Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

[Crni Vuk]

A lot of things in politics are "nebulous". How do you make the United States and their citizens safe?

Is some allied nation struggling with their military? Borders? Stability? All of it?

How much military support is enough? How high will the cost be? How long is the support going to last?

National security for example are different for everyone. How can one legislate a specific safety increase for all individuals?

It is nebulous and that is what I hate these terms. It is a play on emotion.

And so on and so forth ...

If I follow your logic then we would never ever decide on anything in politics. Like never. And this is what Squad and myself try to explain to you weasels here. When you play this kind of game, then you can do this with EVERYTHING(!) that's not clearly definable. I mean what is a good foreign policy? What is good education? Yet, this doesn't stop us from forming policies in the hopes of improving a situation.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

The difference between investment and gentrification is effectively oil and water. Gentrification is investment at the expense of the original occupants. Actual investment would be like, y'know, after school programs, increased funding for schools, etc. Something that benefits the community without displacing it.

 

[DarkCorp]

So you tell me why an investor would put money into a community with absolutely no expectations of any kind of returns?

One needs more than increased school funding or community centers to fix an area. You need new businesses to provide jobs, more people with money to move into the area to increase the tax base, which funds more parks, etc.

Again, you are asking private investors to pump money into something with no expectation of returns on said investment. This sounds exactly like my house theory.

Not all people are priced out. Many people who own property already stand to benefit immensely from the increased property value.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Are you just playing devil's advocate for the ultra-rich or this really a hill you'd die on? Any business would see the long-term gains of a population that's more enriched due to more public-funding. Either way, public sectors aren't reliant, nor should be, on venture caps or angel investors.

If that were the case we might as well start getting ready for the Robocop dystopia.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So you tell me why an investor would put money into a community with absolutely no expectations of any kind of returns?

Because you have governments here and not a private business running the show. A government is supposed to deal with situations in different ways and with different motivations than a business - even if we talk about "small government - small problems". And that's something even Adam Smith acknowledged in his book, wealth of nations which serves as the Bible for every capitalist if you so want.

• Protect people from injustice from within the country

The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society. (Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1, Part 2).

• Provide culturally positive efforts from public works to schools

The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals, should erect or maintain. The performance of this duty requires, too, very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society. (Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 1, Part 3).


A government has to step in when private investors are not ready to do it because the government can create the framework condition in where private investors and private business can actually thrive in the first place otherwise you have a vicious cycle. Business are not investing because the infrastructure is crumbling and because of the crumbling infrastructure you get no business which means even less business and less infrastructure and so on. This is where government programs and support play a role and again this is not a novel idea nor something new within the history of the United States. This is best illustrated when a major calamity takes place. Who is the organisation that steps in? Not private business. It's the government. To take use of opportunity you actually have to create opportunity in the first place. But if you simply leave communities out there to decay you will create a situation that will simply lead to even worse situation for all citizens as we're not living in the 17th century anymore and the tasks of a modern government today is very different. Poverty, in economic terms, is extremely expensive for a national economy. For example, communities with a high degree of poverty have to take a lot more measures to protect their citizens with laws against loitering which require more police presence, increase in crime and so on. People which do not live in poverty have also to spend more money on shielding them self from poverty (gated communities with their own security) and they have to pay more money on services which are not provided by the public adequately. Private schools, private hospitals, privately run infrastructure. This makes at the same time social mobility less possible. If not outright impossible. Poverty then becomes a trait that's transmitted from one generation to another as it is particularly crippling to children and teenagers. You create a class based societies. The point here is not to release people from their personal and individual responsibility. The point is to acknowledge that it is not only about the individual and the individuals responsibility and that we're living in a society where it is just as much about securing individual rights as it is about protecting the society as you otherwise can end up with a situation where some very wealthy individuals simply oppress a large number of people trough their wealth. The term "Robber Baron" for the very wealthy moguls leading their companies in the 19th century comes from somewhere after all.

What I find a bit funny is that even "old" conservatives are starting to reconsider some ideas in wake of new developments. For example a long time admirer of Thatcher and Thatcherism the journalist Charles Moore who often criticised the BBC for being "too left" and who was asked to write Thatchers biography after she died can be quoted saying:

What with the the phone-hacking scandal, the eurozone crisis and the US economic woes, the greedy few have left people disillusioned with our debased democracies.
22 July 2011

It has taken me more than 30 years as a journalist to ask myself this question, but this week I find that I must: is *the Left right after all? You see, one of the great arguments of the Left is that what the Right calls “the free market” is actually a set-up.

