Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'

Threedee said:
I know what its intended to mean. Its left over from failed economic models such as agrarianism and communism, which have a prejudice against markets and modernity. Now its just a slogan invoking class warfare.

Essentially:
Joe Prole manufactures a toothpick. Toothpick = productive wealth
James Patrician invests money into Oral Health Company = derived wealth

Bankers and investors = Evil Jew Bastards. Larborers = Good Guys
Click to expand...

Ok, cool thanks. I looked it up and got productive labor and that it was some marxist phrase and figured that couldn't be what he means. Guess i wrong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You sound like me ten years ago. I cut the RP string in 2003 when that fucking moron Bush invaded Iraq. Well technically 2004 but it was the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was the final straw for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that did it for me too. Made we wish I'd voted for Al Bore. At least he would have been entertaining!
 
cawacko said:
Ok, cool thanks. I looked it up and got productive labor and that it was some marxist phrase and figured that couldn't be what he means. Guess i wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, I tried defining it in as condescending a manner as possible. It is a term coming from Marxism, which is probably why it strikes you as being so stupid.
 
There Ain't No Free Ride

Threedee said:
Yeah, I don't understand how one could miss the blatant pro-business stance of the GOP from Lincoln through the mid-20th Century. Ironically, its Nixon, who was a bit more hostile to business interests than his Republican predecessors, and transformed the modern GOP, that Augustino blames for destroying the party. I think he destroyed it too, by inviting in the Southern riff-raff, but he certainly didn't make it as pro-business as the party was under Coolidge, or Taft who took it to the unions with his famous piece of legislation from 1947.
Click to expand...
Lincoln , Coolidge and Taft didn't run up the national debt and mortgage the nation to China. Lincoln built railroads. IKE built freeways. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush built debt.
 
cawacko said:
No I don't follow you that unemployment is a good thing. I'm technically unemployed and it sucks. Please tell me how it's great.
Click to expand...

It sucks because society has to change how it looks at unemployment.

Years ago, people worked from dawn to dusk. Many worked six or even seven days a week just to survive. The average farmer, for example.

Are we sorry people don't work 12 hours a day anymore? Do we miss the 40 hour week? Are we saying we have a crisis because the average work week is now 35 hours? No, of course not.

As technology enables us to mass produce we don't require everyone to work and that's the whole idea. If we have enough fridges and stoves and automobiles why should we expect someone to keep making more?

If there are no jobs making fridges and stoves it means society does not need any more fridges and stoves. If there was a shortage there would be jobs available to make them.

What we have to do now is structure society is such a way that having a job is not essential. Or having a full time job is not essential. Maybe job sharing?

Again, today, people do not have to work 16 hours a day in order to live. Why does someone have to work 8 hours a day? If we can supply enough food so that you don't have to work to provide it why are you not getting the food?

A fundamental shift is necessary and I believe that will only happen through government intervention. If a company makes fridges and stoves and can supply the needs of everyone and the company has patents and won't allow others to make fridges and stoves then perhaps tax that company and use the money so people can buy a fridge or stove if they need one. Or the government set up a fridge and stove warehouse and when a person requires one they go there and assemble one and pay strictly for the parts.

The point being things have to change. Just because you don't have a job, in essence something to trade for a fridge or stove, should not mean you can not obtain one when there are plenty available.
 
Cypress said:
Bummer, that sucks, man.

This is OT....and I don’t know if this is applicable in any way to you, but if anyone is stuck in a rut of unemployment due to a shitty economy, IMO a good strategy to ride out the storm is to enroll in school, work on a degree or get some classes under your belt....and either get training for a different career or make yourself unstoppable with the skills you already have.

The upside of this strategy is that potential employers who interview you won’t freak out as much when they hear about the length of an extended unemployment spell – you’re totally covered! You can say you were in school. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, is that being is school is an outstanding way to meet hella awesome chicks! :clink: (j/k)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how unemployment works there but employers contribute and they do not like it when a person collects unemployment and goes to school. They don't want to pay for someone's education. At least that's what I was told many years ago when I was collecting it.

Check first or you may lose it!
 
augustino5150 said:
Lincoln , Coolidge and Taft didn't run up the national debt and mortgage the nation to China. Lincoln built railroads. IKE built freeways. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush built debt.
Click to expand...

People make too much out of our trade policies with China. Yes, our national debt is a grave threat and truly problematic, but protectionism isn't the answer. The answer is cutting spending in our sacred cows (defense and welfare, beginning with the closure of our overseas bases and reducing R&D funding). China's economy will eventually fall apart on its own, as economists such as Krugman have made note of, because their policies are unsustainable.

