Jussie Smollett Charged with False Report

[Kodiak]

Ownership of the means of production is not the same thing as social insurance programs funded by tax dollars. Those things are completely different..

LMAO.....Thank you for delineating a "distinction without a difference". I already explained "ownership of production" is a dated and ignorant definition of socialism.

And it's not just about "social insurance". Regressives want to take over healthcare and energy - that's like 30% of the economy. Not to mention the control over the rest exerted with taxes and regulation.

So controlling like 30%+ of the economy isn't socialism to you? OK, I disagree.

[Kodiak]

a tangible benefit and would instead rather spend that money on a more expensive car, house, tv, travel, etc...
And thus you are making the argument that these freebies are actually good for the economy. Expansionary policy and Keynesian theory 101.

No....Only economically ignorant morons jerk off to Keynes

[Kodiak]

Most people don't really know what states' rights even means or how it is applied.

Fascinating. How do you feel about the electoral college?

[SteelPro]

a tangible benefit and would instead rather spend that money on a more expensive car, house, tv, travel, etc...
And thus you are making the argument that these freebies are actually good for the economy. Expansionary policy and Keynesian theory 101.

No....Only economically ignorant morons jerk off to Keynes

You’re the one that argued giving people free college and free health insurance would stimulate economic activity. I guess that makes you a Keynesian moron covered in jizz from jerking off to him.

[Legacy User]

Ownership of the means of production is not the same thing as social insurance programs funded by tax dollars. Those things are completely different..

LMAO.....Thank you for delineating a "distinction without a difference". I already explained "ownership of production" is a dated and ignorant definition of socialism.

And it's not just about "social insurance". Regressives want to take over healthcare and energy - that's like 30% of the economy. Not to mention the control over the rest exerted with taxes and regulation.

So controlling like 50% of the economy isn't socialism to you? OK, I disagree.

Laugh all you want. You can use words however you want. The welfare state as currently exercised in this country has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production. Which is exactly what socialism is.

You claim the actual definition of socialism is dated and ignorant....and promptly give no proof.

I disagree that welfare and socialism are the same because they are demonstrably different: one involves the ownership of production and one does not. Since this distinction is obvious, you're just being obstinate.

Did you get an MA in econ or eristic?

[Kodiak]

You’re the one that argued giving people free college and free health insurance would stimulate economic activity. I guess that makes you a Keynesian moron covered in jizz from jerking off to him.

What?!? No. Holy shit. What moronic moon did you swallow?!? Show me where I said what you claim.

Or, instead, go back into your hole because you're an abject idiot.


Somewhere George Carlin is laughing his ass off.

[Kodiak]

Laugh all you want. You can use words however you want.

Yes. I will laugh. Argue about the technical definition of socialism instead of the practical one. I expect that from the ivory tower completely disconnected from the real world.

I don't "use words". I use reality. Some day you might step outside the faux academia and see how people actually live. But I suspect not.

You're anchoring to a text-book definition of socialism completely ignorant of how socialism works in the modern world. But, sure, throw stones at me because you're a dipshit.

For the record, I understand how YOU might take "socialism" literally.....but if you had studied economics then you might understand the practicalities of said free shit.

[Kodiak]

You claim the actual definition of socialism is dated and ignorant....and promptly give no proof

And that's an intellectually bankrupt argument, professor.

But I think you already knew that.

[SteelPro]

You’re the one that argued giving people free college and free health insurance would stimulate economic activity. I guess that makes you a Keynesian moron covered in jizz from jerking off to him.

What?!? No. Holy shit. What moronic moon did you swallow?!? Show me where I said what you claim.

Or, instead, go back into your hole because you're an abject idiot.


Somewhere George Carlin is laughing his ass off.

I bolded your comments once already. Now please proceed with walking back all your comments and calling people morons.

[Legacy User]

Kodiak, why do you insist on being deliberately stupid?

Just admit you’re full of shit and move on.

Please, by all means point out why what I posted is “bankrupt.” (By the way, you quoted a claim, not an argument. I wonder you know the difference or do I hold an outdated notion of argument too.). Apparently your strategy here is to insist words mean whatever you want them to and call people ignorant who don’t adhere to your private semantic plasticity.

