How The Left Tricks People Into Thinking Socialism Is Plausible
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
What on earth has happened to the Democratic Party? Even by liberal standards, the policies the left now advocates appear insane. To say they are an order of fries short of a Happy Meal is an insult to McDonald’s.
I’m used to childishness from the Democratic Party, but something is very wrong in the Land of Unicorns and Fairy Dust. Is all of this just the usual hyper-liberal reaction to a Republican presidency, or is there something more insidious and dangerous at work? Tthe latter may be the case, in the form of something called the Overton Window Principle. Let’s recap the last several weeks in Lala-Land.
Consider the “ Green New Deal ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports. Her resolution before Congress calls for America to entirely divest itself of fossil fuels within ten years. This is such a ludicrous proposal that anyone with a scintilla of common sense or over the age of 25 should burst out laughing when informed of it.
A Frequently Asked Questions page that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website before it was taken down actually said: “We set a goal to get to that net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast…” That is a real quote from an actual document posted to a bona fide congresswoman’s real-life website.
Yes, it’s uproariously stupid, funny, and deserving of ridicule by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, and all the other entertaining commentators on conservative talk radio. Ocasio-Cortez is an endless source of fun, and I hope there’s a microphone nearby every time she opens her mouth. May she be the one Democrat who has a long and voluble career in Washington.
But here’s the concerning part: as of a week ago, 67 adult members of Congress signed on to support Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Moreover, her ridiculous plan has been mirrored by a Senate resolution sponsored by a wizened, crusty old Democrat machine politician, Sen. Edward Markey, who has decades of legislative experience and surely knows how absurd the Green New Deal’s provisions are.
The Method Behind the Madness
So what gives? Has Markey lost his marbles? Not only that, have all the other Democrat luminaries running for president who have endorsed the GND—like Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar—lost their minds as well?
It’s within the realm of possibility that Donald Trump has finally succeeded in snapping the tenuous hold these leftist politicians have on reality. But it might be explained by the Overton Window theory.
I first learned of this sociological principle several years ago when I came across an entertaining novel by Glenn Beck called “ The Overton Window .” Beck’s protagonists are a “radical” band of conservatives who are desperately trying to thwart the socialist takeover of America in a dystopian future. In his tale, Beck’s protagonists have grasped that the evil socialists—the Ocasio-Cortezes of the future—have employed a technique to move society unwittingly further and further to the left, where more and more government control of society becomes acceptable. Although serving as a literary device for Beck in a work of fiction, this technique is a very real theory of mass psychology manipulation.
The Overton Window theory was developed by an engineer-turned-lawyer and political theorist Joseph P. Overton , who tragically died young in a plane crash. His theoretical contributions may long outlive him. He developed his eponymous theory while he was a senior official for the free market think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy .
In simplest terms, the Overton Window theory—more fully, the Overton Window of Political Possibilities —posits that in a republic such as ours, where politicians are at least partly accountable to their constituents, there is a band, or “window,” of policy options that a politician can propose or vote for in any particular area of social policy. That window is governed by what the politician’s constituents find socially acceptable to consider.
While there may be better or worse policy options outside of that window, the politician won’t risk his career by proposing or voting for them, resulting in a backlash from his voters. The politician will always put his personal political fortunes foremost. Sounds pretty commonsense, right?
Well, here’s what Overton recognized: If you want to effect radical change that politicians will buy into and vote for, what you need to do is not try to convince the politicians directly, but shift the political landscape of what is considered socially acceptable to discuss or ponder. That is to say, you expand the “window” of policy options by getting the “people”—or a large enough proportion of them—to buy into your radical ideas and talk about them. That’s much easier to accomplish today with the explosion of social media.
This Explains Many ‘Rapid Transformations’
Hasn’t it occurred to anyone else that our country witnessed massive sociological change under the Obama administration at seemingly warp speed on many fronts? Take same-sex marriage. The notion that two men or two women could marry one another, thus overturning millennial-old traditions about the basis and purpose of marriage—to procreate—happened virtually overnight. It directly contravened literally thousands of years of biblical proscription and cultural norms.
Barack Obama said as recently as 2008 that he believed “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Hillary Clinton said in 2004 that marriage was “a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Yet somehow, by 2013 both politicians had discovered their long-held views on the sanctity of one man-one woman marriage were 180 degrees off-kilter and supported same-sex marriage. If one believes Washington Post-ABC News polling data , American support for same-sex marriage flipped in the span of 10 years, going from 59 percent opposing it in 2004 to 59 percent approving it in 2014.
A similarly rapid transformation occurred with the embrace of legislation decriminalizing marijuana use. The percentage of Americans who answered “Yes” to the question “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?” went from 31 percent in 2000 to 66 percent in 2018, according to Gallup .
The left in America railed for decades against the evils of the tobacco industry, which produced those nasty, cancer-causing “nicotine delivery systems” known as cigarettes. They very successfully waged legal warfare against tobacco, resulting in a decline in tobacco use in America from a high of 42 percent of American adults smoking in the early 1960s to a current low of about 14 percent of American adults smoking.
Yet somehow that same left that demonized tobacco has embraced marijuana, a smoking product that I learned in Drug Enforcement Agency school many years ago is far worse in its health impact than tobacco on multiple levels, from its carcinogenic effects to cognitive damage to neurological impairment. But state houses are legalizing marijuana like it’s the new gold rush.
Saying Crazy Stuff Normalizes It
The list of bizarre social changes occurring with lightning speed in recent years goes on: Grown men allowed in public restrooms with little girls, dubious and subjective “hate crime” laws being passed, and most recently, abortion-on-demand bills being rushed into law. How are these massive societal transformations occurring so rapidly?
Are these lightning-like changes in public policy just society evolving naturally? I don’t think so. They might be explained by a coordinated, sophisticated strategy from leftist shot-callers. Democrats are firing up all their little leftist nonprofit organizations to push Ocasio-Cortez’s ideas, like transforming the entire U.S. economy within ten years to run on “renewable” energy sources (you know, like windmills), eliminating all transportation that emits carbon dioxide (you know, like airplanes and gas-fueled automobiles) and replacing them with high-speed trains and such, and “guaranteeing” a job for everyone. The resolution reads like every leftist’s fantasy. Unicorns and fairy dust galore.
