I second that…why is he replying only to me and not you?
You’re looking at it from today’s point of view, but back then, it was all new. Yes, they made their product work only with their parts, which is called bundling.
It’s like a car, they have their own radiators and carburetors, and they are bundled together to work more effectively with their specially designed car. A radiator from one brand couldn’t work in another one, it was all made together that way, and most consumers (including me) weren’t sophisticated enough to know how to get parts and install or uninstall them, it was a new field.
Yes, the federal government got involved with the Clintons, which is what I was talking about fears of monopoly, and they changed it, but I wonder if it wasn’t so necessary. If Microsoft or others weren’t making a totally efficient bundled system, including Internet Explorer…then consumers would have more impetus to buy other company’s bundles. As it is, the law allowed people to exchange parts without changing the whole computer, which might have helped Microsoft in the long run from consumers defecting from their brand more rapidly if their parts were truly inferior.
Oh don’t worry, we’ve had our jarrings, and I can recognize a true, curious question on his part versus just irony.
It’s a serious question presented in a humorous tone.
Your description of the ill effects of monopolism sounded like it was about monopolies in general, in a way that people in general would tend to agree with.
Then you clarified that you were only concerned about monopolies with any kind of state involvement.
Now there may be thousands of small “monopolies” we’ve never heard of, e.g. Fred in Anytown is the world’s only purveyor of Fred Widgets, whatever those are, and no-one bothers competing because no-one’s heard of them.
But in general when we speak of monopolies, we’re talking about the big players like Standard Oil, Alphabet, and so on.
I’m trying to think of how one of those would manage to avoid any involvement with the state and also manage to avoid causing any harm to the economy.
1 Like
I think after reading this gem we can all safely ignore what this poster has to say about anything.
They are the same in that they lead to the same road…authoritarianism. In capitalism, the monopolies use the state to keep their status. The state turns on them as convenience dictates.
In marxism, the reverse.
Yes, I know the “theories”, but economic theories fail to consider on thing, the human psyche.
I think you’re conflating capitalism with fascism, especially as executed under Mussolini in Italy and Peron in Argentina. Actually, Democrat FDR Roosevelt tried to implement something similar in the USA, but the courts knocked it down unanimously as unconstitutional.
The government bundles companies together, and they decide business prices, procedures, etc. with guidance from the state (but not look like it). But fascism is still socialism, it clearly belongs to the left, as the state ultimately has control over means of production, just more indirectly compared to communism.
[quote=yyy]But in general when we speak of monopolies, we’re talking about the big players like Standard Oil, Alphabet, and so on.
I’m trying to think of how one of those would manage to avoid any involvement with the state and also manage to avoid causing any harm to the economy.[/quote]
The question is rather how an economic monopoly can avoid tampering from the state, trying to sue them, or regulate them, which is usually the case when companies succeed.
Obama practiced a form of Peron fascism when Chrysler was going down. Obama tried to persuade the private investors to give up their claims on the company and then turned it over to his union buddies in the UAW (United Automobile Workers), which effectively established government control over the company. The question is how to get governments dirty hands off of companies. But companies shouldn’t be asking for government to bail them out or help them either to the detriment of consumers, it goes both ways.
Your arguments would hold up more if you could provide sources. Viable and reliable sources would could include articles accessed from the internet from sites that end in “.edu” and “.gov” as well as peer-reviewed journals.
You are playing pundit here, that is clear. You are either rehashing someone else’s words or attempting to marrying many ideas into one. The fallacy is strong here.
Here we go…
You said Fascism and socialism are one in the same and firmly belong entirely to the left side of the political spectrum, and the democratic party ascribes completely to these ideologies.
Fascism = Socialism = Democratic Party. Fascism is a political philosophy, socialism is an economic philosophy. They share similar traits, to an extent. In the same way that capitalism and socialism share traits, and democracies and autocracies share similar traits. Both involve government involvement in people’s lives in one form or the other.
Now the political punditry becomes clearer. I am guessing you are referring to US v Butler, where the court struck down a tax provision that, while in spirit with Art I of the US constitution, violated the 10th amendment. The court simply ruled such action should be done by the states. A re-tooled Act was later passed. You can read the entire ruling, here.
Again, punditry. You are glazing over things to make them appear as one. Fascism is historically a rightist political movement, generally disdained of state ownership and state control over the economy. (ref) Still, to keep the balance, I found this. At first glance, he backs up your argument, but at the same time, he backs up mine.
I hope that helps.
Again, punditry at play.
At best a misrepresentation of what had happened.
GM and Chrysler had been failing badly to bad management for the past few decades. You can call it what you want, that is not my point here. Chrysler had been the beneficiary of a multi billion dollar loan from Bush, while FIAT was interested in purchasing them. I have no idea why FIAT would want them. Even the Germans could not make Chrysler profitable. Anyway, long story short, Obama told the Chrysler group to accept the FIAT offer, as there would be no further bailouts. FIAT was the only viable group who wanted them, and the capital management group holding Chrysler was bleeding money.
Chrysler went to FIAT, how can you say the UAW got ownership? Source? (.edu or .gov, or peer-reviewed journal only is accepted)
Unfortunately, due to Trump’s fanatical hatred of all things Obama, the whole archive -that was the source for this- that was once stored on White House servers (ie taxpayer’s servers) is no longer available for taxpayers to resource. How…convenient.
