global trade as presently constituted relative to the companies

This is what is so infuriating about the modern left(perhaps even the majority of leftists over the last century). I hate to come back to this but free markets(such as free trade) and capitalism are not the same ****ing thing. Don't attack free markets when what you clearly have a problem with is the extremes of capitalist property. When you attack free trade you are advocating to roll back the progress that has been made without putting forward anything that will help the worlds poor. You are advocating to put them at an even greater disadvantage. You are advocating to make the only capital that they have, their own human capital, worthless on the global marketplace.

I am totally fine with you advocating for higher taxes on corporations or to change the owvership structure of corporations so that more people benefit from the revenue that they generate. If your goal is to alleviate poverty then for you to attack the market, especially the poor's access to it, is asinine.

 

[NAOS]

The problem with the "free trade" and "free market" debates often seems to come down to the word "Free." I'd love it if we scraped that word and found better ways to describe what's actually going on.

 

[RandyForRubio]

The problem with the "free trade" and "free market" debates often seems to come down to the word "Free." I'd love it if we scraped that word and found better ways to describe what's actually going on.

I would love it if people who don't know **** about economics would actually acknowledge it, rather than pretend they're the premier knowledge cause they took a class in college once and read some blogs.

 

[♪alt13]

The problem with the "free trade" and "free market" debates often seems to come down to the word "Free." I'd love it if we scraped that word and found better ways to describe what's actually going on.

I kind of like the word open

 

[RandyForRubio]

Most people on the left-wing absolutely hate *charity* and find it damaging-- that's the link I was talking about. There's articles even on Jacobin blasting it.


I'm sure that blows your mind.

So here's the confusion on my part.

Why is charity from an individual bad, but programs from the government good? Theoretically, both could accomplish the same thing if everybody put in, but one would be wildly more efficient. The hard part would be getting everybody to put in, obviously. I just don't see why they could hate charity but approve of the government programs we have.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I kind of like the word open

Much better, IMO.

 

[NAOS]

I kind of like the word open

heh. I kind of like the word "contested." I think our two words have hit the paradoxical nail on the head.