But the better thing for me to point out is to sidestep your silly name calling and point out that you failed to say why welfare is the same as ownership of production. Instead you just said: waaah, wah, I studied Econ and you did not.

We live in a capitalist economy that uses tax dollars to fund social insurance programs.

And that makes Chicago a socialist city.

Ok.

[Kodiak]

Kodiak, why do you insist on being deliberately stupid?

Good lord, and people pay you for a college degree.

You're intellectually bankrupt. You are. I've proven it in this very thread. You're using a very dated defintion of socialism, which strikes me as odd for a college professor whom one would expect to be on the evolutionary edge of education.

You're problem is you've spent your entire life in the ivory tower and you don't understand real world realities. I'll say it again - I don't have to sit on your Board to control your company when I can do it thru taxes, regulations, etc...You are completely clueless to what I'm talking about because you've never worked in the real world. You're entire position is based on bad theory with no actual lab experience.

You do realize that the US has been declining on measures of capitalism? Behind even some of the socialist meccas you covet (once you get past a 100% tax increase on most people).....Yet somehow these countries rank higher in economic freedom than the US. What you're struggling to understand is the difference between social services and socialism......Dems are wanting to take control of healthcare and energy, which is @ 30% of the economy. You don't think that's socialism....anyone with a brain would disagree.

[Kodiak]

I bolded your comments once already. Now please proceed with walking back all your comments and calling people morons.

I literally never said that. You are just such an idiot that you imagined I said it. Wow.

Bold them again because the point flew over your head. Which, by the way, is an EXCELLENT argument against free college education.

You won't do that, because what you "bolded" was complete mental diarrhea that only accentuates your ignorance. I mean, it really didn't even have anything to do with the point I was making....just a triggered retard reflex. But I'm talking to to a gerbil here - you didn't understand what I was saying, and you had no clue what you meant in response.


I NEVER said that all that "free shit" would stimulate the economy. You're a liar and/or an idiot.

There you go. I bolded it for you.

[jebrick]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

[Legacy User]

Kodiak, why do you insist on being deliberately stupid?

Good lord, and people pay you for a college degree.

You're intellectually bankrupt. You are. I've proven it in this very thread. You're using a very dated defintion of socialism, which strikes me as odd for a college professor whom one would expect to be on the evolutionary edge of education.

You're problem is you've spent your entire life in the ivory tower and you don't understand real world realities. I'll say it again - I don't have to sit on your Board to control your company when I can do it thru taxes, regulations, etc...You are completely clueless to what I'm talking about because you've never worked in the real world. You're entire position is based on bad theory with no actual lab experience.

You do realize that the US has been declining on measures of capitalism? Behind even some of the socialist meccas you covet (once you get past a 100% tax increase on most people).....Yet somehow these countries rank higher in economic freedom than the US. What you're struggling to understand is the difference between social services and socialism......Dems are wanting to take control of healthcare and energy, which is @ 30% of the economy. You don't think that's socialism....anyone with a brain would disagree.

Several things:
1. "I don't have to sit on your Board to control your company when I can do it thru taxes, regulations, etc..." Right, I can grant this and still say that the government does not own industry and so therefore, it's not a socialist economy.

Now, maybe you want to call it a mixed regime. What we do not disagree on is that industry can be controlled through regulation and taxes. Certainly. But why does that deserve the title of socialism? If your definition of socialism is government oversight of the economy, that is a rather broad definition that fits nearly any regime, yes?

2. I have no idea what you're talking about not because I have no real world experience, but because you have mostly thrown insults rather than give a full throated explanation and defense of your views.

3. You have no idea what I covet. I never took a position. What I did was call you deliberately obtuse for trying to say that social insurance programs (these are liberal things, yes?) are the same thing as socialism.

4. I am the one who first pointed out the difference between social services and socialism, not you.

5. You just said NOT that 30% of the economy IS controlled by the government, but that Dems (actually it is a tiny minority of Dems, but don't let that get in the way of your position), but that Dems would LIKE to do this. Yes, that would be rather socialist. Except I never said that THAT would not be. I only claimed that social insurance programs and welfare programs supported by tax dollars from private, capitalist enterprise was not socialism. And for that I was ignorant, dumb, etc.