It is eminently mockable, and I enjoy the mockery as much as the next right-wing grouch. But the point is that all the countless new media outlets run by young leftists are prepping the ground for Ocasio-Cortez’s ideas, such as they are, working in concert with the key strategists in the Democratic political machine and the old-line leftist media in order to shift the public debate—to get people to think that a 70 percent or a 90 percent income tax, as Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow socialist traveler, Ilhan Omar , have respectively proposed, is within the realm of the possible.
By pushing these insane ideas and getting a “groundswell” of highly orchestrated political activists to clamor for them, they get everyday Americans discussing them, and thereby expand the Overton Window of public policy options that would heretofore have been considered insane and unfit for public discourse.
Then Just as Crazy Stuff Seems Moderate
What happens next? As a friend astutely observed to me recently, what happens next is that a “reasonable” politician like, say, Michelle Obama, steps in and says, “Wait! A 90 percent tax rate is just too much. Let’s be reasonable and shoot for a 60 percent rate.” Michelle then appears to be the “savior” of capitalism and is hailed as the “voice of reason,” simultaneously taking us a huge leap “forward” toward Venezuela.
That’s how the Overton Window Principle operates. You change the political landscape and shift the discussion of policy options that are considered conceivable. It’s very Saul Alinsky, but then, we’ve had Saul Alinsky’s spirit in the White House before.
Tags
Who is online
44 visitors
“I’m used to childishness from the Democratic Party, but something is very wrong in the Land of Unicorns and Fairy Dust. Is all of this just the usual hyper-liberal reaction to a Republican presidency, or is there something more insidious and dangerous at work? Tthe latter may be the case, in the form of something called the Overton Window Principle. Let’s recap the last several weeks in Lala-Land.
Consider the “ Green New Deal ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports. Her resolution before Congress calls for America to entirely divest itself of fossil fuels within ten years. This is such a ludicrous proposal that anyone with a scintilla of common sense or over the age of 25 should burst out laughing when informed of it.
A Frequently Asked Questions page that appeared on Ocasio-Cortez’s website before it was taken down actually said: “We set a goal to get to that net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast…” That is a real quote from an actual document posted to a bona fide congresswoman’s real-life website.
Yes, it’s uproariously stupid, funny, and deserving of ridicule by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Chris Plante, and all the other entertaining commentators on conservative talk radio. Ocasio-Cortez is an endless source of fun, and I hope there’s a microphone nearby every time she opens her mouth. May she be the one Democrat who has a long and voluble career in Washington.
But here’s the concerning part: as of a week ago, 67 adult members of Congress signed on to support Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Moreover, her ridiculous plan has been mirrored by a Senate resolution sponsored by a wizened, crusty old Democrat machine politician, Sen. Edward Markey, who has decades of legislative experience and surely knows how absurd the Green New Deal’s provisions are.
The Method Behind The Madness
So what gives? Has Markey lost his marbles? Not only that, have all the other Democrat luminaries running for president who have endorsed the GND—like Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar—lost their minds as well?
It’s within the realm of possibility that Donald Trump has finally succeeded in snapping the tenuous hold these leftist politicians have on reality. But it might be explained by the Overton Window theory.
I first learned of this sociological principle several years ago when I came across an entertaining novel by Glenn Beck called “ The Overton Window .” Beck’s protagonists are a “radical” band of conservatives who are desperately trying to thwart the socialist takeover of America in a dystopian future. In his tale, Beck’s protagonists have grasped that the evil socialists—the Ocasio-Cortezes of the future—have employed a technique to move society unwittingly further and further to the left, where more and more government control of society becomes acceptable. Although serving as a literary device for Beck in a work of fiction, this technique is a very real theory of mass psychology manipulation.”
Wasn't it Joseph Goebbels in the late 1930's Nazi Germany that said something like, if you yell the same lies over and over eventually people will start to believe it?
That is the same methodology that today’s secular progressives use.
Actually I believe it was Hitler himself, taken from Mein Kampf
In truth it is the Giant Cheeto himself and his sycophants that have perfected that notion.
You are correct, but that does not change the validity of my statement.
Never said that it did, in truth the so called emergency on our Southern border that Mr. Trump continues to tout is proof of the theorem.
[Deleted]
Good points. As per socialism, perhaps we can create a voluntary socialism where companies and workers who jointly agree to it in their business and labor pursuits can do so and employers and employees who work for them want to follow the capitalist model they can do that too.
Saying Crazy Stuff Normalizes It"
.
Trumpp to a T, with a little pp at the end
So the Dems have their own official version of Trump with the official D behind the name and everything? Cool./S
Just like Trump tried to trick the American people into believing that Mexico would pay for his obsessed wall all across the American-Mexican border.
Yet now it turns out that was a blatant lie that he new would never happen.
So now the Trump rabid supporters are demanding that the American taxpayers, sans his rich friends and golf club members, pay for the wall.
So how does Trump and his rabid supporters dare to accuse anyone else of being a trickster and liar?
i'd have to go with
projection
IMHO, I think it is more like gross arrogance mixed with a healthy dose of gross stupidity.
It is like the old saying...."You can some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people all of the time. But, you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
When Mexico point blank said they would not pay for the wall, Trump still continued to try to fool the American people that Mexico would indeed pay for the wall. When that didn't work, he has tried to boondoggle the American taxpayers into paying for it in some way or another, trying to use scare tactics one way or another.
What they love to forget is that anyone whose family is not Native American is the product of aliens who came to America from a foreign country looking for a better life, or as slaves and/or as criminals.
No matter what our heritage is, or where we came from, there is one thing that is very clear.......we are all human beings, and we all just want a decent life. For those who declare all people from other countries as being criminals and disposable goods makes them less human than those they choose to dehumanize.
My opinion.
Bernie is a great example of a leftist using the Overton window to attempt to drag the country into socialist destruction. Early on in his 2016 campaign NPR did a radio interview with him and he clearly stated he knew he could not win but his goal was to drag the party farther towards socialism. He accomplished his goal.
He sure did.
Bernie is not mentioned in the article, is he?
Oh I concentrated as much as possible, but these anti AOC articles are all so similar, my eyes glazed over by the second paragraph.
I should have known that Wm Marshall couldn't write anything about her without
some shots at everyone else he despises
My bad.
What? You don’t like that he works for a great favorite organization I like, Judicial Watch? I think 🤔 that his article is right on.
No surprise there Jeff.
None at all.
The truth is what it is. JW Is awesome 😎
All of the Nordic countries seem to be thriving under socialism. The happiest citizens on the planet.
Nordic nation economies are based on capitalism. They are social democracies.
ALL nation's economies are based on capitalism.
Agreed!
I wish that were true.