Jotham…these are free ones for future use.
It rained Tuesday.
'Bama!
I have a zit on my nose.
'Bama!
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
'Bama!
It’s bloody hot outside.
'Bama!
1 Like
That is the most ridiculous requirement I’ve heard for having legitimacy in a debate. You just don’t have very good debate skills so you’re trying to tie my hands. I don’t have to do any such thing to make my point clearly. There are plenty of reliable sources that show the UAW were given a significant share of Chrysler, 65%, giving them effective control. It is also true that Peron intimidated private investors to give up their claims so he could fill it with unions, look it up.
This comes from Slate, which is hardly my political persuasion:
But in 2014, Fiat, who had 35%, finally got a majority stake.
Socialism is a wide umbrella and includes many things, including communism, which is the most extreme form of socialism. A basic definition is for government to control the means of production in some way or other, and fascism is well within that framework. The Nazis called themselves socialists, their party is called the Nationalist Socialist Party. If you are referring to free markets as right-wing, there really were not representatives of that in German politics at that time.
Economic philosophy really is the same thing as political philosophy when yielded in the hands of government elites.
Not, rather the National Recovery Act. Congress gave President Roosevelt vast congressional powers to direct business and put it under state control like the tyrant Mussolini did, and it was unanimously struck down.
Why am I having so much trouble with the quote function?
1 Like
Yes two components and they were called Nationalsozialismus, I see where Bernie Sanders fits in as well as Trump, care to fill us in on the Democrat and Republican agenda?
Saying that quote effectively gives you license to turn this into a schoolyard rant. “Is too, because [whoever] says so!”
Arguing with pundits who refuse to cite primary sources, is like trying to debate whether or not there is a god, or Jesus existed.
And now to work…
Have a gander at this. Second paragraph with the ellipses.
And? East Germany had the word “Democratic” in its name, and was hardly such. North Korea has the same, and I challenge you to go to Pyongyang and demand suffrage.
The courts shot down an overreach by congress and the president. It happens all the time. The constitution grants the branches to do so. And so what it was overturned? Given the state of the economy at the time, Roosevelt had to do something. I guess the Strausses and Friedmans would rather the nation die?
Look at everything else that has stood. The ACA, ARRA, TARP, HERA, the list goes on. The ACA withstood a court challenge. A very right leaning court challenge, even Roberts admitting it was akin to a tax.
Capitalism, is apolitical. It can serve both the left and the right. But, as with all “isms” it only really works as a theory since, as I have said before, proponents fail to factor in the human psyche. Try this, you cannot have absolute freedom in a system with more than one species.
Mussolini and Hitler considered the communists as enemies, of course they try to differentiate their socialism from Marxist socialism. He only states that they are the opposite of Marxist socialism. They didn’t believe in Hegel’s life force directing all events of history, nor in the inevitability of historical events. Which is why he says they believe in heroism. And even though they are very different from Marxist, material communism, they are still socialists in that they are statist, they believe the State has dominion and should control the means of production. They are socialists through and through. Mussolini even states that collectivism is the age that fascism was meant to usher in, did you miss that?
East Germany and North Korea are country names, I’m talking about political parties that identifies your beliefs. The East Germans called themselves the Socialist Unity Party, and North Korea is Korean Workers’ Party, which is common communist parlance.
The Constitution doesn’t allow courts to strike down laws except where there is conflict with the Constitution. The judges can’t strike down laws just because they think they are silly or ridiculous. They only interpret them and judge accordingly. If the laws are unconstitutional, only then can they strike them down. And clearly it was here.
The economic demise was his own doing. Unemployment was above 8% and mostly above 10% in the whole 16 years of Roosevelt until the war, during which people were employed to destroy instead of build society.
Capitalism allows for individual capital growth of the population, individuals in a country. Those countries where total capital per population grows are countries which become rich and affluent. Some governments cooperate with this and others work against it, even if the political system is deemed democratic. Even different leaders in the same country.
Roberts knew that it was unconstitutional to force people to buy a product, so he changed the law to make it into a tax, which Obama kept saying it wasn’t in the beginning. Judges really don’t have the power to change law, but he did it to save it, because it really was unconstitutional as was. He got muck flak for doing that, and for good reason.
And yet I, like many people on the right, such as Lord Conrad Black, see FDR as a saviour of capitalism. You are right in assuming it was the War, and not the New Deal, that brought the US out of the Great Depression and many of FDR`s actions were unconstitutional (e.g., court packing) but without FDR, the country could have been led by populist demagogues such as Huey Long etc. that could have provided much, much, much more radical solutions.
1 Like
To be more precise, as rivals.
But to the far left, a rival is an enemy.
Oh, so now Jesus and Bush II are far leftists?
If you’re going to keep reducing socialism to statism, why not just call them statists?
About those pure, private monopolies (wherever they are), I still fail to see how they benefit the economy overall.
The judges can’t strike down laws just because they think they are silly or ridiculous. They only interpret them and judge accordingly. If the laws are unconstitutional, only then can they strike them down. And clearly it was here.
But, but, there were Democrats in the Supreme Court! 
It was Obama!!!