Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Occupy Wall Street Stealing; the Tea parties thunder
Topic Started: Nov 4 2011, 09:32 AM (752 Views)
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I have talked to tea party activists and cannot recall a single conversation wherein they concentrated on discussing business issues. What they did concentrate on was ineptness of Washington, the lack of the government spending controls, taxes,,and a general agreement that our governments have failed us.

I have noticed that the republicans have attempted to ride piggyback on the tea party movement, but when they are confronted by tea party activists, they are shouted down. The tea party seems to have an equal amount of disdain for both major parties.

I think you need to separate out the tea party from republicans when discussing the tea party. I suggest you attend a rally or two, sit over a cup of coffee with them and ask some questions. That's what i did because I was curious on what the movement was about. There are some loudmouths in the group, but for the most part, they were ordinary fellas and gals that I found to be educated on the subjects and highly motivated for change.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
An easy source of Tea Party opinion is over on FreeForAll where you could talk to me, maine, stoney, peter, and several others who debate the corporatist/fascist problem nearly every day.

Don't believe it? Then turn to liberal economist Robert Reich: Tea Parties Threaten Corporatism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
If anyone is associated with the Tea Party it's Palin, and here she is attacking the corporatism/crony capitalism of not only Obama but Republican candidates.

Palin’s Attack on ‘Corporate Crony Capitalism’ Spotlights Gap in GOP Field
Quote:
 
Sarah Palin’s speech Saturday in Iowa against “corporate crony capitalism” left her presidential ambitions uncertain, but it made clear a big gap in the 2012 GOP field: the lack of a strong conservative populist.

When former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addressed a tea party crowd in New Hampshire Sunday night, he again doubled-down on his assertion that “corporations are people,” a line he first used at the Iowa State Fair last month in explaining why he wouldn’t raise taxes on big businesses.

...It was a marked contrast from the approach Ms. Palin took during her speech in Indianola, Iowa, Saturday. After repeatedly accusing President Barack Obama of steering government to benefit corporate campaign donors, she turned to her party’s presidential candidates: “To be fair, some GOP candidates, they also raise mammoth amounts of cash,” Ms. Palin said. “What, if anything, do their donors expect for their investments?”

News reports have shown that some donors to Texas Gov. Rick Perry received state appointments. And this year, he has been slammed anew by many conservatives for a 2007 executive order requiring sixth-grade girls in Texas to get a vaccine made by Merck & Co. to help prevent cervical cancer; Mr. Perry’s former chief of staff is a lobbyist for Merck. Mr. Perry later said that was a mistake. When Ms. Palin was asked afterward her speech if she had Mr. Perry in mind, she replied, “I want all of our GOP candidates to take the opportunity to kill corporate capitalism that is leading to this cronyism, which is ruining our economy.”

...In her 2010 book, “America by Heart,” Ms. Palin cited University of Chicago business professor Luigi Zingales as a supporter of her free-market principles.

“Professor Zingales makes the crucial point that there is a difference between being pro-market and being pro-business,” she wrote. “Both political parties are at fault in failing to acknowledge this distinction.”...

And yet there are those who in the face of these facts will repeat Dem talking points: "Except the tea party defends big business and wants the country to fail" and "You certainly have that right!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 5 2011, 12:58 AM
So what paranoia have I been fed by what corporatists that leads me to argue so much against corporatism?

Those supporting the Tea Party are dedicated corporatists. So, why would a member of the Tea Party argue against corporatism?

The definition of corporatism I'm using when I make that statement is.
corporatism (plural corporatisms)
Quote:
 
1.Political / Economic system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, their associated lobbying efforts, etc.) working in concert or conflict with each other; usually with the goal of influencing or subsuming the direction of the state and generally only to benefit their own socioeconomic agendas at the expense of the will of the people, and to the detriment of the common good.

2.The influence of large business corporations in politics.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporatism

Could it be that many in the Tea Party and the corporatists have common goals?
And, that would be defeating Obama?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Nov 6 2011, 11:02 AM
Chris
Nov 5 2011, 12:58 AM
So what paranoia have I been fed by what corporatists that leads me to argue so much against corporatism?