6. And you never gave any coherent explanation for why Chicago is a "socialist city."

Are you going to keep calling me a dumb ass or actually have a discussion? I mean, I don't care what you call me, but it seems silly.

[Legacy User]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

I totally agree. My complaint was that it seems that social insurance programs (liberal things) were being conflated with government ownership of industry.

[jebrick]

Regulation is needed to curb the often bad effects that a pure capitalistic society can have. Social security has grown from what it was meant to be to something different. Medicare/Medicaid are different animals.

I am quite willing to debate the current healthcare issues as it pertains to the Government and the companies.

[jebrick]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

My complaint was that it seems that social insurance programs (liberal things) were being conflated with government ownership of industry.

SS is just a safety net that grew out of the depression. Since the Government does not control retirement savings I would say that one is safe.

Medicaid/Medicare definitely does not control the industry or there would be a different debate.

Military industrial complex gets closer to control than most other but still is arguably not.

[COR-TEN]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

Yeah, but that argument can't be manipulated and used as a political tool. Like labeling anything the government does is "socialism."

This isn't about semantics, or word definition, reality, or history. It's about demonizing the opposition and winning at all costs. There is no such thing as compromise. Some people just got wrapped up in the battle and lost their minds. Then others followed, and this country is headed down the toilet because of it.

And I appreciate your sensible, level headed comments, jebrick. At least you recognize that as soon as humans get involved, they'll fuck everything up. So the prudent thing to do is create a mechanism to deal with it. But one side doesn't want that, as they don't mind the collateral damage caused by their ideology. They actually want it.

[Legacy User]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

My complaint was that it seems that social insurance programs (liberal things) were being conflated with government ownership of industry.

SS is just a safety net that grew out of the depression. Since the Government does not control retirement savings I would say that one is safe.

Medicaid/Medicare definitely does not control the industry or there would be a different debate.

Military industrial complex gets closer to control than most other but still is arguably not.

I realize all this, but I was called an Ivory Tower dumb fuck for saying it. What you have expressed was what I was told was a distinction without a difference and an "intellectually bankrupt argument." (Nevermind that it is a claim, not an argument.)

[SteelPro]

I bolded your comments once already. Now please proceed with walking back all your comments and calling people morons.

I literally never said that. You are just such an idiot that you imagined I said it. Wow.

Bold them again because the point flew over your head. Which, by the way, is an EXCELLENT argument against free college education.

You won't do that, because what you "bolded" was complete mental diarrhea that only accentuates your ignorance. I mean, it really didn't even have anything to do with the point I was making....just a triggered retard reflex. But I'm talking to to a gerbil here - you didn't understand what I was saying, and you had no clue what you meant in response.


I NEVER said that all that "free shit" would stimulate the economy. You're a liar and/or an idiot.

There you go. I bolded it for you.

Instead of being a blowhard and just lobbing insults why don't you just clarify your reasoning. These were your own words:

IMO, the far bigger issue is "free shit" simply because people would rather spend their money on something else.

and...

Free healthcare" is the really dubious one. Let's ignore the pre-existing conditions - real problem that was awful. But the issue is there's no utility derived from buying insurance (until/unless you need it). So in many cases it's not that people can't afford insurance, they just don't feel a tangible benefit and would instead rather spend that money on a more expensive car, house, tv, travel, etc...

Correct me if I'm wrong.. you believe most people actually can afford insurance. However, their preference is to buy "other stuff". Just by doing a little deductive reasoning it can assumed that no longer needing to buy insurance or pay for college (fill in whatever entitlement you want) makes the decisions to buy "other stuff" much easier. And buying stuff certainly qualifies as economic activity. If you think there is fallacy in this argument, I'd love to hear it sans the 4th grade name calling. From my perch though I don't see how one can argue that people that would prefer to make consumptive purchases wouldn't do so if they were no longer saddled with covering education or insurance bills. Now if the argument is that the money drain from taxes to cover these entitlement programs more than offsets the increased consumption of the middle and lower classes and it would hurt the economy on a macro level, I can agree with that. An educated economist might have advanced that theory.