The rich run a global system that allows them to accumulate capital and pay the lowest possible price for labour. The freedom that results applies only to them. The many simply have to work harder, in conditions that grow ever more insecure, to enrich the few. Democratic politics, which purports to enrich the many, is actually in the pocket of those bankers, media barons and other moguls who run and own everything…

…as we have surveyed the Murdoch scandal of the past fortnight, few could deny that it has revealed how an international company has bullied and bought its way to control of party leaderships, police forces and regulatory processes. David Cameron, escaping skilfully from the tight corner into which he had got himself, admitted as much. Mr Murdoch himself, like a tired old Godfather, told the House of Commons media committee on Tuesday that he was so often courted by prime ministers that he wished they would leave him alone.

The Left was right that the power of Rupert Murdoch had become an anti-social force. The Right (in which, for these purposes, one must include the New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown) was too slow to see this…

…Last week, I happened to be in America, mainly in the company of…conservatives…I was struck by how the optimistic message of the Reagan era has now become a shrill one. The greatest [sic] capitalist country in history is now dependent on other people’s capital to survive…

As for the plight of the eurozone, this could have been designed by a Left-wing propagandist as a satire of how money-power works. A single currency is created. A single bank controls it. No democratic institution with any authority watches over it, and when the zone’s borrowings run into trouble, elected governments must submit to almost any indignity rather than let bankers get hurt. What about the workers? They must lose their jobs in Porto and Piraeus and Punchestown and Poggibonsi so that bankers in Frankfurt and bureaucrats in Brussels may sleep easily in their beds…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...nk-that-the-Left-might-actually-be-right.html

*When he talks about "the left" he is not talking about Labour! (Party).

There are many ways to restrict people in their freedom, yes laws by the government and oppression trough authoritarian rules are one way to do it. But economic circumstances can lead to the exact same issue in where people are limited in their freedom and choices. Particularly if the situation we're talking about does not even represent a real free market.

What we experience today with the so called liberal markets is nothing short but the dismantling of democratic values. The idea that the society is ruled by the people for the people. The dismantling of democratic values happens trough privatisation and restraining large parts of the population by stagnating and decreasing wages where a small group of people owns more and more assets. In the end this will hit us all.

 

[TheGM]

Gentrification is investment at the expense of the original occupants.

I don't think they'll mind.

 

[DarkCorp]

To completely rely on government as the only solution is just as silly as sole reliance on venture capitol. Success has to be a combination of the two.

Government can fund education and infrastructure while the private sector brings in the business needed to bolster employment, housing, and shops, which in turn increases the tax base.

There are some things the government is good at and some things it is terrible at.

In CIAs example, all these places have are small businesses, which are fine, but not major employers. There are reasons why Detroit tanked when the auto industry, the key employer that brought THOUSANDS of jobs. You have to attract big business first.

All I am hearing from you guys is just non compromise, big government over reach. I understand it coming from Crni but aren't you in the U.S. CIA?

 

[Crni Vuk]

To completely rely on government as the only solution is just as silly as sole reliance on venture capitol. Success has to be a combination of the two.

Because at the end of the day when shit really hits the fan the government IS the only institution that you can actually fall back on. If you keep the government so small that it's powerless, then you run in to many of the issues we can experience today. Particularly on a global level. Disparity in wealth, masses of inequality and injustices. Make no mistake! I am not claiming here the government is some sort of perfect being that magically transforms everything into a paradise. The state can be a very oppressive body. No doubts about it. But we're not living in a dictatorship right now but for the most part, liberal/social democracies. And currently we're sacrificing this democracy and the well being of the people on the altar of capitalism. And why? Because it promises us individuality and personal freedom. Believe it or not, but a neo-liberal/capitalist society is not giving liberty of choice. It only means those that can afford it get this freedom. And the number of people that can afford it, grow lower day by day.

Government can fund education and infrastructure while the private sector brings in the business needed to bolster employment, housing, and shops, which in turn increases the tax base.