Also, much as you and I would agree that Nixon is one of the worst things (if not worst - how I wish Ike had selected WA Gov. Arthur Langlie for VP!!!) to happen to the GOP, our debt is not one of them. Nixon made some horrible decisions regarding currency (which I'm assuming is where you blaming him comes in) and regulation (price ceilings, etc.) Reagan and Bush certainly are to blame for Cold War spending, and W for WOT spending.

Interesting perspective, though, on the transformation of the GOP after Ike. I can't say I disagree, terribly, but I am surprised to see rhetoric from you that sounds decidedly populist and protectionist.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
It sucks because society has to change how it looks at unemployment.

Years ago, people worked from dawn to dusk. Many worked six or even seven days a week just to survive. The average farmer, for example.

Are we sorry people don't work 12 hours a day anymore? Do we miss the 40 hour week? Are we saying we have a crisis because the average work week is now 35 hours? No, of course not.

As technology enables us to mass produce we don't require everyone to work and that's the whole idea. If we have enough fridges and stoves and automobiles why should we expect someone to keep making more?

If there are no jobs making fridges and stoves it means society does not need any more fridges and stoves. If there was a shortage there would be jobs available to make them.

What we have to do now is structure society is such a way that having a job is not essential. Or having a full time job is not essential. Maybe job sharing?

Again, today, people do not have to work 16 hours a day in order to live. Why does someone have to work 8 hours a day? If we can supply enough food so that you don't have to work to provide it why are you not getting the food?

A fundamental shift is necessary and I believe that will only happen through government intervention. If a company makes fridges and stoves and can supply the needs of everyone and the company has patents and won't allow others to make fridges and stoves then perhaps tax that company and use the money so people can buy a fridge or stove if they need one. Or the government set up a fridge and stove warehouse and when a person requires one they go there and assemble one and pay strictly for the parts.

The point being things have to change. Just because you don't have a job, in essence something to trade for a fridge or stove, should not mean you can not obtain one when there are plenty available.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of history but since you are the most "compassionate" person on the board do you think you could put it in today's terms for how the thousands of unemployed people like me it's not a bad thing for us?
 
Threedee said:
People make too much out of our trade policies with China. Yes, our national debt is a grave threat and truly problematic, but protectionism isn't the answer. The answer is cutting spending in our sacred cows (defense and welfare, beginning with the closure of our overseas bases and reducing R&D funding). China's economy will eventually fall apart on its own, as economists such as Krugman have made note of, because their policies are unsustainable.

Also, much as you and I would agree that Nixon is one of the worst things (if not worst - how I wish Ike had selected WA Gov. Arthur Langlie for VP!!!) to happen to the GOP, our debt is not one of them. Nixon made some horrible decisions regarding currency (which I'm assuming is where you blaming him comes in) and regulation (price ceilings, etc.) Reagan and Bush certainly are to blame for Cold War spending, and W for WOT spending.

Interesting perspective, though, on the transformation of the GOP after Ike. I can't say I disagree, terribly, but I am surprised to see rhetoric from you that sounds decidedly populist and protectionist.
Click to expand...
God you're such a rube 3D. Quite being naive and look at what's going on. Perot hit the fucking head right on the nail about the rush to the bottom.

Is protectionism to insist that our trade partners operate under the same standards that we do?

Is it not fair that we expect our trade partners to respect workers rights to organize?

Is it not fair that we expect our trade partners to enforce comparable environmental and safety regulations?

Is it not fair that we expect our trade partners have the same level of consumer protections?

Are we guilty of protectionism when we protest our trade partners governments subsidizing their industries to give them competitive advantages over us?

Are we guilty of protectionism when we complain about our trade partners systematically devaluating their currency vs the USD so that they can maintain a competitive advantage over us in the export markets?

You may still be hitting that GOP crack pipe but one of these days when you have to try and raise a family on a low paying service sector job you'll be singing a different tune. Unless you plan on being a hipocrite about all this by working for Uncle Sam?
 
Threedee said:
Yes, I tried defining it in as condescending a manner as possible. It is a term coming from Marxism, which is probably why it strikes you as being so stupid.
Click to expand...
Well maybe you should have looked a little bit farther then your GOP hand book.

Productive wealth is wealth which is created. It is created by using productive resources, i.e. capital, labor and natural resources, to produce new, more and higher quantity and quality of goods and services.

Derived wealth is wealth which is not created, as in productive wealth, but wealth that is transferred, either from one individual to another or one group to another. Some examples, inheriting a fortune from your father is not productive wealth, it is derived, that is it was transferred. Winning the lottery is derived wealth. Gaming the market on mortgage derivatives is derived wealth. That is, it is a transfer of wealth from one individual or group to another, it is not productive wealth, that is, it is not wealth creation.

That can also be true of investing. If you invest money in a company with the idea that over time the company will improve it's productivity, create new products and services and thus produce wealth and the company is successfull in creating wealth and value of the stock rises and it pays you increased dividends as a result, then this is productive wealth.

If on the other hand you invest in a stock with the intent of buying it at a low price and selling to some sucker at a higher price and are succesfull at doing so, this is not productive wealth. It is a transfer of wealth from one person to another and is thus derived.

Another example would be real estate. If someone invests the capital to purchase the materials and labor to build a house and then sells that house at a price above the cost to create it, then this would be wealth creation. If on the other hand some one tries to buy an existing house at a low price and flip it at a higher price then they paid for it and is succesfull at doing so, then this is derived wealth. Wealth has not been created in this example but has been transferred.

Those who derive wealth are never, ever as valuable to our society as those who create wealth.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
....
Claiming that people are more important because they physically construct objects and materials of value, rather than managing resources, investing, and what not, is pretty stupid, and a backward-thinking argument.....snip.
Click to expand...

Stupid, like Abraham Lincoln?

"....there is one point..... to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

--Abraham Lincoln, Republican
1861 State of the Union Address
Click to expand...


President Lincoln appears to be saying the same thing Mott did....

"Those who derive wealth are never, ever as valuable to our society as those who create wealth."

-MOTTTHEHOOPLE
Click to expand...


Its very well understood, and its beyond any reasonable date that if you took two groups of people - one, being welders, lumberjacks, carpenters, and electricians; and the other group being some billionaire investors - and parachuted them onto a deserted island, the working schmuck group would be the ones to survive and ultimately prosper. The billionaire investors would starve to death.
 
Cypress said:
Stupid, like Abraham Lincoln?




President Lincoln appears to be saying the same thing Mott did....




Its very well understood, and its beyond any reasonable date that if you took two groups of people - one, being welders, lumberjacks, carpenters, and electricians; and the other group being some billionaire investors - and parachuted them onto a deserted island, the working schmuck group would be the ones to survive and ultimately prosper. The billionaire investors would starve to death.
Click to expand...
You're wasting your time with 3D using Lincoln as an example. 3D thinks he was a terrible president where as he rates Harding as one of our best.
 
Teddy Roosevelt Wouldn't Be Surprised

Threedee said:
Interesting perspective, though, on the transformation of the GOP after Ike. I can't say I disagree, terribly, but I am surprised to see rhetoric from you that sounds decidedly populist and protectionist.
Click to expand...

I'm a Progressive Republican the same as Theodore Roosevelt and IKE. The Progressive Movement was founded by Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Party. There are no Republicans left in the Republican Party!
 
augustino5150 said:
I'm a Progressive Republican the same as Theodore Roosevelt and IKE. The Progressive Movement was founded by Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Party. There are no Republicans left in the Republican Party!
Click to expand...


I guess you are an old fashioned Republican. Out of date. You still believe in this country, unlike modern Republicons.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're wasting your time with 3D using Lincoln as an example. 3D thinks he was a terrible president where as he rates Harding as one of our best.
Click to expand...

Mott is a retard. If you will follow my link below, you will notice that he is not only a retard, but a lier, as Lincoln sits at number 3 on my ranking, which is, last time I checked, 4 numbers above 7, where Harding sits. Goddamn, Mott, you are a fucking retard!!!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=678809#post678809


Lincoln also delivered this quote:

lincolnquote.jpg


Apparently, Lincoln didn't believe it was wise to run around demogoguing about wealth and class, either.

Cypress said:
Its very well understood, and its beyond any reasonable date that if you took two groups of people - one, being welders, lumberjacks, carpenters, and electricians; and the other group being some billionaire investors - and parachuted them onto a deserted island, the working schmuck group would be the ones to survive and ultimately prosper. The billionaire investors would starve to death.
Click to expand...

As for the desert island analogy, how come those guys were poor back in civilization and the investors rich? I'd say brains and resourcefulness had a bit to do with it, so perhaps the investors would survive just fine.
 
Progress Or Bust

Crashk said:
I guess you are an old fashioned Republican. Out of date. You still believe in this country, unlike modern Republicons.
Click to expand...
Modern Republicans believe in nothing. We had dreams of flying cars and resort hotels on the moon. The neocons have nothing to offer but misery and strife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top