[zeke5123]

Amazon paid zero taxes. A trillion dollar company. What tax liability did shareholders have? In total?

Dumpster has had refunds and plenty of tax cuts/ loopholes to take advantage of just like other wealthy people. The most recent cut he signed gave himself like $30 M. Corporations bought back stock, instead of injecting that capital into the economy.

Off shore corporate tax shelters hide how much money? Trickle down doesn't work. The last forty years of shit has proven this.

I can get on board with reducing taxes for the individual. But whatever measly tax cut was given to individual tax payers will expire, while corporate cuts are permanent. Why is that?

It is funny -- one question is what do you believe happened to the cash that was utilized to purchase the stock back?

Moreover, when you say trickle down doesn't work, there are a couple of points:

1. Have tax incidences actually decrease (or was it base broadening and rate reductions)?

2. Are we really worse off? A lot of the stagant wage articles aren't terribly accurate.

[zeke5123]

As with most arguments, people are looking at the "pure" form of something rather than the mixture that everyone has. By all definitions that I can find, Socialism is social ownership of the production (plus worker rights stuff). Capitalism is the exact opposite. Both are pretty bad in their pure forms.

Yeah, but that argument can't be manipulated and used as a political tool. Like labeling anything the government does is "socialism."

This isn't about semantics, or word definition, reality, or history. It's about demonizing the opposition and winning at all costs. There is no such thing as compromise. Some people just got wrapped up in the battle and lost their minds. Then others followed, and this country is headed down the toilet because of it.

And I appreciate your sensible, level headed comments, jebrick. At least you recognize that as soon as humans get involved, they'll fuck everything up. So the prudent thing to do is create a mechanism to deal with it. But one side doesn't want that, as they don't mind the collateral damage caused by their ideology. They actually want it.

The irony is soooo thick.

You support setting up an orgnaization staffed with humans with increidbly strong problems to deal with humans "fucking everything up." You do see the irony, no?

[Kodiak]

The irony is soooo thick.

You support setting up an orgnaization staffed with humans with increidbly strong problems to deal with humans "fucking everything up." You do see the irony, no?

LOL, no.

And the simple question is - "OK, that's what you want...then why not just try it out in your state first?"

OK, let's not demonize socialism at face value....but it still seems to make rational sense that maybe ideal social insurance solutions are not best administered at the federal level, but rather state (and perhaps even local) level.

Because you hit the nail on the head that there really isn't much the federal govt does well or effectively.

OK, spoiler alert: The reason behind the push for federal solutions is because taxes can't fund this - it requires a federal govt to deficit spend and print money. That will work, for a little while.

[Kodiak]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. .

You're wrong. Nothing you wrote demonstrated that you understood what I was saying, much less indicated even a basic understanding of economics.

[Kodiak]

[
Several things:

Let's talk single payer, as an example (and extend to energy, nearly 30% of the economy).
- The govt dictate what services you provide, how you will provide them, whom you provide them too, and how much you'll be paid.


But in your world, that's not socialism.....because the govt isn't actually running your company?!?

[Legacy User]

[
Several things:

Let's talk single payer, as an example (and extend to energy, nearly 30% of the economy).
- The govt dictate what services you provide, how you will provide them, whom you provide them too, and how much you'll be paid.


But in your world, that's not socialism.....because the govt isn't actually running your company?!?

The Tennessee Valley Authority is straight up socialism.

I will concede that single payer is a socialist mechanism for social welfare. However, it is also supposed to be, and let's try not to burst into laughter here, not for profit. Single payer as envisioned by many liberals is not a money making enterprise, but a social service. It would not be designed to be for profit. It is envisioned as along the same lines as social security. That's the point of Medicare for all. Do you think Police Departments and Public Schools are socialist?

As for the dumb Green New Deal, yes, that is straight up socialism presented by...self-titled Democratic Socialists.

But to say the Green New Deal is embraced by a majority of liberals is like saying banning Muslims from the United States is embraced by all conservatives. And the overwhelming majority of liberals favor private enterprise. Nothing is simply black and white, here.

Finally, about this: But in your world, that's not socialism.....because the govt isn't actually running your company?!? I'm glad you brought that up again.