No objection there, brother! But you still need some sort of basis for that to happen. And historically speaking most of the time the first one to actually venture in to new territories and developing actually infrastructure necessary for business to thrive was the government. Be it trough direct contracts or subsidising large infrastructure programs. Like the railway systems, highways, public transportation, education, research, the space race, you name it. All either government funded or subsidized by the government. You will have a very hard time to find some technology today that was not one way or another funded or supported by the government. If we ever experience a time where space, like the moon or even mars, is exploited by business and corporations then it will be only possible because of decades of publicly funded research. There would have never been SpaceX without NASA.

There are some things the government is good at and some things it is terrible at.

Sure and we can have a good conversation about that.

All I am hearing from you guys is just non compromise, big government over reach. I understand it coming from Crni but aren't you in the U.S. CIA?

Because this is one of those situation where the government is really good at - providing a sort of floor to protect people from issues which are not necessarily a fault of their own. Again this is NOT(!) strictly just a leftist talking point. You will find trough out history classic liberals and conservatives arguing for this kind of floor, like minimum wages, health care and many other issues that touch on the public well being.

I mean at which point have some started to confuse human value with economic value? If an economic system is not capable anymore of lifting people out of poverty then we have to think about ways to either fix it or implement something better. Maybe for the last 60 years it was useful. But it becomes painfully obvious that more and more people experience very serious and hard times. Even at Davos where the richest people come together they realise that only looking at share holders while ignoring stake holders is not good in the long run. Even large corporations have responsibilities to the societies they live in, even they need working jurisdiction, educated populations, healthy citizens and so on. And those are naturally things a government can provide best. But for it work correctly those companies and extremely wealthy have to pay their fare share.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

There's something really funny to me about preaching success being a combination of the government and business, while unironically advocating the former cave to the whims of the latter in order to "meet in the middle."

"Think of the investors!"

 

[DarkCorp]

The government handles things like infrastructure. Problem is, big public works projects requires a populace that needs it. A subway wouldn't be justified if there isn't a population big enough to warrant it.

Back during the pioneer, gold rush, wild west days, it wasn't the government moving in, it was the average joe, whether it was settlers looking for land or private businessmen opening brothels, saloons, tool shops, liveries, etc.

Again with Detroit, the prime employer was the auto industry, NOT the government. When the population boom happened, due to the jobs, then the government steps in to widen roads, build freeways, etc.

Now agreeing that government is needed does NOT mean that it is given a free hand to stifle business with over reach like insane tax levels and the like. It is lime looking foe the middle ground between an insanely high tax rate like 90% and what the 1% average, which is 27%.

It is not government caving to business rather, it is government working with business. Working with business means allowing those businesses to earn a profit, and not using draconian force.

The real irony is people like Spike Lee telling investment to stay away while bitching that it is racist to not bring money into poor neighborhoods.


Look, you and Crni can keep pushing for government over reach and nothing will get done or a compromise can be reached and shit gets done.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

That's obvious to everyone here but it's not a reality. Everything done is in some way heavily weighted in favor of businesses.

Banks had to be bailed out by federal aid because they are too big to fail after writing checks they couldn't cash.

Tax-payers pay for nonsense like Sports Arenas for billion dollar franchises. The NFL was a non-profit organization for years. Private universities whore out their Athletes and still accept federal and state grants because otherwise it's "unsustainable".

Comcast and other tele-comm providers won't build out to remote communities without state grants that pay for most if not all of the project. California can't build a bullet train because it's being lobbied against by airlines and car manufacturers and tied up by further by construction and labor contractors. We can't even build a cross-state bullet train because businesses that can't adapt fast enough would rather spend millions paying off politicians rather than changing their business-model.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

You asked me if I lived in the US. I do. I'm wondering honestly where you live that you think government and business gather around the fire, sing kumbaya, and share the load equally.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Again with Detroit, the prime employer was the auto industry, NOT the government. When the population boom happened, due to the jobs, then the government steps in to widen roads, build freeways, etc.

Yes and then once they decided that it was cheaper to manufacture cars in some other part of the world where it costs them just a dime to build their cars they left. And gave no shit about Detroit.

