UKMikey
Premium
- 18,292
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Southern Homeland Independent Territories.How about INSAINO - Independent Nation of South America In Name Only?
Southern Homeland Independent Territories.How about INSAINO - Independent Nation of South America In Name Only?
According to a 2020 Knight Foundation study, RealClearPolitics is generally read by a moderate audience, leaning slightly toward the right. Since 2020, the content of the site has moved further towards right-leaning politics, coinciding with its increasing funding by right-wing donors supporting Republican causes.
Seems that the people who have power over at "Truth" Social have created a circular firing squad which could derail the entire scam.I don't know how accurate this is but this news story claims Trump will become over 3 billion dollars richer if today's shareholder vote backs his plan to float Trump Media. Per the article he wouldn't see the money for around six months if this were the case, though as the merger document contains a clause preventing him from liquidating his shares immediately in order to prevent a glut which would devalue their overall price.
Donald Trump to make $3.4bn if shareholders back plan to float Trump Media
Ex-US president planning to list Trump Media & Technology Group if merger with special purpose acquisition company goes aheadwww.theguardian.com
What's your point? Is that a rebuttal?
Reap the whirlwind, progressives.
Folks are seeing through the crap that's been spewed.
None of the DEI, climate change garbage is being consumed anymore.
I guess you can fall back to calling everything racist.
Blacks and Hispanics are rapidly switching sides. Check the polls.
You're not looking too good for November. Better find a new game plan.
What are those wet, sucking noises? Oh. Oh! Ew! No!Reap the whirlwind, progressives.
Folks are seeing through the crap that's been spewed.
None of the DEI, climate change garbage is being consumed anymore.
I guess you can fall back to calling everything racist.
Blacks and Hispanics are rapidly switching sides. Check the polls.
You're not looking too good for November. Better find a new game plan.
I don't think you guys understand the level of mistrust/paranoia of China in the USA. Yes there has been a flood of cheap Chinese products in the USA for the last 40 years - BUT, 1 - they have historically benefited US companies in some way, and 2 - where they don't benefit US companies, they are coming under increasingly heavy scrutiny.The US (and everyone else) has been buying Chinese goods for decades, "adversary" or not. That bridge was crossed a long time ago. Once they have a product that is of a price/performance that is competitive, people will happily buy and politicians will happily take "donations" from businesses who want to import. Or from local arms of those same Chinese companies for that matter. Lobbyists gonna lobby. Most political decisions aren't based on principle or what's best for the country and haven't been for a long time.
Besides, if Trump gets into power everyone is an adversary. Including America.
If that distrust has indeed permeated the populace, the people won't buy Chinese. If the people will buy Chinese because that distrust hasn't actually permeated the populace, the people should not be prohibited from (by embargo) or punished for (by tariff) doing so.I don't think you guys understand the level of mistrust/paranoia of China in the USA.
I'm not advocating for any position, I'm just conveying what I think will happen.If that distrust has indeed permeated the populace, the people won't buy Chinese. If the people will buy Chinese because that distrust hasn't actually permeated the populace, the people should not be prohibited from (by embargo) or punished for (by tariff) doing so.
Another hysterical aspect of Trump's claim that he "actually HAS the money", it's just that he wants to "use it for his campaign".lol. lmao.
THIS IS COMMUNISM IN AMERICA!*
*This is not communism in America or anywhere else. Communism is bad and conservatives want to tie anything they don't like to it to make those things sound bad, crippling legitimate opposition to communism
What are those wet, sucking noises? Oh. Oh! Ew! No!
Reap the whirlwind, progressives.
Folks are seeing through the crap that's been spewed.
None of the DEI, climate change garbage is being consumed anymore.
I guess you can fall back to calling everything racist.
Blacks and Hispanics are rapidly switching sides. Check the polls.
You're not looking too good for November. Better find a new game plan.
Probably not. I don't understand the knee-jerk anti-communist stuff either. Or the anti-EU stuff. Or the world police stuff. I accept that Americans will often think and behave in ways that I find to be foolish and irrational, and this thread is rife with examples.I don't think you guys understand the level of mistrust/paranoia of China in the USA.
No opposition should be knee-jerk. It should always be reasoned.I don't understand the knee-jerk anti-communist stuff either.
All non-trivial systems of government hinge on coercion. They have the monopoly on the use of force. If you don't do what they say, you get fined, locked up, or killed. The only way you have no coercion is if there's no rules. That's anarchy.Communism is bad because it hinges on coercion. Misguided as it may be, a voluntary system of collective ownership of property and wealth does not violate rights because parties have consented. Communism ignores consent.
Except that totally free capitalism also results in completely ****ed economic systems. Almost nobody has this any more, for good reasons. Most of the successful economies today are some form of mixed economy. Because capitalism and communism are both ideas at far opposite ends of a spectrum. Neither can deal with all the enormously complex range of situations that result from an economy with millions of people. Both have gaping holes begging for unscrupulous people to exploit them. They're useful concepts in a textbook to understand basic economic systems, but they are notCapitalism--which is to say free capitalism, not state capitalism which is just as susceptible to cronyism and corruption as communism is--provides the greatest opportunity for personal wealth.
