First, I am not planning to insult you.
I have created jobs. I am not the only one on this site that has done so. I am no longer directly creating jobs because I have taken my income inequality to the sideline.
Now, the concept. I have, as an example, amassed a fairly decent sum of reserve capital. I am considering expanding or entering a new venture or developing a new product. But, there are regulatory obstacles out there, let's say. Or tax uncertainty. Or potential new health care obligations. Or other government (not market) interference.
I will probably choose to keep my capital on the sideline and not risk it when my return on investment could be minimized because of the government. Frankly, new investments are risky enough even with a SATISFACTORY government climate.
Both large and small companies which are well managed think this way.
The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the perceived injustices of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In Communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."Democracy, with its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, can be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Some right-wing libertarians, such as Ron Paul and Ayn Rand, were pessimistic about democracy because they saw it as inherently collectivist in nature. Left-wing libertarians, such as libertarian socialists and most anarchists, embrace democracy, especially direct democracy and/or participatory democracy specifically because it can be a form of horizontal collectivism.The point is, you need to stop using that term.George Orwell, a dedicated democratic socialist, believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals that led to further oppression of the majority of the population in the name of some ideal such as freedom.
"It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."
Yet in the subsequent sentence he also warns of the tyranny of private ownership over the means of production:
"... that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."
The polar opposite of his football awareness, which was very astute at times.
No one least of all yourself, wants to have their missives compared to Bit's forgettable, execrable handiwork here.
Most of your nemeses (the usual suspects) I believe I feel likewise about.
However, some of your latest favorites are as detestable as the nemeses. What gives with the lowered standards?
You're free to disagree with my choice of terms, or the appropriateness of them, but you have no control over my decision to use them or not, or to determine for me what I "need" to do, my friend.
If you have a replacement term for an increase in Government Power, Authority and Taxation atthe expense of the individual for the purpose of redistribution and socialist/social wefare/collective interest liberal/progressive policies, feel free to let me know.
Otherwsie, I'll stick with collectivist.
The only change I've seen in myself here is being less patient, less open minded, and less kind/civil than I've been in the past Something that is lamentable, tbqh.
If you're going to b*tch about "fairness" and words like that, then be consistent and don't throw around collectivist when it can mean anything from America in the present, America 50 years ago, China in the present, China 50 years ago, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Finland, Iceland, the UK, moder day Germany, France and every democracy that ever existed.
Those are all collectivist and all very different.
Fairness, on the other hand, has no specific agreed upon meaning of any kind when it comes to policy. Fair is always in the eye of the beholder. A policy being collectivist must meet certain qualifications to be so.
Again, if you have a more appropriate term for me to use, I'd be happy to hear it. With respect, the use of terms, and teh constant changingm on the left is not my fault, it's the lefts. Collectivist, Socialist, Social Welfareist, Communist, Progressive, Liberal, Marxist, Marxist-Linninist, etc.....all can mean very similar things in terms of specific policy, or could mean slight differences from one to the other. Reminds me alot of the various "Christian" sects tbqh.
Without such a alternative term, I must use the language that is available.
We the Individuals of the Individual States, in Order to form a more perfect bunch of Individuals, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Individual defense, promote the Individual Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Individuals and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Individual States of America.
Whom/What do you credit YOUR confusion?
Here is my list:
1) Buy Stuff
2) Invest in businesses, real estate and fixed income products.
3) Put it in the bank
#3 is the least significant. Rich people don't keep large sums of money in the bank. It's not an efficient use of capital.
1) Rich guy buys a yacht. Yacht Builders, boat captains, parts suppliers, dock workers, staff all benefit.
Rich Guy builds a fancy new house. Contractors, cabinet makers, plumbers, electricians etc all benefit.
Most of their spending is beneficial to the economy.
#2) Rich people invest in businesses. That's what they do. I joined a group of rich people in a venture to build and run 2 hotels in Fort Lauderdale. Aside from the 2-3 years of construction and architectural jobs we created we now employ 130 people. From highly paid managers to cleaning staff. Those 130 people (we have plans to downsize the staff to under 50 per hotel if Obamacare kicks in) have a job today because some people with money got together and took a risk.
Most non government jobs exist for the same reason. Some people with money got together and started a business. Referring to the job creator class as job creators is generally correct. Are there some wealthy people that hide their money under their proverbial mattress? Sure. But the vast majority of Jobs in this country are created by people that make over 250K per year. It is basic truth.
It's always a good thread when both right and left are replying to me in equal number and equal outrage/retort.
The middle to upper class invested THEIR money and built small to large busness and hired contruction workers to build, ordered supplies from other companies and hred employees. So who Mr Dumbass Obama who started the ball rolling. Certainly not you who paid for nohing and never worked a day in his useless life You are nothing then something that climbed out of a CESSPOOL!
Thats the real problem, both sides are so deep inside their own rhetoric and idealism, they cannot see outside of it. It's like (R) and (D) are both stuck in seperate Black Holes, from which nothign can escape, but sure as hell, the viewpoints already held can simply circulate inside round and round, self-reinforcing, forevermore.
Right, mischarictarization to say Obama wasn't promoting the ideal of social collectivism and higher taxes to pay for it, and telling the individual their hard work and talent are not the primary factors in their potential success, but the collective social contract was.
Got it. Hope and Change 2012, got that too, from both of you.
Personally, I think only an idiot, or someone being consciously politically dishonest, could claim he didn't say or mean what he said and meant.
And I know well enough that you are no idiot.
Lets look at the coment again.
So, my success is not because of me. It's because of me and others. It's not because of my smarts. Or my hard work. I am (apaprently) no smarter or harder working than any other American (we're all exactly equal I guess).....if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Nope, I only got that succcess because of.....who? Since he was discussing taxes and raising them on the successful, it's not unfair to link one to the other. My success is due to others, the colelctive, and I owe some more of my success abck to that collective.
And you think thats wrong. By all means, tell us wht he DID mean then, specificly.
Yes, it's "extreme" now to believe that my success is the result of my own effort, my own hard work, and my own talents and skills. And not due to some amorpohous idea of a collective help, or Govt. help.Shocking that a person clouded in concrete extremism would think such a thing.
And even though I pay more taxes than say, 85% of Americans, that somehow I owe society for those roads, and teachers, and the like, even though I paid more than a "fair share" towards them and their upkeep.
That, more than anything, tells me how far left we as a society have moved.
Last edited by Warfish; 07-16-2012 at 04:41 PM.