Gyroscopic Investing

I thought this link might be of interest. I can remember reading something else about how in 1950s USA it was commonly said that the New Deal had proven that, when push came to shove, American capitalism would always do what was needed to get things back on track and so Marx would forever be proved wrong.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/1 ... ia=siderec

http://online.wsj.com/video/roubini-war ... F8735.html

Marxism killed tens of millions of people. I don't worry about Walmart coming to my house at night and taking me to a re-education camp.

Marxism spawned great evil. Probably the closest following of Keynes-ism was by the Nazis. That doesn't mean that we should ignore what they wrote -just that we should also be fully aware that neglecting personal liberty and respect for everyone is a disaster.

stone wrote: Marxism spawned great evil. Probably the closest following of Keynes-ism was by the Nazis. That doesn't mean that we should ignore what they wrote -just that we should also be fully aware that neglecting personal liberty and respect for everyone is a disaster.

I actually think Marx can be safely ignored on just about everything. His fundamental understand of human nature is so bad that nothing he writes about can be trusted.

But what I will agree with is that capitalism in the US today is more like crony capitalism where entrenched interests get government protection and bailouts and honorable players are at a disadvantage. But I'll still take it over the alternatives because it tends to right itself in non-violent ways.

For the record though, Nazism was another leftist ideology. Instead of the state controlling means of production, it was left in the private sector. However the state controlled what the private sector was doing. In fact one of Hitler's more famous observations is that he didn't care about controlling private property as long as he controlled the owners of the property.

Nazism is Marxism with mortgages.

I believe nationalism, militarism, and state-sponsored racism are very right-wing policies, not left-wing.

For all the problems associated with state control, it was the mass-murder of millions of people and nationalistic/militaristic invasions of other countries, not the trains that ran on time and universal healthcare, that made Nazi Germany a horribly evil entity.

If you equate the terms "left" and "right" with "more government force" and "less government force," respectively, then you'd probably be correct.  I don't consider those descriptions appropriate, though.

I think it's safe to say that if there is an ideology that tends to lean towards the, "let's just kill them all" attitude towards groups they don't like, it's probably the hard-right... Dennis Kucinich may hurt my pocket book and liberty, but I'm not afraid of him going to war with Canada and putting immigrants in death camps.

moda0306 wrote:I think it's safe to say that if there is an ideology that tends to lean towards the, "let's just kill them all" attitude towards groups they don't like, it's probably the hard-right... Dennis Kucinich may hurt my pocket book and liberty, but I'm not afraid of him going to war with Canada and putting immigrants in death camps.

No I think Fascism is certainly a leftist ideology. The left policies always evolve into killing people because, fundamentally, people that want to manage every aspect of others are control freaks. Yet control freaks totally lose it when life doesn't work out the way they want. The Kucinich's are pushed out and the nut jobs that aren't afraid to cut some throats rise to power. And deep inside the Kucinich's probably would be more violent if they just had more backbone or at least some tough people to do their dirty work for them.

The left-right political spectrum is a bit of a misleading thing anyway because, as you point out, it's just a spectrum of govt. involvement that is the issue. The more govt. you have involved the more likely you're going to get someone in charge that likes to do very bad things with that power.

craigr,

I am sorry, but the idea that all government is created equal doesn't sit with me.

I think we can have universal healthcare, social safety nets, regulation, and mass transit without mass genocide and open war.

To say that "the left policies always evolve to killing people" seems a bit much.

moda0306 wrote: craigr,

I am sorry, but the idea that all government is created equal doesn't sit with me.

I think we can have universal healthcare, social safety nets, regulation, and mass transit without mass genocide and open war.

To say that "the left policies always evolve to killing people" seems a bit much.

Only if it were to stop at these things. But even then what you and I may feel is appropriate regulation is probably not enough for someone else who wants more. Which of course is the problem with passing new laws and regulations. We're not the ones enforcing and expanding them once on the books. I'm sure even in these murderous regimes they had people that were rationalizing every single step of the way why it was essential for the good of society, etc.

Also I'm opposed to Universal Healthcare because it's people like me that suffer the consequences. Not only do I get to pay more in taxes, but I get worse service. I don't want a bureaucrat limiting what medical care I can receive because someone else can't afford it. Life isn't fair and I'm not willing to have my health jeopardized to the lowest common denominator.

Craigr- The Nazis actually called themselves National Socialists didn't they.

A chilling quote:
"I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations." (Winston Churchill in The London Times, Monday, November 7, 1938)

- I guess it shows how widespread misplaced admiration for despots can be.


I must admit, personally, I get the impression that although Marx may not have come up with viable solutions, he may have been accurate in some of his observations of problems with boom bust business cycles and such like. I think it is also fair to point out that Marx was an economist not a politician. The millions who died under "marxism" were not ruled by Marx the man. I'm not claiming that he has no posthumous responsibility though.

stone wrote:- I guess it shows how widespread misplaced admiration for despots can be.

Yes. I especially hate the Che Guevara shirts, etc. When I see them I wonder why that person doesn't just put on a Hitler or Pol Pot shirt in the same glowing way. Seems that murderers are only respectable if they are fighting for the the worldwide worker's revolution (and slave labor camps for dissidents of course).

Singapore is the most Bizare example. It is a "benevolent dictatorship". It does seem to work but I agree with Craigr that unrestrained government power is an incredibly dangerous force that can all too easily unleash extreme misery. I'd feel much safer living in a democracy like the UK or US than in Singapore but people there seem happy with it.

I'm not sure that Marx and Engels were actually that much "big government" proponents. I'd better shut up about Marxism because all I know is from wikipedia .

Not to get into the private property debate again, but the recognition of land-based private property (deeding of land and defending it as "private") is also a form of using government coercion "for the good of society."  It helps to have people on the land actually care about it and benefit from the ownership of it... it's not a form of recognition of achievement (like a patent would be), but more a form of social engineering for the common good.

I find it awful convenient that the right would like government to recognize and defend private property (much of which was here before we were), and little more, and to ask for a social safety net, regulation, and mass transit on top of that gets pegged as a non-stop path towards Naziism.

Simonjester wrote:

stone wrote: moda, I'm just saying (as you are too) that you can choose to take a small dose of "leftism" and stop at that

its the "and stop" that is the most problematic for me, when the beneficiary's of socialist programs can vote to increase the amount of, and ways in which they can get benefits, where are the brakes that allow that stop to be made?

moda, personally if the starting point is zero government, I'd like to take a few steps towards Nazism but not too many and the right steps. From what I can see, zero government was great until metal was discovered and weapons became dangerous. From then on we needed government but we also need to avoid unrestrained government and make sure EVERYONE is empowered to some extent.

stone,

I think we can all agree that there is a balancing point of no government and big government... between no military and war-mongering and genocide.  The question is should some kind of "sliding scale" argument be used on everything beyond the recognition and defense of private property to qualify it as fundamentally more evil?

What I don't like is when people act like private property recognition & defense is so perfectly pure a form of  government, and that anything beyond that is a road to Naziism.

The following is Craigr's quote: "The left policies always evolve into killing people"

This is what I'm talking about.  I completely disagree with this attitude.

moda, I suppose it boils down to semantics about what is meant by "left" and "evolve". If "left" means exerting control over someone else and "evolve" means taking something to its logical conclusion; then craigr's point seems true enough. I'm just saying (as you are too) that you can choose to take a small dose of "leftism" and stop at that and I think you are correct in saying that by that definition craigr comes across as a (mild) lefty himself since he wants property protected by the state.

I think that the Scandinavian countries are a good example of how government can help smooth out some of capitalisms rougher edges. I just cannot envision Denmark's socialist government spiraling into a Marxist gulag.
To suggest this is to take a page from the Glenn Beck book of following every argument to absurd illogical conclusions.

Simonjester wrote: Scandinavian country's (or Canada) seem to do reasonably well with socialism but size/population relative to the amount of natural resources has to be taken into account, small country's with larger populations and less resources, and large/heavy populated country's don't seem to do as well, i don't see Scandinavia becoming a Marxist gulag any time soon either, especially if the supply of resources to support the population remain constant..

Speaking of Capitalism destroying itself...

This is my uncle's most recent blog post:

http://mypinksalmon.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... h-yet.html

I'm always curious to hear what others think of his thoughts. 

Fascism most certainly is not a left-wing type of government.

It espouses radical militarism and patriotism, usually tenets of right-wing ideology.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Sounds pretty close to what we have right now in the US, right?

I want to add something to this discussion because I think this is an interesting topic:

Theory: Capitalism in a representative democracy, as we have currently in the US, should naturally evolve into direct Fascism as the corporations become larger and more powerful, and realize that they can buy the influence of government with money.

Does anyone disagree?  I'd love to hear arguments either for or against this theory.  I think any representative democracy will eventually deteriorate until it is basically a corporate feudal society.

Here is the inevitable future I envision (from Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson):

In this hypothetical future reality the federal government of the United States has ceded most of its power to private organizations and entrepreneurs. Franchising, individual sovereignty and private vehicles reign (along with drug trafficking, violent crime, and traffic congestion). Mercenary armies compete for national defense contracts while private security guards preserve the peace in gated, sovereign housing developments. Highway companies compete to attract drivers to their roads rather than the competitors', and all mail delivery is by hired courier. The remnants of government maintain authority only in isolated compounds where they transact tedious make-work that is, by and large, irrelevant to the dynamic society around them.

So, take feudalism, and replace King with Corporation, and serfs with burbclave residents, and you have modern corporate feudal fascism... 

Be sure to wear leather chaps.

Storm wrote: Fascism most certainly is not a left-wing type of government.

It espouses radical militarism and patriotism, usually tenets of right-wing ideology.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Sounds pretty close to what we have right now in the US, right?

That quote sounds completely bogus. And a quick search shows that it is.

Fascism is private ownership of production and state control over them. If it were any more Left it would make a circle back on itself.

Here is what they say about Mussolini's real quotes:

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/corporatism.html

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.

That's traditional Jeffersonian/Adam Smith Liberalism. Not what we have today.

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

His quotes read like the Marxist play book but without the state ownership.

Anyway it's been fun. But I don't debate politics like this. I was here merely to point out that smearing conservatives with the "fascist" label is simply not correct. Fascism is a leftist ideology and always has been. It killed people just like Marxism, but they didn't have as good of a marketing department to cover it all up.

Adam1226 wrote: Speaking of Capitalism destroying itself...

This is my uncle's most recent blog post:

http://mypinksalmon.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... h-yet.html

I'm always curious to hear what others think of his thoughts.  

I was happily reading along, alternately agreeing, then thinking, "that's interesting, let me consider that," when I came to this:

from the uncle's blog

"Roubini has an accent and probably hair on his back. He is not a true American. Another darkie bringing the communist manifesto to light."

Logic errors:  Ad ethnicam, ad masculini sexus proprietas secundaria, ad linguam, and ad genus/ad racism attacks.*  These are probably all different variations of ad hominem attacks, but I find it useful to separate them out. 

I'm not saying he can't write stuff like this, just that I don't have to read or respect it.  In a free country people can write and publish whatever they like. 

Aside from those, and his referring to China as "the last great satan state" (sic.)--the phrase cries out for a description of his inclusion criteria--he's an interesting writer.

You might want to let your uncle know that those three sentences in his blog essay destroy credibility in his argument, and almost guarantee that certain people who might otherwise be inclined to agree with him (and hence, keep up with and tell their friends about his blog) will never read his writings again.

Especially if they speak American English with an accent, have any smidgen of hair still growing on their backs, are immigrants, have what other people regard as dark skin, and/or have formally studied Karl Marx's theories and writings (as opposed to regurgitating the latest anti-communist, jingoistic slogan that tends to get a specific emotional reaction from some readers).

*National origin/ethnicity-, male secondary sexual characteristics-, language-, and race-based attacks.  Translated into Latin using Google Translate.

I'm beginning to tire of one-dimensional (left/right) descriptions of these governmental entities...

To craigr, he sees government coercion as leftist.

To me and others, we see militarism, nationalism, genocide and war-mongering as very right-wing traits.

We're talking about two totally differeing dimensions of polical tendency here.  Craig's talking about the statism vs individualism while Storm and myself are talking about militarism vs pacifism (or isolationism or simplly minding your own business).

I think we're just punching at straw men here and arguing past each other.

The real question is, are lesser forms of government "coercion" (safety nets, mass transit, healthcare, education, etc) unfair, incapable, or immoral, and/or will they lead to some of the much worse forms of coercion, including war, genocide, displacement, etc?

To say that Naziism is left or right wing, in my view, is seeming to be simplifying political thought down into one dimension, and insulting to the intentions and intelligence of those on both sides.  I can't see Ron Paul anywhere close to displacing and/or murdering an entire race any more than Dennis Kucinich... though I wouldn't put it past Michelle Bachmann... jk.

What I DO think is extreme, though, is Craig's assertion that liberal policies WILL lead to genocide because they are so inherantly flawed and are carried out by control freaks that would eventually become war criminals.

smurff wrote: Especially if they speak American English with an accent, have any smidgen of hair still growing on their backs, are immigrants, have what other people regard as dark skin, and/or have formally studied Karl Marx's theories and writings (as opposed to regurgitating the latest anti-communist, jingoistic slogan that tends to get a specific emotional reaction from some readers).

I think he just meant that b/c of these characteristics, the average American probably wouldn't listen to the guy.  I don't think he himself has a problem with them.

Adam1226 wrote:

smurff wrote: Especially if they speak American English with an accent, have any smidgen of hair still growing on their backs, are immigrants, have what other people regard as dark skin, and/or have formally studied Karl Marx's theories and writings (as opposed to regurgitating the latest anti-communist, jingoistic slogan that tends to get a specific emotional reaction from some readers).

I think he just meant that b/c of these characteristics, the average American probably wouldn't listen to the guy.  I don't think he himself has a problem with them.

I think he may wish to clarify this in his blog.  The addition of quotation marks ("..."   "..."  "...") to set off the three sentences or even the suspect words within them can make it more clear that they are not what your uncle believes, while it simultaneously acknowledges that there may be those who hold such beliefs and may therefore disregard Roubini (or China) because of their own notions.  Adding a modified version of your statement above (near enough to the sentences so it is clear that's what he is referring to) would make it even more clear that it's not your uncle's belief.

If he makes the changes, let the list know, and I'll be happy to give his blog another read.

craigr wrote: That quote sounds completely bogus. And a quick search shows that it is.

Fascism is private ownership of production and state control over them. If it were any more Left it would make a circle back on itself.

Here is what they say about Mussolini's real quotes:

So, you found one website refuting a quote that 5,000 other sites display.  I hardly think this qualifies as refutation of the quote.

You still think Mussolini was a left-winger?  How about these quotes:

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere. (p. 32)
The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).
Benito Mussolini, 1935, "The Doctrine of Fascism," Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.