I agree with most of this but it sounds like an argument for a mixture of capitalism and socialism rather than an argument for a mixture of capitalism and communism to me.All non-trivial systems of government hinge on coercion. They have the monopoly on the use of force. If you don't do what they say, you get fined, locked up, or killed. The only way you have no coercion is if there's no rules. That's anarchy.
Communism in and of itself is no worse than any other system of government in this way. Specific implementations may be (and have been), just as specific implementations of nominally capitalist based systems have been. You don't get to choose the system which you are born into.
There's any number of parts of even modern economic systems that are not fully consensual. That's not in and of itself a reason that they're bad, it's just a negative aspect to be weighed against any potential positive aspects that may also exist.
Except that totally free capitalism also results in completely ****ed economic systems. Almost nobody has this any more, for good reasons. Most of the successful economies today are some form of mixed economy. Because capitalism and communism are both ideas at far opposite ends of a spectrum. Neither can deal with all the enormously complex range of situations that result from an economy with millions of people. Both have gaping holes begging for unscrupulous people to exploit them. They're useful concepts in a textbook to understand basic economic systems, but they are not
"The greatest opportunity for personal wealth" is not a desirable end goal, that just means that you produce people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. It means that your system actively seeks to increase wealth disparity. Over any reasonable length of time it is unsustainable. You create financial monarchies. To put it in video game terms, money scales too hard. Having money makes it much easier to get more money. Having more money makes it much easier to start changing the systems so that money funnels directly into your pockets without you providing anything of value to society at all.
To me, that's at odds with what I'd like to see from a society. I want something that provides the greatest opportunity for safety and happiness, and ideally encourages people to act for the benefit and improvement of the situation of those around them. Because that's what most people ultimately want wealth for, right? So that they can have a space in which they and their loved ones can be safe and secure, and that they have the ability, time and resources to pursue goals that they feel are worthwhile for them and their community.
I mean, some want it so that they can display how powerful they are, or so that they can use their wealth to manipulate or enslave others, but **** those people and what they want. Anyone who wants the best for themselves at the expense of everyone else is not someone who should have any say in how societal level systems work.
Communism is a form of socialism, just as laissez-faire capitalism is a form of capitalism.I agree with most of this but it sounds like an argument for a mixture of capitalism and socialism rather than an argument for a mixture of capitalism and communism to me.
I agree with most of this but it sounds like an argument for a mixture of capitalism and socialism rather than an argument for a mixture of capitalism and communism to me.
It doesn't go both ways, though. Communism is kind of totalitarian and doesn't mix as well as less extreme forms of socialism do with other methods of government.Communism is a form of socialism, just as laissez-faire capitalism is a form of capitalism.
Not sure where the controversy is here as far as my post was concerned.It shouldn't be even mildly controversial to state that we should use the best tools for the job from the selection of everything that is available.
The trend in the US towards having oligarchs "buying" tax cuts for less than a penny in the dollar is relevant to this excellent post.All non-trivial systems of government hinge on coercion. They have the monopoly on the use of force. If you don't do what they say, you get fined, locked up, or killed. The only way you have no coercion is if there's no rules. That's anarchy.
Communism in and of itself is no worse than any other system of government in this way. Specific implementations may be (and have been), just as specific implementations of nominally capitalist based systems have been. You don't get to choose the system which you are born into.
There's any number of parts of even modern economic systems that are not fully consensual. That's not in and of itself a reason that they're bad, it's just a negative aspect to be weighed against any potential positive aspects that may also exist.
Except that totally free capitalism also results in completely ****ed economic systems. Almost nobody has this any more, for good reasons. Most of the successful economies today are some form of mixed economy. Because capitalism and communism are both ideas at far opposite ends of a spectrum. Neither can deal with all the enormously complex range of situations that result from an economy with millions of people. Both have gaping holes begging for unscrupulous people to exploit them. They're useful concepts in a textbook to understand basic economic systems, but they are not
"The greatest opportunity for personal wealth" is not a desirable end goal, that just means that you produce people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. It means that your system actively seeks to increase wealth disparity. Over any reasonable length of time it is unsustainable. You create financial monarchies. To put it in video game terms, money scales too hard. Having money makes it much easier to get more money. Having more money makes it much easier to start changing the systems so that money funnels directly into your pockets without you providing anything of value to society at all.
To me, that's at odds with what I'd like to see from a society. I want something that provides the greatest opportunity for safety and happiness, and ideally encourages people to act for the benefit and improvement of the situation of those around them. Because that's what most people ultimately want wealth for, right? So that they can have a space in which they and their loved ones can be safe and secure, and that they have the ability, time and resources to pursue goals that they feel are worthwhile for them and their community.