All governments that are more than governments in name only (i.e., not failed states) to some extent regulate and control their economies.
Surely you are not saying governmental oversight of the economy is socialism. Because if that is true, then all governments are socialist.
A good definition does not let in spurious instances nor leave out genuine cases. If your definition of socialism is regulation of business, then you seem to think all governments are socialist. But you do not. So you had better explain yourself. You have not been clear.

[SteelPro]

[
Several things:

Let's talk single payer, as an example (and extend to energy, nearly 30% of the economy).
- The govt dictate what services you provide, how you will provide them, whom you provide them too, and how much you'll be paid.


But in your world, that's not socialism.....because the govt isn't actually running your company?!?

The Tennessee Valley Authority is straight up socialism.

I will concede that single payer is a socialist mechanism for social welfare. However, it is also supposed to be, and let's try not to burst into laughter here, not for profit. Single payer as envisioned by many liberals is not a money making enterprise, but a social service. It would not be designed to be for profit. It is envisioned as along the same lines as social security. That's the point of Medicare for all. Do you think Police Departments and Public Schools are socialist?

As for the dumb Green New Deal, yes, that is straight up socialism presented by...self-titled Democratic Socialists.

But to say the Green New Deal is embraced by a majority of liberals is like saying banning Muslims from the United States is embraced by all conservatives. And the overwhelming majority of liberals favor private enterprise. Nothing is simply black and white, here.

Finally, about this: But in your world, that's not socialism.....because the govt isn't actually running your company?!? I'm glad you brought that up again.

All governments that are more than governments in name only (i.e., not failed states) to some extent regulate and control their economies.
Surely you are not saying governmental oversight of the economy is socialism. Because if that is true, then all governments are socialist.
A good definition does not let in spurious instances nor leave out genuine cases. If your definition of socialism is regulation of business, then you seem to think all governments are socialist. But you do not. So you had better explain yourself. You have not been clear.

I hope you aren’t truly expecting a legitimate well reasoned response. Shall I speed this up for you? It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this one.

[Legacy User]

I hope you aren’t truly expecting a legitimate well reasoned response. Shall I speed this up for you? It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this one.

I do think we'll get down to brass tax , now, if he really wishes to. The argument is pretty obvious, here. It's a valid modus tollens and using Kodiak's premise, we can generate the following:

All governments regulate (control) business.

If regulation of business is socialism, then all governments are socialist.
All governments are not socialist.
Therefore regulation of business is not socialism.

If p, then q.
Not q.
Therefore not p.

Easy peasy.

Kodiak needs to explain more unless he's really going to affirm that all regulation of business is socialist. It will be interesting to see what the threshold of regulation is for crossing over into socialism and what standard is used to establish that threshold.

[zeke5123]

I hope you aren’t truly expecting a legitimate well reasoned response. Shall I speed this up for you? It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this one.

I do think we'll get down to brass tax , now, if he really wishes to. The argument is pretty obvious, here. It's a valid modus tollens and using Kodiak's premise, we can generate the following:

All governments regulate (control) business.

If regulation of business is socialism, then all governments are socialist.
All governments are not socialist.
Therefore regulation of business is not socialism.

If p, then q.
Not q.
Therefore not p.

Easy peasy.

Kodiak needs to explain more unless he's really going to affirm that all regulation of business is socialist. It will be interesting to see what the threshold of regulation is for crossing over into socialism and what standard is used to establish that threshold.

Isn't the issue more or less socialism?

[Legacy User]

Hey Zeke,

The issue is what socialism is in the first place. I said that a socialist regime must own the means of production. I was then labelled with various sobriquets for sticking to that.

My next attempt was to point out that liberal policy is not necessarily socialist. I did this by pointing out that that things like social security, medicare are social welfare programs supported by tax dollars generated from private enterprise.

Kodiak's retort is that there are ways to control how businesses are run without controlling operations and the means of production, for example, taxes, regulations, etc.

That brings us to my present line of inquiry: we can't be saying that regulation and oversight of business is socialism since that would include every viable regime on the planet. It is too broad a definition accurately to capture what socialism is if it is anything.

We need a definition that does not let in spurious cases and does not exclude genuine cases. But it may be that socialism is not really a natural kind and does not admit of a coherent definition.