Those supporting the Tea Party are dedicated corporatists. So, why would a member of the Tea Party argue against corporatism?

The definition of corporatism I'm using when I make that statement is.
corporatism (plural corporatisms)
Quote:
 
1.Political / Economic system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, their associated lobbying efforts, etc.) working in concert or conflict with each other; usually with the goal of influencing or subsuming the direction of the state and generally only to benefit their own socioeconomic agendas at the expense of the will of the people, and to the detriment of the common good.

2.The influence of large business corporations in politics.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corporatism

Could it be that many in the Tea Party and the corporatists have common goals?
And, that would be defeating Obama?
"Those supporting the Tea Party are dedicated corporatists."

Show it.

"So, why would a member of the Tea Party argue against corporatism?"

Takes away from liberty. Corporatism is not a creature of the free market. Even Adam Smith made that point. Corporatism takes advantage of political means, not economic means.


Dictionary definitions of technical terms are generally inadequate. But, take yours, and we're back at where did corporations get their power? Society or state? If it's directed against the will of the people, then the people didn't give them the power. That leaves the state, the state working against the will and to the detriment of the people.


"Could it be that many in the Tea Party and the corporatists have common goals?"

Not the Tea Partiers I know. Most of us would rather see Obama remain in office than elect more-of-the-same big government social cons and neocons. Not, as I just cited, Palin against crony capitalism, another phrase meaning corporatism. And not Ron Paul, Socialism vs Corporatism
Quote:
 
Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single-payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.” Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term — corporatism — forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.


If you're against corporatism, you're against Obama's corporist policies.
Edited by Chris, Nov 6 2011, 12:19 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Isn't the funding of the Tea Party, numerous candidates and conservative think tanks by the Kochs and other like minded business folk an example of corporatism?

Granted the Union Funding of the Dems is also, but not on as grand a scale.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Nov 7 2011, 06:48 AM
Isn't the funding of the Tea Party, numerous candidates and conservative think tanks by the Kochs and other like minded business folk an example of corporatism?

Granted the Union Funding of the Dems is also, but not on as grand a scale.
Not the Tea Party, since it has no political power, nor think tanks, left or right, same reason. They have only public power. They take funding, sure, but do with it as they please.

Funding the elections of Reps and Dems is, that buys special favors, the right to write laws, power.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a leading liberal-minded economist, seems to understand the problem is political and governmental.

The Global 99 Percent
Quote:
 
...This is not to deny that some of the 1 percent have contributed a great deal. Indeed, the social benefits of many real innovations (as opposed to the novel financial “products” that ended up unleashing havoc on the world economy) typically far exceed what their innovators receive. But, around the world, political influence and anti-competitive practices (often sustained through politics) have been central to the increase in economic inequality. And tax systems in which a billionaire like Warren Buffett pays lower taxes (as a percentage of his income) than his secretary, or in which speculators, who helped to bring down the global economy, are taxed at lower rates than those who work for their income, have reinforced the trend....

...On one level, today’s protesters are asking for little: a chance to use their skills, the right to decent work at decent pay, a fairer economy and society. Their hope is evolutionary, not revolutionary. But, on another level, they are asking for a great deal: a democracy where people, not dollars, matter, and a market economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do.
The two are related: As we have seen, unfettered markets lead to economic and political crises. Markets work the way they should only when they operate within a framework of appropriate government regulations, and that framework can be erected only in a democracy that reflects the general interest—not the interests of the 1 percent. The best government that money can buy is no longer good enough.

Only problem is, even in recognizing the problem as political and governmental, he believes without justification that politics and government can be made better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
It's surprising what an economist of Stiglitz' renown misses and What Occupy Wall Street Gets Wrong: Namely that "Wealth creation is not a zero sum game."
Quote:
 
If you want to know what motivates the people involved in Occupy Wall Street, you can get a good idea from Think Progress, a left-leaning website. It offers a map of the continental United States labeled, "If U.S. land were divided like U.S. wealth."

