America will never elect a socialist

[braces_for_impact]

My understanding is that many think that once the Republicans stop digesting each other and start hammering home that Sanders is a socialist (communist) he will not be able to withstand month after month of those kinds of attacks. The American people don't care about nuance, and he will be blue in the face trying to explain what his definition of a democratic socialist is. I wonder about that myself, but I do see a counter point. I ask myself if the republicans haven't loss their credibility with the average American as far as labelling others is concerned. Their attacks against Obama (and others) calling them Kenyan, communist, socialist, terrorist, Islamic atheists may have worn thin except with their base.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course it takes a rather obsessive or ignorant person to bring in Keynesians when the discussion is about socialism. No one said there was lalalandism libertarianism in your post. Perhaps you are responding to a different post.

You crossed out Keynesian and inserted libertarian. You did that. I didn't.

How about you address the actual point of that post.

I did.

You addressed the part about how you're only allowed to refer to wealth redistribution as socialism if you like it and not allowed to do so if you don't like it? I missed where you did that.

 

[laughing dog]

You crossed out Keynesian and inserted libertarian. You did that. I didn't.

Yes I did. Just like you inserted Keynesism out of the air.

You addressed the part about how you're only allowed to refer to wealth redistribution as socialism if you like it and not allowed to do so if you don't like it? I missed where you did that.

Burps are not points.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes I did.

Thank you for admitting your obsession.

Burps are not points.

Then quit burping and address that point.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind, it is truly pointless.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since you seem unable to follow the conversation I'll break it down into very very tiny steps.

In most of this thread people are commenting on economic policies. They are also referring to these policies as socialism.

Socialism refers to public ownership of the means of production. The policies they are referring to aren't public ownership of the means of production. They are various other interventions, true. They aren't public ownership of the means of production.

That is why I brought up Keynesianism. Unlike your obsession with libertarianism and seeing it around every corner, and also having to check under your bed at night in case libertarianism sneaks in, Keynesianism is relevant to the many interventions being discussed. What they were discussing wasn't socialism, it was Keynesianism (for the most part).

But there is a point that you think that if you don't address then it doesn't exist. And you think that if you pretend it isn't there that I'll also pretend it isn't there. You think if you pretend it isn't there, that I'll agree to pretend it isn't there even though I'm the one who brought it up. In some sort of weird lalalala land if you pretend a point isn't there than it doesn't exist.

That point is simple. When I was new to political discussion, and referred to some intervention or the other as socialism, I was soundly rebuked for misusing the term. I was told "No, wealth redistribution isn't socialism, because socialism means public ownership of the means of production. A social safety net means that the means of production are still in private hands." I was told "No, programs meant to boost aggregate demand aren't socialism, for the same reason." Many of the things discussed in this thread, I was told they weren't socialism because they're not public ownership of the means of production.

Now I see many people saying all these things are socialism, and saying it is great.

That brings me to the point that you are pretending isn't there, and therefore are pretending that I'm pretending isn't there.

If I cannot refer to those as socialism, and they can refer to those as socialism, what is the difference? The difference is that I used the term critically and they used the term adoringly. Yes, that is the core issue. You can close your ears and stick your fingers in your eyes, but your pretending doesn't make it not the core issue. I am rebuked when I use the term in a critical fashion and they are agreed with when they use the term in a praising fashion, when we are using the same term for the same policies.

So, my question is: is it acceptable to use the term "socialism" to refer to Keynesian policies if you are saying it is good, but unacceptable to do so if you are saying it is bad?

I hope this is no longer too complicated for you.

 

[untermensche]

What is a Keynesian policy?

 

[Axulus]

What is a Keynesian policy?

Any policy which reduces taxes, increases government spending, or engages in money supply expansion, all for the intended/stated purpose of stimulating the economy so as to come closer to obtaining full employment and reducing slack in the economy, thus increasing economic growth in situations where the economy is below its full sustainable productive potential, and vise versa.

 

[untermensche]

What is a Keynesian policy?

Any policy which reduces taxes, increases government spending, or engages in money supply expansion, all for the intended/stated purpose of stimulating the economy so as to come closer to obtaining full employment and reducing slack in the economy, thus increasing economic growth in situations where the economy is below its full sustainable productive potential.

From which writing by Keynes is this from? Please be specific.

 

[ksen]

Because the last time we had a socialist president we had to pass a constitutional amendment to stop voters from reelecting him.