And this is a good example of where the government has to step in. Sadly the city of Detroit should have done this decades ago, but they haven't, for what ever reason so in my opinion the correct thing would have been for the "big" government to step in and finance some heavy and big infrastructure programs for the area of Detroit. What does this mean? Basically a modernisation and more diverse industry. This includes cheap high speed internet, better public transportation, investing heavily in schools and job training, in general offering better quality of life. And it is not wasted money, it is a form of investment. Do this for 10 years and see the "returns" of this! Because with quality of life, there come highly skilled people, with skilled people you get expertise it's like a pull factor - imagine that, high paying skilled people also expect their area of residence to have a high quality of life. Then you can do a lot of things to support smaller business, why is it always about the really big and large corporations? Why not give subsidies to smaller shops, bakeries, grocery stores, repair shops, doctors that kind of thing. Small and medium companies can do a lot in rejuvenating an area.

But I am sorry to say this, Detroit was not "build" by the automotive industry. Detroit is a bit older than that. Not to mention the automotive industry has actually destroyed public transport in the Untied States. Which hurts a lot of lower incomes up to this day ...

 

[DarkCorp]

CIA

While government EFFECTS business, they are NOT the business, and this is what I am saying. The government isn't the one expected to create a service industry, private business does that. Just like the government does not own or control Boeing. I mean where is the confusion here?

The whole telecom thing is a prime example of government working with business. I mean how else would the government entice private business to move in to remote tiny communities and provide jobs? I mean, other than using draconian style commie tactics.

I never said they were kumbayah. I said they each form a component in the rehabilitation of poor neighborhoods. One brings things like the entertainment and goods/services sectors. The other uses tax dollars for improvements in infrastructure, governance and things like government contracts to big corps that provides thousands of jobs.

Crni

Everything you speak of still requires the participation of the private sector. The government still had to pay a corporation or entity to come in and to do or provide a job.

Also, how do you think the government brings in these small and medium businesses? By not crushing small and medium business with red tape and insane taxes. Also, small businesses are limited in how many jobs they provide. I mean how many mom pop stores or coffee shops are needed to equal one Boeing, Amazon or Walmart?

In regards to infrastructure it is like I said, you need a surge in population growth to justify things like new subways or freeways.

Lastly I never said the auto industry MADE Detroit. I DID say they provided a hell of a lot of jobs and that the auto industry was a key factor in the growth of the city.

Man I swear you two just radiate hostility whenever private enterprise is mentioned. I guess I should expect as much from those who are unwilling to compromise.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Crni
Everything you speak of still requires the participation of the private sector.

No it doesn't. Not necessarily. It is of course a lot better when you have the government and the private sector working together, where the government is well ... governing and the private sector made up by private business. But if you really have to, like in a major calamity then the government can actually provide the basics without any private interference. We had historically speaking economies that have been run pretty much by the state and it worked even if it wasn't the highest quality of live. But we never had a state that was completely run by private enterprises. From this I take that the government is more important than private enterprises. Like a foundation of a home. In other words, there can be governments without private business but there can be no business without governments.

 

[DarkCorp]

Is the government going to make and run. a Walmart? Or a Starbucks?

I mean if you speak of state controlled enterprises, luke the goods service in rhe S.U., the state didn't exactly do a good job and it was held together under threat of force.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Is the government going to make and run. a Walmart? Or a Starbucks?

I mean if you speak of state controlled enterprises, luke the goods service in rhe S.U., the state didn't exactly do a good job and it was held together under threat of force.

You're misunderstanding me here I think. I am not saying they would do a "good job". The point is that you can have a society without private enterprises. But you can not have one without a government. I am saying this to illustrate that governments and enterprises do not exist next to each other like alternatives. It is the government that makes enterprises like Star Bucks possible trough offering legal frameworks and infrastructures. And I am not just talking about "streets" or the "fire brigade" here. We're talking about bureaucracy here. As much as everyone hates it, it is a necessity in a modern society.

 

[TorontoReign]

Even in a perfect Communist society I think you will find life regresses to a state of utter barbarity. Where once you might have eradicated poverty, drug abuse, murder, now you have all of those things with a thin layer of grime all over the fancy chrome parts. Just enough to smear all over the perfectly suitable Utopian Commie Federation. Maybe Star Trek: Picard is showing us how doomed this idea is Crni. Maybe Star Trek: Picard is actually good? Either way we are finding more and more that Gene Roddenberry didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Thats because for a bunch of navy faggots out to sea they sure don't do alot of butt-fucking.

 

[TorontoReign]

No more.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

No more.