If you understood what capitalism is, then you would realize that the labels you like to apply are on systems which are all variants of capitalism.
If you have a nation wherein the means of production and distribution are controlled by a minority of the population then you have capitalism. There are no nations in existence wherein the people themselves have distributed control over the economy - not even here in the USA. We are quite solidly operating with a capitalist economy and will continue to do so well after all of us are gone.
Some variants of capitalism are net good while others can be tragically bad. This is why I suggest you use proper, well-established terms and phrases for the aspects of a socio-economic/political system that you find to be bad. The term statist is a good one. So is redistribution of wealth. Another is expropriation.
Bernie Sanders, Cortez, etc. are not talking about changing our economic system from capitalism. They do not want the people of the USA to be in control over the economy - they want to do the controlling. They want to regulate private sector ownership and control over the productive resources of the economy. They want to tax business, tax wealth (and, ultimately, tax the middle class again) so that the government has more money to work with. They are statists who are hot and heavy on redistribution of wealth for the purposes of funding statist social programs. In spite of the labels they too misuse.
See how my comment makes specific charges with terms you can look up and find rather clear meaning? Blindly tossing out the term 'socialism' instead produces a vague commentary that does not provide a core criticism and degenerates into nothing more than 'something I dislike'.
Capitalism is the greatest economic system ever invented. It has lifted more people around the world over the time its been around than any other.
Platitudes are a poor substitute for thinking.
Capitalism is historically net positive. It is superior to its predecessors of mercantilism and feudalism. Comparing it to feudalism in particular, capitalism is the result of societal evolution where economic control eventually became available to those who were not high-born aristocrats. Descendants of serfs who engaged in market ventures eventually broke free of the oppressing lords and, through the accumulation of capital, became a new force of economic power. The result of course is that economic power was not clustered exclusively in the hands of lords and kings but in those who were clever and ambitious enough to generate and make effective use of profit.
The question for you to ponder is if capitalism is the best possible system or if societal evolution can continue to produce something even better. Do you have the means to think outside of the box?
It is possible. Of course societal evolution can also produce something worse.
But at this point I would just like to see people think (critically) rather than merely parrot the thoughts of others.
The value of your post is in asking readers to realize that history is not finished. Mega-corporation capitalism is, I hope, not the end of history, since it's kinda sorta dystopic.
I can think outside the box. But socialism is inside the box and not a viable solution. It only equalizes human misery and poverty, not lifting people out of those conditions as capitalism has done.
Depends entirely on what you mean by 'socialism'. The term, without supplying a definition for your usage, is meaningless.
International Mega corporation capitalism is preferable to any one government including our own having dystopian control over our individual and group personal and economic decisions. We can thank Trump for using populism and the plight of blue collar working class workers to weaken the power of global mega corps and incentivize domestic companies and others to invest here.
In Michael Dell I trust!
As compared to Barack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandra Ocrazyo Cortez, a decent mega corporation CEO would be preferable.
In Michael Dell I trust!
How The Left Tricks People Into Thinking Socialism Is Plausible
You are a wee bit late in your fears regarding creeping socialism.
Social Security
Federal Highway System
Medicare
Public School System
etc.
Socialism and Communism are two different animals, portions of Socialism are as represented plausible and here to stay. As someone once said " There is nothing to fear but fear itself ".
Social security and Medicare are insurance plans we pay into all our lives to qualify for. The rest is a function of government period. All forms of government provide them. Has nothing at all to do with socialism.
say what ?
So fully funding Social Security and Medicare for all wouldn't actually be socialism then is what you're saying, right?
You are quite correct here KAG:
damn that KAG, always stealin my thunder
us applause.
As z usual, as i'm ussually an asz, I respect your interpretation of socialism in the United States,
but i am curious, are you one that believes since we are a capitalistic society, there can be no socialism ?
Does it matter to you if it is spelled differently ?
Cause in a Capitalistic society, should the S be Capitalistic ?
.
Don't mean to bother you (just who i am), just curious on your take of this. Asz this is not my forte (that would be being one), i must inquire, as there seems to be quite a bit of scattering opines, with some being sharp and i've lost the calluses on my feet, plus i can't smell De feat, asz i wash often, so if you may, or if you might, i still won't bite, asz i prefer the flite, don't ever wish to argue or fight, asz i prefer First Class, whence forth i declare to be the
Asz i was saying, Keep America Great
cause i'm Damn sick of KAG ALWAYS BEING Right, of me
i feel left behind, asz most asses are
except the one in front
Capitalism and socialism are economic opposites. Capitalism is in place if the productive resources of an economy are predominantly controlled by a minority. Socialism is in place if the productive resources of an economy are predominantly controlled by the people - distributed economic control.
Anytime a State controls the productive resources of an economy we have capitalism. That is because the State is operated by officials who are, by definition, a tiny minority of the people.
The so called 'mixed economy' is a misnomer because in all cases the underlying economic system is capitalism. People call it a 'mixed' economy because they think (incorrectly) that the presence of State controlled public services is 'socialism'. That is wrong. All socio-economic/political systems have public services so either they are all 'socialist' or people have a very confused understanding of 'socialism'. I suggest the latter is the case.
i was formerly a latter, but i
will stop there, and thank you for your prompt courteous clear response.
That doesn't seem to coincide with the definition.
As I often note, dictionaries are simply the starting point. When discussing more than usage of common English words — such as a particular paradigm for socio-economic/political systems — the dictionary will usually point us in the right direction but cannot, of course, get into the details (and the nuances).
Look up state capitalism : " A political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital . " (Oxford)
My point was to emphasize that capitalism is a function of minority control over the productive resources of the economy. Most people think of minority in terms of the private sector. But that is not the only way to achieve minority control - the State can also be an agent of minority control.
Anyway, this is a good perspective to get on the table.
By the way, just to be clear, I consider state capitalism to be a supremely bad idea. Capitalism is best when roughly equivalent entities are in fair, free competition for resources with necessary (minimal, read: anti-statist) regulation beyond consumer, employee and environmental safety. The transnational uber-monopolies and state controlled industries represent levels of consolidated power that arguably cannot be regulated by normal economic dynamics (e.g. good old fashioned competition).
Competing, vulnerable entities in a fair, free market that must perform to survive is the romanticized capitalism - the core of what we might call 'constructive, beneficial' capitalism.
You say that often. But I'm not sure I agree that's true.
I agree there.
This is where one needs to go to the underlying premise. The identified problem of capitalism was the consolidation of leveraged economic power. Centralization of economic power; increasing economic power in the hands of a minority (identified as the bourgeoisie) rather than distributed economic power (proletariat control).
One is of course free to debate the historical means by which people have hypothesized (and acted) to try to 'achieve' (I would say 'artificially force') decentralization of economic power, but before any such debate ensues the parties need to have some level of agreement on the underlying premise.
I trust that most thinking people would also agree that state capitalism (indeed all forms of statism) is a demonstrably bad idea.
There is no way anyone could fund Medicare for all. When one works from 18-65 to pay for a benefit received after age 65 it barely holds together. What kind of premiums would we pay to Medicare for all to make what one pays into and gets out of it makes any financial sense. Medicare for all is pure socialism.
It would be statism, if anything. You could also genuinely deem it to be a move further into social democracy. Or you might call it yet another government program for redistribution of wealth. These are all defensible positions with labels that have meaning.
Calling it 'socialism' necessitates the reader choose the grab-bag colloquial meaning for 'socialism' which in effect is nothing more than 'something a government provides or controls'.
I understand the underlying premise. I'm just not sure I agree.
I think far more often than not the identified problem is more imagined than real, and the perceived lack of economic power of the proletariat is simply misrecognition of their ignorance..... a situation which socialism does not actually address.
Oh it's possible. But the damage done would outweigh the benefits by 100 times. That's why none of its proponents will ever tell you how they actually intend to fund it.
So it goes.
The awareness of the proletariat is a long established necessary condition for socialism to even come into existence.
Lack (actually it is lesser not absence) of economic power is more than mere perception. Capitalism, by definition and by practice, consolidates economic power in the hands of those who control the productive resources of the economy. Whether or not that is good or bad is not the question, but it is hard to deny the reality. And if your argument is that consumers can wield great economic power I agree, but that is a function of any free market (capitalist or socialist) and not the dimension of power in question. The economic power in question is the ability to direct productive resources — to decide, for example, to build a manufacturing plant on a plot of land or a retail outlet doubling as a solar farm. The power to choose to take the risk of diversification or stick with core competency. The demos, in theory, would be far more active inside of their businesses (as voting owners) and in their communities (as voting members). This is one of the reasons why I note that socialism is impractical for contemporary society; it would be an entirely different paradigm wherein each member is actively aware and participating far more than what takes place today. In short, with control comes responsibility and thus effort. Society will either evolve to a point where socialism becomes practical and desirable or it will not. The active -ism is very much a function of society and the culture thereof.
In our current iteration of capitalism, an aware person can cease being a prole almost immediately.
This ignores the fact that in a service economy each person has control over their own productive resources.
You're talking about theory. Reality is different.
Not really. ConsumerS wield great power. A consumer does not.
In theory. In reality, economic power is the ability to decide what kind of business to start and to do so.
As it does in our current capitalist system. The big difference is that the current system also requires courage and risk. The "worker" must overcome all of the fears inherent in entrepreneurship and take the risks required to improve their station. As I read various descriptions of collective ownership models, the biggest changes seem to be the removal of risk and the lack of need for courage. It almost has a Millennial feel to it, sort of like "owning a business is really scary, but if we all do it together and don't have to risk our own money, that would be great." It makes owning a business sort of like a slightly more involved school project.
Other than your implicit underestimation of what is required to start and maintain a viable business, with access to capital and connections anyone can indeed start a business. There is no premise that states: 'capitalism prevents the rise of new capitalists' so lets ignore the strawman.
How does: 'TiG @4.1.19: Capitalism, by definition and by practice, consolidates economic power in the hands of those who control the productive resources of the economy.' ignore the fact that individuals can run service businesses? The point is that the owners of the productive resources of the economy (the goods and services necessary for the society to function) is controlled by a minority. Yes, individuals can run service businesses; that fact does not really make an iota of difference in the definition.
Since when is writing about capitalism theory?? I was writing about the reality of capitalism: TiG @4.1.19: 'Capitalism, by definition and by practice, consolidates economic power in the hands of those who control the productive resources of the economy. Whether or not that is good or bad is not the question, but it is hard to deny the reality [of Capitalism].'
Do I have to capitalize my pluralizing 'S' for you to read it?: TiG @4.1.19: 'And if your argument is that consumers can wield great economic power I agree' Yes, I was talking about consumers in an economic sense.
Economic power does indeed entail the ability to actually start and run a business. Back to my response to your opening point, there is no premise that states: 'capitalism prevents the rise of new capitalists'. Extending that is the ability for communities to determine how their resources are to be used. And yes, socialism is theoretical; as I routinely note. If you can only discuss national economic systems that have and/or do exist then we cannot discuss socialism.
Do you recognize that there can be different levels of responsibility and effort? You seem to take my relative points and try to cast them into a dichotomy. Just to be super clear, my points do not translate into NO control vs. FULL control or NO opportunity vs. FULL opportunity, etc.
Any system involving market dynamics involves risk and requires courage. Risk would indeed be distributed in most theories of socialism because the avenues for capitalization are (in theory) more available. Mitigating risk is part of the calculus but it is not for the mere sake of reducing risk but rather to increase opportunity.
I think you are hunting for negative labels rather than seriously trying to comprehend a different paradigm. That is, you are arguing that mitigated risk is a bad thing and then in a sense suggesting that socialists are a bunch of pussies. Does not strike me as serious research on your part.
We are well off the topic of socialism and into the topic of Millennials. We might find more agreement there, but I am not that interested in Millennial bashing at the moment.
I think this is a central element in our differences of view. You seem to think it is much more difficult than it is. I've started several businesses, and I have clients who have started several dozen. It just isn't difficult.
The idea that capitalism represents minority control of the means of production relies on that very assumption.
The productive resources of the economy cannot be controlled by a minority when every person controls their own and has the ability to reallocate them as he or she chooses.
Since what you describe is contradicted by real-world events.
You are writing about what you believe to be the reality of capitalism.
I made the distinction for a reason. You tend to think and talk in terms of groups of people. I tend to think first about the individuals.
The rise of each new capitalist decentralizes control of the economy a little more.
Of course.
I'm not sure why you assume that.
And yet the models I've seen described remove most of that risk.
Removing almost all of it.
This is another place where I think the theory breaks down, but I want to make sure we're discussing the same idea. Describe what you see as those additional avenues so I can make sure I'm on the right page.
Odd accusation considering your use of "proletariat".
Well walk me through the difference between "I want to start a business so I go to the community capitalization board (or whatever such an organization would be called)" vs "I want to start a business so I go get an SBA loan".
I have started several businesses as well, all of which were viable to the point of acquisition. Starting a business is trivial. Capitalizing the business is a challenge unless one is properly connected to sources of capital. Growing it into a viable, sustainable and valuable entity is another matter entirely. It is a bit funny seeing you trivialize what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur.
You think that the productive resources of a capitalist economy are controlled by a majority of the people? The bourgeoisie is the majority? No wonder we cannot seem to communicate.
I think you need to get a basic understanding of the terms. Either that or you are just being silly. Look up up 'means of production and distribution'.
State the contradiction in my statement:
I am having a hard time taking you seriously now. We started off okay but looks things are again spiraling into bogus claims and other nonsense.
Well, Jack, I cannot comment on how you tend to operate. But I will say that when speaking economics one typically refers to consumers as a force rather than an individual consumer. And since I was speaking of consumers (and wrote consumers) your writing that consumer (singular) is not appropriate is correcting a problem that did not exist. Arguing just to argue?
Uh, yes, Jack that is indeed the case. Guess what, if our future economy is one in which we are replete with capitalists (i.e. the majority of the nation are owners of business) then one might make the case that we have evolved into a variant of technical socialism. Funny how that works.
Not an assumption, an observation. For example, you describe capitalism as dealing with risk and socialism as not having to deal with risk. FULL risk vs. NO risk.
'Most of the risk'? I think you give the systems too much credit in this regard. As I noted, risk is lessened (as a consequence of more opportunity) but anyone who is being realistic and thinking this through will realize that free market competition will always be flirting with risk. Simple example: your businesses is competing in a free market. Should you fail to prevail your risk of bankruptcy if typically lessened but you have lost your livelihood, harmed your reputation and of course have all the pain associated with failure. Losing is never going to be a good thing under any system. And if one is operating in a free market dynamic the threat of losing is constant and one must continue to be diligent, clever and perform.
One good thing though, at least you are now looking at the models.
If that were to happen (and, again, I think you are being highly optimistic) would that be a bad thing? It would certainly be bad if the only governing agent was risk. That would mean that people would start businesses with a cavalier attitude ... something like ' who cares if I fuck this up ... I will just start another business '. I would think you smart enough to realize that the natural constraints of life would never let a system like that survive. Remember, we are talking about a system that necessarily involves cooperative, involved people taking more personal responsibility.
For example, a system where capital for startup and growth is made available in a distributed, regional basis. ( This is very theoretical and is entirely at odds with our current system of private capitalization. ) I thought this is what you were referring to when you perceived virtually no risk. If not, what do you think is the mechanism for 'removing' risk?
Why? Do you attach emotion to that word? It is a common word to use when talking technical in this subject matter.
You are suggesting that more available capitalization means less risk (and I agree) but then translate that into a bad thing to the point of painting socialists as wimps. It would be up to you to explain that. (But I do not care if you do or not ... it is a tangent.)
Agreed. Thank you.
OK, but service businesses require very small amounts of capital relative to manufacturing businesses.
It's a bit funny seeing you ignore hard work and organic growth as trivial. Especially as that is how most small businesses start and grow.
I think many of your ideas are lost in a textbook world stuck somewhere in the Industrial Revolution.
It has become unsurprising to see you insist that communication is only happening when everyone agrees with your position.
We tend to get here pretty quickly. You repeatedly demonstrate great difficulty comprehending the existence of views other than your own. I have a graduate degree and 23 years experience working with small-medium businesses, including hundreds of start ups. If you're not going to take me seriously about how businesses start, capitalize and grow, you're not going to take anybody seriously. I know what you read in your textbooks, and I know what happens on the ground in real-world, real-life businesses, and they are not the same.
Many of your statements would have been true a century ago, when starting a business required extensive capital which was only available from very few sources. But that was then. About the only thing the economy of 1919 and the economy of 2019 have in common is that neither can live without JP Morgan.
So...you have the risk of losing your job.....which you had anyway before you started a business. So the actual risks of entrepreneurship are off the table.
Absolutely. Sorry, but that seems a bizarre question. People with little or no investment in something are infinitely more likely to let it fail.
People don't start businesses that way. But people do get lazy along the way, and fail to keep up the effort required to keep a business going in years 2,3,4 and so on.
Made available by whom? And what would the process look like for getting access to it?
The risk in question is that of individuals losing their own money if their business fails.
No, it's just a word generally attached to Marx. As is "worker". But frankly I'm not committed to terminology one way or another. What word do you want to use to describe people you believe do not own any of the means of production?
That's not what I'm suggesting.
As I understand the theoretical system you have described in other seeds....and if I confuse things you have posted with things other people have posted then please clarify... a fund would be created from tax dollars to help capitalize new businesses. All members of those businesses would have some level of ownership, thus decentralizing the ownership of the means of production. People without financial resources to start or buy businesses would be able to tap into the fund on either a shared equity or debt basis.
Now...if that is in fact the idea, then the people in question have little or none of their own money at stake, hence the absence of risk.
If they do have relatively significant amounts of their own money at stake, I'm still not sure how it's different from an SBA loan.
Originally I moved on from this thinking we were good, but reading below you are simultaneously using two meanings for 'starting' a business. Literally starting a business (e.g. filing for incorporation) is trivial. Starting a business as a founder and growing the business into a successful entity is a very different usage of 'starting'.
Agreed. What is your point? For example, I could state that it is easier to develop a business leveraging internet accessible supplies, Amazon and eBay rather than establishing a physical storefront, manage inventory, produce product, etc. That is generally true too. You do recognize that there are plenty of other businesses out there that need to raise capital, right? Examples of low capital businesses is not an argument that capitalization is a thing of the past.
What?! Growing a business is usually a ton of work - where do you see me dismissing this as trivial. Read what you quoted again:
I wrote that growth is NOT trivial in response to you trivializing what it takes to achieve success:
Technically and literally starting a business (e.g. picking a name, filing for incorporation (or equivalent), creating a business plan, etc.) is trivial compared to actually growing the enterprise into a viable entity and sustaining same. Starting a business (where starting means you as founder created and grew a business into a successful entity) is a tough gig. When you say you started several businesses I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did more than upfront paperwork.
So by 'start' did you mean actually achieve success as a founder or did you mean you simply filled out paperwork? Pick a meaning.
Because (quite obviously, Jack) you are striving for disagreement - to the point of reinterpreting what I write to the exact opposite so you can strawman argue it. You quote my words, ignore what you quoted and then respond to odd ideas of your own making. For example, I note that under capitalism a minority actually control the productive resources of a nation and you (amazingly) disagree and deem it 'my idea'. Well, Jack, you are not disagreeing with my idea, you are disagreeing with the meaning of capitalism and the practical observation of capitalism in action.
Citing credential is not nearly as good as demonstrating you know what you are talking about. Nonetheless, we are roughly equivalent in experience and education; you being a bit younger. I would expect us to have no problem communicating. How then is it that you read my words and come up with nonsense such as: 'It's a bit funny seeing you ignore hard work and organic growth as trivial.' It is understandable for someone who is naive about business but given your experience you should not read the exact opposite of what I write. Makes me think you are arguing for the sake of argument rather than seriously trying to have a discussion. The fact that I routinely call this out with quotes (which you ignore) further convinces me that you are just playing a game.
Write the individual you makes this statement:
You are all over the map, Jack. What we are talking about right now (starting and growing a business into a viable, sustainable entity) is rather well understood. We know most businesses fail, we know that capitalization is difficult, we know that it takes a long time to develop the relationships required for success. It is trivial to incorporate (i.e. to literally start). It is quite difficult to turn that legal entity into something of value.
Textbooks?
Be specific. Which statement? My statement that businesses need to be capitalized and that capitalization is not easy? You want to argue that capitalization is easier than 100 years ago therefore capitalization is not a problem today? Problem solved? Maybe that is the view of someone who has only ever dealt with service organizations.
You argue that one can start a service business with little capitalization. True. So what? Do we ignore the businesses that do need capital?
Let's say you are doing something more significant than opening up an executive recruitment business which does not require much more than the capital to secure leased office space, etc. Have you ever started a business that produces a product? If so, would you suggest to someone wishing to start a product business (creating the product) that securing capital is no big deal? Would you tell the person that people start businesses all the time, pat him on the back and wish him luck?
Somehow I suspect that in situations where you are not playing debate games you would provide proper advice and that advice would be something like: 'Be tenacious, the road ahead will be exciting but it is going to test your resolve - possibly to the point of thinking success is beyond your reach - there is no guarantee that your efforts will produce success, but giving up guarantees failure.' Not: 'aw just go out there and do your best, you will do fine - piece of cake'.
Frankly I am not convinced that can be accomplished. It would be good to mitigate the risk (bring it down a notch) but I am not convinced we will ever be in a situation where a fledgling free market business is not aware of a daily nag of risk.
First, why would you presume they are not heavily invested? You do realize that people can have skin in the game without being a venture capitalist.
Second, and much more to the point, why do you presume that reduced risk will turn the entrepreneurial individuals into individuals who would accept failure? Do you not understand the mindset of people driven to accomplish something? The primary motivation is pride and ambition. The fear of the worst scenario such as bankruptcy is not what pushes them forward. Ever consider that the constant struggle to work around insufficient capitalization is a drain to the entity?
Judging by your words (in spite of what I have expected of you) you are not coming across as someone who has run his own product business. If one's primary motivation is to not go broke, I can pretty much guarantee they will go broke.
I don't have a preference. I used proletariat because it is well defined - seems to me to be the best term for the concept.
You should continue your discussion with Dig. I have not gone into much detail on how a particular system achieves capitalization. Dig, however, is quite fond of Economic Democracy and can go into specifics in that and other systems. My focus is to encourage people to use the term 'socialism' in a meaningful way and, especially, use words that are well-defined to express their points. You know, if someone is complaining about a growing intrusive government then use the word 'statism'. I am not here to explain specific systems or even to defend them (although I wind up having to set the record straight quite a bit).
What you wrote, however, follows the basic idea of most Democratic Socialist systems I have looked at. Those businesses all contribute back to the fund as well.
How can you call that the absence of risk (as in zero risk)?? Consider that the business is their livelihood. There is no stock market. All one's growth potential, retirement funds, etc. are tied up in the success of the business. Not to mention personal pride, the impact on the community, etc. Hard for me to see that as zero risk.
Considerably more available to startups and tied to the interests of the community / region rather than the interests of a bank. This gets complicated quickly, but the essential idea is to have capital flow more democratically and be more closely tied to the wishes of the people.
if i may,
i'd have to say,
he seems to be implying,
you don't know Jack.
But, maybe you do. All i know, from my limited interaction, as it was similiar to this exchange, is Jack likes to jump
around a bit.
but
he is fun to play with.
N joy
In order for a person to own their own means of production, that business would need to support them.
Your assertion is that the means of production are controlled by a minority. In a service economy labor is the means of production, and each person owns their own. The low capital requirements to start service businesses empower individuals even further.
Started, run, grown.
From the man who is arguing "Agreed. Thank you."
The threshold here is simply "controlling the means of production".
Why? That person, in that moment, owns their own means of production. So does the CPA that opens his own practice working out of his house. Or the real estate agent, architect or house flipper. Or the guy that goes down and buys all the clearance items at his local Walmart and resells them on Amazon or Ebay. Or the lady that saves up $4k for the second-hand embroidery machine and starts doing monograms in her basement.
It's phenomenally decentralized.
Does the model you prefer require people starting a business to put up some of their own money, or does it allow for people to get fully funded from public sources?
Experience.
Pride and ambition come in varying degrees. If they don't have enough to overcome the fear of the risk, it's unlikely they'll have enough to overcome the other obstacles they'll face.
What does the above ↑ response have to do with what you quoted below ↓ ?:
This quote from me points out the obvious distinction between legally starting a business (e.g. filing, business plan, etc.) and growing the business to a viable entity. Did you mean to quote something else?
I will ignore the quote as context (since it makes no sense). As for your comment, there does not seem to be any point. I presume the person in your sentence is the owner of the business. So all you seem to be stating is that a business that engages in production would support the owner's ownership of facilities, equipment, etc. If so, sure ... basic model of capitalism.
That is a defining characteristic of capitalism. It is a fact.
I think you misunderstand the concept of means of production. The means of production refers to land, facilities, equipment, capital, materials, etc. Labor is not a means of production as used in this context. Labor is part of the mode of production, not part of the means of production.
Yes we know that service businesses with low capital requirements and virtually no need to own a means of production are much easier to start than product companies. Odd that you are making a point with which I have and certainly continue to agree.