I thought socialism only and ever meant government ownership of the means of production and certainly not any sort of wealth redistribution.

Not anymore. Now it just means when the government does something I don't like, apparently.

At least that's what I was repeatedly told early in my experience discussing politics when I used the word "socialism" when I should have used the word "welfarism".

Is it ok to use the word "socialism" in place of "welfarism" when you mean it in a good way, but not ok if you mean it in a bad way? Interesting double standard.

You can use it however you want Jason.

I was using it the way the Right is using currently using it. And I know you don't identify as "Right" or "conservative" so carry on using it correctly if you'd like.

FDR's actions were all actions that would make Keynes proud. And the best thing that can be said about Socialists is that at least they aren't Keynesians.

ok

 

[coloradoatheist]

Any policy which reduces taxes, increases government spending, or engages in money supply expansion, all for the intended/stated purpose of stimulating the economy so as to come closer to obtaining full employment and reducing slack in the economy, thus increasing economic growth in situations where the economy is below its full sustainable productive potential.

From which writing by Keynes is this from? Please be specific.

I'm trying to find exactly what he wrote but everyone says he advocated tax cuts for stimulating the economy. It has since been redefined to say we need to target cuts in a more specific way. But Reagan's policies were the most Keynesian implementation so far.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

From which writing by Keynes is this from? Please be specific.

I'm trying to find exactly what he wrote but everyone says he advocated tax cuts for stimulating the economy. It has since been redefined to say we need to target cuts in a more specific way. But Reagan's policies were the most Keynesian implementation so far.

Keysnes stated deficit spending is necessary to break depressions and get economies moving. If people have no money, they cannot spend and producers suffer. That was his advice to break out of the big depression.

BUT, when out of depressions, one has to eventually get back to a balanced budget. That is where Keynsians and Supply-siders part company. Supply-siders have convinced themselves that big tax cuts pay for themselves. It never has. The Laffer curve is bunk.

The depression was a special case.

Poster child for Supply Side failure, Brownback and Kansas.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm trying to find exactly what he wrote but everyone says he advocated tax cuts for stimulating the economy. It has since been redefined to say we need to target cuts in a more specific way. But Reagan's policies were the most Keynesian implementation so far.

Keysnes stated deficit spending is necessary to break depressions and get economies moving. If people have no money, they cannot spend and producers suffer. That was his advice to break out of the big depression.

BUT, when out of depressions, one has to eventually get back to a balanced budget. That is where Keynsians and Supply-siders part company. Supply-siders have convinced themselves that big tax cuts pay for themselves. It never has. The Laffer curve is bunk.

The depression was a special case.

Poster child for Supply Side failure, Brownback and Kansas.

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

 

[arkirk]

You'd be surprised what taxing the rich might do. There really is no point in pouring newly created Fed dollars into the banking holes, where mysteriously it reappears in the Caimans and Switzerland. Not enough factors are considered in classic economics for it to guide government policy. If the picture of "sound" economics includes massive poverty or massive environmental damage or massive expenditures on military adventures, then the study is flawed. It doesn't matter how perfectly the numbers align on the charts if conditions on the ground in the PHYSICAL ECONOMY are in disarray.

Socialism is only part of a system of governance and economy. It turns out that socialism is a part of every government. When the forces of privatization scream about the unruly size of government and government debt it is only a greedy cry of greedy people who care not one whit for society at large. They cannot have their cake and the poor eat too. We will have socialism in the U.S. no matter what it ends up being called. We really ought to put an end to corporate welfare. Now there is a just cause...no more subsidies for oil companies and the military industrial complex. They have elected socialists before who simply were careful not to use the word "socialist" several times in my memory.

 

[ksen]

Keysnes stated deficit spending is necessary to break depressions and get economies moving. If people have no money, they cannot spend and producers suffer. That was his advice to break out of the big depression.

BUT, when out of depressions, one has to eventually get back to a balanced budget. That is where Keynsians and Supply-siders part company. Supply-siders have convinced themselves that big tax cuts pay for themselves. It never has. The Laffer curve is bunk.

The depression was a special case.

Poster child for Supply Side failure, Brownback and Kansas.

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

How was Keynesianism a failure in 2007?

 

[coloradoatheist]

And 2007 was a failure of Kenesian policy at the federal level. For all the policies we have examples of where they worked and where they didn't work. Keynes said that the government that could borrow long term could handle the deficits, states can't for very long. And I agree about Kansas, a 1% cut wasn't going to bring Kansas to the other side of the Laffer curve.