I mean, some want it so that they can display how powerful they are, or so that they can use their wealth to manipulate or enslave others, but **** those people and what they want. Anyone who wants the best for themselves at the expense of everyone else is not someone who should have any say in how societal level systems work.
I didn't read @Imari's use of the word "controversial" as being aimed at your post, more that there's a body of opinion that "communism" is "100% bad", so even implying that one could rationally consider communism as having any positive aspect to offer can be seen as "controversial". At least that's my take on it.Not sure where the controversy is here as far as my post was concerned.
They force everyone to fund their own retirement but I'm not sure whether that counts as communism.If I recall correctly, Singapore blended components of benevolent authoritarianism, capitalism, socialism and communism to great effect, lifting pretty much the entire population simultaneously in the years between the 60s and the 80s.
I think you're absolutely right. China's economic "prowess" - aka total lack of respect for worker rights and safety, international IP law, economic law, law in general - is not tolerable to any mindful person in the US, regardless of political stance. They're dumping a lot of nicknacks on younger generations through social media and it's working far too well. It's working so well in fact that the folks who are now obsessed with all these hyper-cheap and hyper-accessible Chinese products see the US going after this dumping as a bad thing but that's because they tend to be apolitical and lack context on what's been going on.@Keef Am I wrong?
Get enough criminals in the one room together, and criminality itself becomes normalized.Guardian: Headache for campaign team as Trump gets the band back together
Headache for campaign team as Trump gets the band back together
The ex-president’s 2024 election operation has been surprisingly professional but the return of old faces with political baggage has some worriedtheguardian.com
Guardian: Headache for campaign team as Trump gets the band back together
Headache for campaign team as Trump gets the band back together
The ex-president’s 2024 election operation has been surprisingly professional but the return of old faces with political baggage has some worriedtheguardian.com
Can't help thinking she'd make one heck of a golf hazard. Sorry... RIP
You can't think of any examples? Not, say...our own country of the UK? Which has the NHS and a generally strong history of all kinds of social services? Or...any other liberal democracy on earth? All of which have some socialist/'communist' elements baked in? Australia, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, America itself...every functioning country on earth has gone a 'a little bit communist'.It doesn't go both ways, though. Communism is kind of totalitarian and doesn't mix as well as less extreme forms of socialism do with other methods of government.
I can't think of any examples of countries which have only gone a little bit communist as like fascism it seems to be an all or nothing deal.Not sure where the controversy is here as far as my post was concerned.
I think you're absolutely right. China's economic "prowess" - aka total lack of respect for worker rights and safety, international IP law, economic law, law in general - is not tolerable to any mindful person in the US, regardless of political stance. They're dumping a lot of nicknacks on younger generations through social media and it's working far too well. It's working so well in fact that the folks who are now obsessed with all these hyper-cheap and hyper-accessible Chinese products see the US going after this dumping as a bad thing but that's because they tend to be apolitical and lack context on what's been going on.
There has been a Chinese auto glass factory called Fuyao here in the Dayton area since 2014. It took over part of GM's shuttered truck and bus factory. Despite Fuyao making an effort to establish an American branch, they still refused to follow American rules and dealt with regulatory pressure and enforcement for years before they fleshed out proper safety and worker rights procedures. They eventually fixed it but the plant was in the news for injuries and violations more often than not for several years. Progress wasn't truly made until they committed to sending their Chinese management teams home and hiring American management expertise. This lack of oversight is truly a Chinese cultural problem which is why the stories are so consistent no matter where in the world you read them.
Western countries may suffer from our own problems the enforcement of economic law but I'd much rather deal with that than with a nation that simply doesn't have rules. It's the exact same reason individuals and corporations are constantly defending their IP in court because without some fort of IP protection, the concept of property gets muddied, true innovation becomes pointless, and every aspect of the economy becomes the type of race to the bottom that has bankrupted companies like Evergrande and saddled China with millions of empty apartment buildings crumbling back down shortly after being put up.
@TexRex
There is a very large portion of the American populace that avoids "Chinese" products at all costs. Buy American, yada yada. Almost all American brands do manufacturing business in various other countries so it's almost impossible to avoid, and because we actually have rules and standards, American-branded products are always much more expensive than others, but we try. Problem is, a lot of products are so incredibly cheap that people with very little expendable income - an even larger portion of the American populace - just doesn't give a **** because they have needs and wants and will do anything to distract themselves from being poor. China has literally lifted a large portion of their own populace up and out of poverty simply by selling crap to Americans. Yay for China! But I don't live in China so I don't care. What I care about is maintaining my country's hegemony and therefore my ability to be an ass when on international vacations. Now that's what I call luxury.
You can't think of any examples? Not, say...our own country of the UK? Which has the NHS and a generally strong history of all kinds of social services? Or...any other liberal democracy on earth? All of which have some socialist/'communist' elements baked in? Australia, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, America itself...every functioning country on earth has gone a 'a little bit communist'.
See if you can figure out a difference between socialism and communism. They're different words, they mean different things. When you figure out the difference, it will help with your confusion.