Then why would you write this?:
This implies that starting a business - in general - just is not difficult. Starting most service organizations (especially small firms) is clearly not difficult. Consider now starting up a business to produce consumer robotics, clothing, sound systems, organic agricultural products, etc. That kind of stuff ... things that consumers buy (especially the necessities). Do you see any difference between that and a small law firm?
Because service businesses are not the only type of business. Because you are excluding the type of business that is central to the distinction between capitalism and socialism. You know, minor stuff like that.
No, labor is not a means of production (see above: mode of production).
Simply incorrect, see above (mode of production).
Have you figured out who controls the productive resources of the economy - the means of production and distribution? Talking exclusively around the entities controlling the distinguishing characteristic is not accomplishing anything. You see that, right?
I do not have a preferred model, Jack. Economic Democracy (Dig's preferred model) seems to be one of the better ones. You should ask Dig. My understanding is that the means of production are leased by the business. That does not logically preclude the owners (workers) from putting forth their own capital but I do not know if that model precludes it. I see no reason why it would preclude it either since the investment is within the entity. However, there is no way for an outside investor to provide capital.
Just a bit too vague. I have quite a bit of experience in business too - and mine is in delivering innovative products. I also, by the way, have quite a bit of experience in the services industry having been a consultant and partner in a consulting firm (decades ago).
I would never invest in a company if the executive team is more concerned about financial liability and cost-cutting than it is on market analysis, relationships, hiring the brightest (not the 'deals') and looking at the big, longer term picture. The executive team needs to be pumped and passionate about what they are doing - being driven by their enthusiasm for what they are developing rather than being scared shitless of a loan being called in.
Yes, overcoming the fear of risk is what I am talking about. So if you have a team that can see past the risk and focus on what is critical that is a good thing, right? A team that is held back by their fear of risk is a bad thing, right? So if the risk were mitigated (if possible) that would be a good thing, right?
Of course that would only be if you live in the world of Trump and his lies, which are consumed by conservatives. This is why the gop has lost it. You can't believe and promote lies and expect us to believe you on anything else. (not the personal 'you').
Sounds exactly like the current Administration............
No, that is the progressive way of doing things.
Trump is right on in his position on the various issues.
Trump is the Archie Bunker of American Presidents.
Yes, it takes quite an imagination to believe that nonsense. Please do get all the testimonials of how great it is to be an unemployed undocumented immigrant if you can find any. Undocumented immigrants come for two reasons, either as asylum seekers coming from south America where they are fleeing sectarian violence, gangs and oppressive governments or they are coming for work. Most of the undocumented people I've run into in California not only aren't unemployed, they often have more than one job and are very hard workers. Sure, most of the work they're doing is gardening, landscaping, farm work or day laborers, but they certainly aren't sitting on their hands waiting for a government hand out. Most likely have a stolen social security number and are having payroll taxes and social security taxes deducted that they'll never benefit from.
Fact: No American would ever go pick up a $8-$10 an hour likely undocumented immigrant day laborer from out front of Home Depot if there was a line of English speaking American citizens willing to work as hard for minimum wage. I have yet to hear from anyone who's been complaining about what a burden they are on society to claim they actually lost their job to an undocumented immigrant. It's like their myth of the imaginary millions of undocumented voters, they have nothing but fourth hand anecdotal evidence of either illegals taking all their jobs or illegals living large on the American tax payer.
Unfortunately, while stationed in San Fran, lived in Bay Point, right next to Antioch, I and many others saw just the opposite. Every morning, the Illegals were lined up at Home Depot and were PUSHING the English speaking "probable" U. S. citizens out of line so they could get hired/picked up first. Absolutely hilarious was when a CBP truck/car turned into the parking lot, geeeee - total vacancy of ANY Hispanic speaking person and only the few English speaking "probable" U. S. citizens were left for employment.
Am I'm sure you have yet to hear from any of our ancestors being overjoyed when we heard the consoling words of "We're from the gvnmnt and we're here to help you.", right?
Seriously? You're going with more unproven anecdotal evidence that seems incredibly unlikely, undocumented immigrants physically assaulting American citizens in plain sight of customers, as the proof they are a "burden" on society?
"I'm sure you have yet to hear from any of our ancestors being overjoyed when we heard the consoling words of "We're from the gvnmnt and we're here to help you.", right?"
The "government" has worn many faces in the last 240 years, from callous bigoted murderer to unselfish WWII heroes and advocates for the disenfranchised, women and minorities. They have been as diverse as their legislature has been, which was essentially all white and all male for the first 200 years. It has only been in the last few decades that we've seen true advancements in diversity and having legislators actually physically represent the people they politically represent.
So because many of our ancestors never felt represented (and the facts show they almost certainly weren't if they were a minority) few were overjoyed with supposed "government aid".
What was once effectively affirmative action for whites only when it came to education, trade schools and skilled worker professions is now being expanded to be more inclusive, but the push back from the white communities and claims of reverse discrimination should be expected from such myopic viewpoints as many of those who once assumed certain special privileges but are now having to actually work hard for the same opportunity. Equality feels like oppression to those accustomed to privilege.
well then, youre guilty
cause i know, with first hand knowledge that they didn't teach me at Kinder College, that the majority bust there ass and are hard workers
DP - I know you feel you're an expert on many things, but challenging someone else's word - based on your humble, simple knowledge - ain't one of those areas of being an expert. If you're gonna call someone out in the future, I'd recommend more ammunition than just your "opinion".
And, BTW, I didn't say they were "burden's" on society - those are your words.
I merely said that anecdotal evidence that doesn't reflect the reality shouldn't be used as an excuse to make a generalize claim about people. Just because you saw a guy or handful of guys doing something no one else seems to have seen doesn't mean every undocumented immigrant does the same. The fact is in my anecdotal experience, I've never seen a line of white citizens lining up for day labor work, and no one I've talked to has either.
"BTW, I didn't say they were "burden's" on society"
The meme you posted implied they were living here unemployed on government benefits. I'd say that's synonymous with calling them "burdens" on society.
Most of my duty time was spent in the South - Ala, Fl, Miss, LA, GA, VA - but some time was also spent in Cali, NM and OR - and I can guarantee you that I and many others saw a lot of "white" U.S. Citizens in lines at Home Depot/Lowe's/Ace just waiting for job offers for the day. Hell, at each military base I was at, each and every summer, you'd find "white" U.S.citizens standing outside the gates during transfer season begging for jobs. And, yeah, there would be the Illegal Aliens in those lines also.
As you are well aware, there are tons of exceptions to each side. My next door neighbor's brother is in his mid-60's, has taken his SS early and is making only $765/M. He is constantly begging for money, food, clothing, shelter. His brother and I and a number of others keep on reminding him that there are plenty of jobs available - all he has to do is apply. Will he? Hell no - he sez he ain't gonna work for nobody - wrong answer.
As opposed to your unproven anecdotal "evidence" about "people I've run into in California".
The ignorant right believes that one first year Senator runs the whole party. Perhaps it's projection and they think the loonies on the left will take over just like they (loonies) have taken over the right. It's true a wave of populism is being infused on the left, but they aren't leaders of the party, like those on the right. I guess to keep the "war" going they have to keep yelling the, "Sky if falling!" every time someone on the other side comes up with an idea. Even if that idea has no plan.
Bernie is not a first term Senator and Hillary claimed she incorporated ninety percent of his ridiculous socialist ideas into her platform. There is a lot more to this than your comment indicates.
Makes sense if you realize that both Bernie and Hillary are statists. Both view the State as a 'benevolent' entity which should be highly involved in the lives (personal and economic) of the individual members of society.
Toss the overloaded-to-the-point-of-meaningless 'socialism' label - its usage degrades communication.
Bernie is not a Democrat. Most Democrats would like Bernie to go away.
Tell me Dean, when you started believing Hillary? Was it during the 9 Bengazi hearings or during her 2nd failed campaign? Hillary no matter what she says is a Blue Dog Democrat.
I think you are correct, but it will be interesting to see the dynamics. Bernie was a rock star in the backdrop of an unpopular establishment player who had a stronger political machine. Will he be a rock star now or will he limp along and fade away early in the process?
I could still be wrong but neither Hillary or Bernie is mentioned in the article, (and hopefully Hillary isn't running),
but the author seems to have a good case of AOCDS.
Sorta like Trumpp , running as a Republican then, no ?
Cause Trumpp, like Berniem , is Independent, but unkie Bernie, not just of thought and reason
i've chatted with quite a few, but those in government don't care, as they have not the ballz to call out his arcanian asz,
for as long as he pushes forth their religious and far "Right" agenda, and gets the richest even richer, t5heir morals and ethix, can be ditched into the ditcher
That is a matter of semantics only. In the last election, Sanders ran as a Democrat as you well know, because it suited him to do so.
I can't understand why the GOP allowed Trump to run as one of them either.
Weird shit huh?
Yes, I made a mistake.
Stop the presses.
I must have reached my "Isn't AOC the dumbest Democrat ever?" article limit.
Yes, I made a mistake.
Stop the presses.
I must have reached my "Isn't AOC the dumbest Democrat ever?" article limit.
But thanks for pointing it out, one more time BF
He won the populist liberal vote, not the Democrat Party vote. You do remember all the murky shit going on with the party accused of not sharing information with his campaign, correct? He's a Democratic Socialist squatting on the Democratic Party ticket. Much like some Libertarians have run on the Republican Party ticket.
Your turn.
Oh geez, man up and admit you too, made a mistake.
It's easy....
yes, the line below where Bernie was mentioned. lol.
I wouldn't be surprised if she's bipolar. Brain is going way too fast for her mouth.
And now she’s the boss over us all. She said so herself.
No irony here.....
2024 she will be 35. I’ll be back in about 3.5 hours
Let me get this straight: The Green New Deal calls for opening new markets, new construction, increased production of new technology, and almost guaranteed sales of those new products, no doubt with an influx of public funds, AND the modern capitalists are upset?
How is the Green New Deal different than when the country was building railroads?
The reaction to the Green New Deal is the best argument that we should never, ever take advice from businessmen. Apparently modern capitalists are too stupid to recognize a good deal when they see one. But then, modern capitalists appear to be more communist than anything else. So the reaction should not be too surprising.
If you want to get it straight you need to take into consideration how much existing businesses will be harmed by these new laws and how much their taxes will rise putting them at a disadvantage compared to foreign competitors. You also need to measure if freedom will be stripped through increased government regulations.
The freedom to poison communities if you give enough to conservative campaigns?
What foreign competitors? We aren't living in the 1950s when domestic industry supplied the American marketplace.
Modern capitalists in the United States have gone full commie. The commie capitalists have convinced the public that our economy would collapse without huge trade deficits.
Are you referring to the tariffs?
/s
We're letting you. You're just not holding up your end of the program.
No. Modern capitalists are laughing their asses off at the ridiculousness of the proposal and the childish naivete of the person bringing it.
One is built on the intention of destroying one of the largest industries in America. The other was built on the intention of connecting industries in America.
Riiiiight. We should only take advice from idiotic Millenials who think the world is going to end in 12 years. (her words)
Which would explain their current state of impoverishment.
I confess I have made the mistake of reading your post without my correctly fashioned tinfoil hat, so I'm sure it's the government radiation coming from the Alexa enabled devices they're also using to spy on me that prevents me from seeing the hidden truth I'm sure you intended.
You don't know anything about the green deal
The Green New Deal is primarily a jobs program. The conversion won't be accomplished by robots.
The Green New Deal will open new markets for new products with almost guaranteed sales. That should be a capitalist's wet dream.
The life cycle for alternative energy equipment is so short that the new jobs and new markets won't go away. That means the economic risks are manageable; it won't be a boom & bust economy.
Notice that the factors in favor of the Green New Deal doesn't need to include climate change? The Green New Deal is a more common sense approach.
I’m working 13 hours today so please behave on the seeds I didn’t lock.
XX,
The CoC says you have to be an active part of the moderation, so if you can't be, then lock your articles.
New article are always attended to. If a two week old article pops up, I don't expect that the seeder should be there. There is a difference.
Sorry, but that's not accurate. There are currently multiple anti-Trump/anti gun/anti-Christian seeds open on my home page and the seeders have been MIA for 24 hours. This isn't just today. It's been like this with the dozens of anti-Trump seeds ever since I've been a member here.
I locked four highly active seeds with almost a thousand posts between them on them before going to work. I do have seeds still active two weeks after initial seeding from time to time. Of course you know who knew that.
want to Deputize me , Dawg ?
I run a tight ship,
and not just into land masses either, i'll have U know
that i don't
Yet you find the time to pick fights with the left
Don't rush, take your time.
Liberal Type Nirvana.....Then reality hits ! :
Gee that was right wing financed and they flocked to it
hahaha ….. haha ..... ha …... SNORKEL/SNORT/PVVVVVVT...… Sorry.....had to blow my nose on that one !
[deleted]
[comment spamming....]