How was Keynesianism a failure in 2007?

Tax cuts, government spending, and trying to create demand with infrastructure, specifically housing and the fields related to that. So now we get into a nitty gritty of specifically where though Keynes was more general with tax cuts, running deficits, and public works projects.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be surprised what taxing the rich might do. There really is no point in pouring newly created Fed dollars into the banking holes, where mysteriously it reappears in the Caimans and Switzerland. Not enough factors are considered in classic economics for it to guide government policy. If the picture of "sound" economics includes massive poverty or massive environmental damage or massive expenditures on military adventures, then the study is flawed. It doesn't matter how perfectly the numbers align on the charts if conditions on the ground in the PHYSICAL ECONOMY are in disarray.

Socialism is only part of a system of governance and economy. It turns out that socialism is a part of every government. When the forces of privatization scream about the unruly size of government and government debt it is only a greedy cry of greedy people who care not one whit for society at large. They cannot have their cake and the poor eat too. We will have socialism in the U.S. no matter what it ends up being called. We really ought to put an end to corporate welfare. Now there is a just cause...no more subsidies for oil companies and the military industrial complex. They have elected socialists before who simply were careful not to use the word "socialist" several times in my memory.

One of the differences and where the line is hard, a socialist thinks that 100% of your income is government owned and you are lucky to keep some of it, while there is an opposite view. Most tax deferments are considered evil because of that belief.

 

[untermensche]

From which writing by Keynes is this from? Please be specific.

I'm trying to find exactly what he wrote but everyone says he advocated tax cuts for stimulating the economy. It has since been redefined to say we need to target cuts in a more specific way. But Reagan's policies were the most Keynesian implementation so far.

You don't seem to be able to demonstrate he ever said anything.

Again, in his words from his writings; What is a Keynesian policy?

I am tired of people throwing his name around that don't have a clue what he actually said.

 

[ksen]

How was Keynesianism a failure in 2007?

Tax cuts, government spending, and trying to create demand with infrastructure, specifically housing and the fields related to that. So now we get into a nitty gritty of specifically where though Keynes was more general with tax cuts, running deficits, and public works projects.

wat

 

[arkirk]

How was Keynesianism a failure in 2007?

Tax cuts, government spending, and trying to create demand with infrastructure, specifically housing and the fields related to that. So now we get into a nitty gritty of specifically where though Keynes was more general with tax cuts, running deficits, and public works projects.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be surprised what taxing the rich might do. There really is no point in pouring newly created Fed dollars into the banking holes, where mysteriously it reappears in the Caimans and Switzerland. Not enough factors are considered in classic economics for it to guide government policy. If the picture of "sound" economics includes massive poverty or massive environmental damage or massive expenditures on military adventures, then the study is flawed. It doesn't matter how perfectly the numbers align on the charts if conditions on the ground in the PHYSICAL ECONOMY are in disarray.

Socialism is only part of a system of governance and economy. It turns out that socialism is a part of every government. When the forces of privatization scream about the unruly size of government and government debt it is only a greedy cry of greedy people who care not one whit for society at large. They cannot have their cake and the poor eat too. We will have socialism in the U.S. no matter what it ends up being called. We really ought to put an end to corporate welfare. Now there is a just cause...no more subsidies for oil companies and the military industrial complex. They have elected socialists before who simply were careful not to use the word "socialist" several times in my memory.

One of the differences and where the line is hard, a socialist thinks that 100% of your income is government owned and you are lucky to keep some of it, while there is an opposite view. Most tax deferments are considered evil because of that belief.

That is patently NOT TRUE. Governments all over the world have a greater or lesser amount of socialism built into them in order for them to function at all. People like you seem to thing you are gods who do not need to conform your wishes to the needs of greater society. People are still able to own or possess things in a socialist world...because there is no pure socialism anywhere. It is instead simply an ingredient in a good governance formula and it has its place. It is required for environmental protection to take place. It also is needed to adjust wealth disparities that threaten the fabric of society. You may not like it, but you are part of us.

 

[arkirk]

Tax cuts, government spending, and trying to create demand with infrastructure, specifically housing and the fields related to that. So now we get into a nitty gritty of specifically where though Keynes was more general with tax cuts, running deficits, and public works projects.

wat

It just goes to show you how much Colorado knows about Keynes.