In this representation, 1 percent of the people hold title to most of the West and Great Plains area. Nine percent have a swath about the same size stretching from Minnesota south to Oklahoma and east to Maine. The other 90 percent of the population get only a narrow slice along the southern rim.

It's a stark, dramatic representation of the problem as OWS sees it. It's also a perfect illustration of the movement's economic misunderstandings.

Land, after all, is more or less fixed in supply....

But wealth and income are not like land. To start with, they are not limited in supply—they can multiply many times over without end, and they have done just that. And, unlike with patches of soil, everyone can get more without anyone consigned to less.

There is not much more land in America than there was 50 years ago. But there is far more wealth. Since 1960, the total output of the U.S. economy, accounting for inflation, has more than quadrupled. Total physical assets have done likewise.

The conviction among OWS activists is that the rich have improved their lot by taking money from the not so rich—that wealth has been cruelly redistributed upward. What they overlook is that the real gains come from the creation of new wealth.

Steve Jobs did exceptionally well for himself, but he made the broad mass of consumers, here and abroad, better off in the process. Same for Sam Walton. What Oprah Winfrey created made her rich, but without her, those creations wouldn't have existed to entertain and gratify her audience.

Ten years ago, the richest person on Earth couldn't buy a device that does what the iPhone does. Today, anyone can get one free upon signing a two-year carrier contract. Entry-level cars are vastly better in amenities and reliability than your father's Cadillac decades ago.

Lifesaving and life-changing medicines and therapies once unknown are now commonplace. Food costs a fraction of what it once did. TV viewers used to have three channels to choose from. Now they have hundreds.

The wealthy are far better off than they used to be. But their improvement has not come at the expense of those down the economic ladder.

Bring down the market economy and you bring us all down.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Now what liberals don't get...

Liberal Programs Deserve Blame for Income Inequality
Quote:
 
Liberals are treating a new Congressional Budget Office study showing that income inequality increased in America over the last three decades as the smoking gun they’d always been looking for—the ultimate indictment of America, capitalism, and apple pie.

...But if not everyone is alarmed by dubious claims about rising Gini co-efficients, a metric that measures income inequality, is it because they are “blinkered ideologues” and "deniers." No....

The finding that generated the most headlines was that the after-tax household income of the top 1 percent of Americans grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007. But this figure was based on outdated pre-recession data that omitted 2008 and 2009, when the “1 percenters” saw a decade's worth of gains wiped out. This is nothing to weep over. They took the risk and they lost.

But is the fate of those lower on the totem pole cause for panic? Not really. The study reports that in the same period, households in the top quintile saw a 65 percent income gain; the vast middle in the 21st to 80th percentiles saw about a 40 percent gain; and the bottom quintile saw an 18 percent gain.

In other words, no group lost ground or even stagnated. So why all this breast-beating?

...If liberals accept the market’s productive capacity but reject its distributive verdict, it’s because they think of the market as an abstraction that spews out wealth like a spigot, with who gets what being completely up for grabs. Rich people get more, they believe, because they are more skilled at clawing their way to the head of the line.

But in functioning markets, there is a connection between creating and gaining wealth. Those on the front lines of wealth creation get more than those at the back, regardless of whether they began as rich people or poor.

...Another thing liberals are worked up about is that the study attributes rising inequality to fewer “federal transfers” to the poor. But that’s not because poor people are getting less money from Uncle Sam in absolute dollars. In fact, they get more every year. It is just that they are getting a smaller portion of total transfers....

...It found that in 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of all transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. “The shift reflects the growth in spending for programs focused on the elderly population (such as Social Security and Medicare), in which benefits are not limited to low-income households,” the study explains....

In other words, poor people are getting relatively fewer handouts thanks to the Great Society programs that liberals themselves put in place for the elderly. This demonstrates the core problem with unfettered redistributionism: Eventually, you run out of other people’s money. And when you do, you have to make hard choices about whose needs to prioritize—not demonize opponents.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis