American Communism!

Market laws work perfectly fine as long as everything is running smoothly, but what happens when the gears finally grind to a halt?☕

I was watching this Canadian analyst on TV the other day, and he was making quite a grim case. He argued that these current measures aren't going to do anything to save the North American auto industry; in his view, it’s really just a matter of time before those executives are flying back in private jets to beg the government for another bailout. The guy was utterly pessimistic, essentially predicting that this entire sector will just flicker out within the next few years.

frozenwolf54 said:Market laws work perfectly fine as long as everything is running smoothly, but what happens when the gears finally grind to a halt?☕

I was watching this Canadian analyst on TV the other day, and he was making quite a grim case. He argued that these current measures aren't going to do anything to save the North American auto industry; in his view, it’s really just a matter of time before those executives are flying back in private jets to beg the government for another bailout. The guy was utterly pessimistic, essentially predicting that this entire sector will just flicker out within the next few years.

You have to admit that we humans are basically just globalized canned goods.

Personally, I need some level of price stability for my potatoes. I don't want some local shopkeeper hiking up the price just because she had a disagreement with her neighbor—especially since she knows how much I love potatoes.

Or objectively, I shouldn't see prices swinging wildly from day to day just because there’s a storm at sea making fishing difficult.

I was watching this Canadian analyst on TV the other day. He claims these measures won't save the North American auto industry. He thinks it's only a matter of time before they're flying back in private jets to beg the government for another bailout. The guy was a total pessimist, predicting this whole sector will be dead within a few years.

Skepticism is fine, but what you described sounds purely sensationalist. What one person calls a celebration, a madman might call a tragedy.

I find it hard to believe he was actually celebrating; being Canadian himself, I suspect he felt just as much skin in the game as anyone else.
It’s far more likely he was simply voicing his own perspective, which, let’s be honest, isn't always going to be the objective truth.

Samuel Brown88 said:Communism is ancient history and it's never coming back... but the kind of liberal Capitalism we've known is also fading out... things are gonna have to shift eventually...

So you say state intervention is okay... but the government isn't using its own cash... that's taxpayer money collected from regular citizens... and why should we bail out wealthy CEOs who pocketed everything when times were good... and now they want the whole country to foot the bill just so they can survive and keep making life hard for everyone else... that's not how Capitalism works... you either succeed and make bank or you're out... that's the system they built themselves, and moving away from that means something major is gonna change down the road...

How are you even supposed to decide which company gets a lifeline and which one doesn't? Like, does the one with more lobbyists in D.C. get the check while the other one starves? You'd have to build that directly into the system to decide exactly who gets what... because at the end of the day, if you help one, you have to help them all since everyone's getting hit by the crisis... and that kind of hand-holding isn't really the Capitalism we used to know...

You're right that Capitalism will stick around, but it'll probably have a different prefix in the future and be way more closed off, with way more social elements. After all, during these kinds of crises, it's always the regular folks and the workers who take the biggest hit, and they make up the vast majority of the country.

It's not about saving the bosses; it's about saving the millions of people who are tied directly or indirectly to that industry.
That's exactly the criteria: you intervene where the most people are involved and at risk. If your small business with ten employees goes under, nobody is coming to save you; you're just gone.
Capitalism evolves—it builds on itself and changes from its origins.
Back in the day, kids worked 18-hour shifts in coal mines for pennies, but today you have rights like paid vacation and government protections. It's still Capitalism. It's resilient and fluid; it was never set in stone in one single format.
It showed up before Communism and it outlasted it, and what's happening now definitely isn't Communism.
It's never going to flip over into Communism.

velvetmaker3 said:It's not about saving the bosses; it's about saving the millions of people who are tied directly or indirectly to that industry.
That's exactly the criteria: you intervene where the most people are involved and at risk. If your small business with ten employees goes under, nobody is coming to save you; you're just gone.
Capitalism evolves—it builds on itself and changes from its origins.
Back in the day, kids worked 18-hour shifts in coal mines for pennies, but today you have rights like paid vacation and government protections. It's still Capitalism. It's resilient and fluid; it was never set in stone in one single format.
It showed up before Communism and it outlasted it, and what's happening now definitely isn't Communism.
It's never going to flip over into Communism.

I'll note this,

You just reminded me how our own left-wing theorists, as well as those in Europe, were always jealous of the USA. A revolution happens there every single day.

Following these posts, I am more convinced than ever. Half of Western analysts would be thrilled if everything over there completely fell apart.

------------

Re: frozenwolf54

I don't believe he was actually celebrating. He is Canadian himself, so that applies to him too.
It is more likely he was simply stating an opinion, which, naturally, does not have to be correct.

Re: precisely because he is Canadian. Given that Canada—as far as I know—has better social safety nets, I suspect he is making these analyses from a position of pure comfort.

If the USA increases its involvement in social welfare, it still won't show any signs of the Communism that many villains here keep babbling about.

Regards,

If what they call Capitalism is what they have over in Sweden, then maybe I’d like a piece of that too? 😁

But if I’m destined to get the version they have here in the US... well, I think I'll pass on that one.

It’s funny how both sides try to convince me that they are practicing true Capitalism...
Yet when I arrive in the US, people insist that the Scandinavian model isn't actually Capitalism at all...
They claim it’s more akin to Socialism and argue that such a system simply couldn't function in America...

And so on, and so forth...

Frankly, I couldn't care less what label you slap on it, as long as it allows for a decent standard of living!

Looking ahead, say ten or twenty years from now—God willing—if we somehow manage to implement a hybrid model, something composed of various elements with more than 50% social components that finally allows people to live decently in this part of the world...
Will they still try to insist that it is "Capitalism," even if its actual influence on society is reduced to, say, 30%? Or how is that distinction even determined?
Where does the line actually sit? When does someone decide, "No, this is Communism, this is Capitalism, and that third thing is Socialism"? Where is that boundary of exclusivity drawn?

Or shouldn't we just take the best parts of everything—not the absolute worst, as we tend to do by picking up the worst traits from both the East and the West—to create a better state, or rather, a better societal arrangement?

velvetmaker3 said:It's not about saving the bosses; it's about saving the millions of people who are tied directly or indirectly to that industry.
That's exactly the criteria: you intervene where the most people are involved and at risk. If your small business with ten employees goes under, nobody is coming to save you; you're just gone.
Capitalism evolves—it builds on itself and changes from its origins.
Back in the day, kids worked 18-hour shifts in coal mines for pennies, but today you have rights like paid vacation and government protections. It's still Capitalism. It's resilient and fluid; it was never set in stone in one single format.
It showed up before Communism and it outlasted it, and what's happening now definitely isn't Communism.
It's never going to flip over into Communism.

I already shared my thoughts on Communism in my last post... so yeah, we’re on the same page there...

The real issue is that the state shouldn't be stepping in like this...
You say they don't save the bosses... but they hand out cash to companies just to keep them afloat. Then, once the crisis blows over, those same bosses are right back to raking in the profits from those exact same companies. It feels like every time things get shaky, they just threaten layoffs to force the government to bail them out and cover their losses... but when business is booming and the money is rolling in? Oh, then it's "pure Capitalism" and all that cash belongs to them.

Another thing—if the government is actually gonna step in, they should do it for everyone. You can't just say a small company has to go under because they aren't huge. Those small businesses and their workers pay taxes too, so they deserve help just like anyone else... obviously, scaled to how big the company is.

velvetmaker3 said:The government protects its own interests; whatever it decides is beneficial at any given moment, that's what it's going to do.
That has nothing to do with Marx.
Every nation wants to be powerful, and if they see a weakness somewhere, they'll try to fix it.
They are light years away from Communism.

Actually, it totally does... Marx nailed it, he basically called this whole crisis before it happened...

In "communist" Japan, this comic is flying off the shelves like crazy...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5175853.ece

...and over in Germany, book sales shot up by 300%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7679758.stm

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4974912.ece

Samuel Brown88, I am in complete agreement with you. 🙂
velvetmaker3, you are entirely mistaken; this level of government intervention is nothing short of pure Socialism. I suppose Karl Marx predicted this long ago. 🙂

melloworca652 said:Samuel Brown88, I am in complete agreement with you. 🙂
velvetmaker3, you are entirely mistaken; this level of government intervention is nothing short of pure Socialism. I suppose Karl Marx predicted this long ago. 🙂

That’s just incorrect, because there aren't actually any elements of socialism at play here. Are you trying to suggest that Japan was a socialist state fifteen years ago? That’s precisely why capitalism survives while socialism fails—it adapts to new realities. The government hasn't gone out and nationalized the banks; they’ve simply taken an equity stake, and once the crisis blows over, they’ll sell those shares right back. In actual socialism, all primary means of production belong to the collective. Any surplus generated by those collective resources is also owned by the collective. People really shouldn't get carried away with these labels unless they want to end up disappointed.

crimsonranger38 said:That’s just incorrect, because there aren't actually any elements of socialism at play here. Are you trying to suggest that Japan was a socialist state fifteen years ago? That’s precisely why capitalism survives while socialism fails—it adapts to new realities. The government hasn't gone out and nationalized the banks; they’ve simply taken an equity stake, and once the crisis blows over, they’ll sell those shares right back. In actual socialism, all primary means of production belong to the collective. Any surplus generated by those collective resources is also owned by the collective. People really shouldn't get carried away with these labels unless they want to end up disappointed.

Man, what "socialism" or... Communism...

Bottom line is, the government shouldn't be stepping in like this...

Once the crisis passes... but what if these companies don't even make it through? Who picks up the tab? Some wealthy CEO who's been raking it in for years isn't gonna pay... it's always gonna fall on the taxpayers, aka the people...

Sure, surplus is social property, but so is a deficit or a loss... so the real question is, who keeps covering these companies' losses if they just keep bleeding money?

That's just not how capitalism works...

The government should stick to social safety nets and helping workers by cutting taxes or whatever... stimulus checks and stuff... maybe the Federal Reserve messing with interest rates, but that's about it...

Honestly, it feels a bit too much like State capitalism, which is basically what people called Communism right before the USSR collapsed.
There are even plenty of clear examples of how massive contracts were just handed out to major American corporations during the "reconstruction of Iraq"—it was quite the 🙄 market, if you know what I mean.

restlesscrane152 said:Look, under Capitalism, you’ve got this thing called a market regulator. Here in the States, that’s the Fed. Their whole job is to stop these kinds of crises from happening and shut down speculators and scammers in their tracks. How much the government actually succeeded at that? Well, you can see the results for yourself.

It’s honestly hilarious to claim "liberalism" is to blame when the real issue is just idiots in charge of market stability failing to do their damn jobs.

The Federal Reserve is the biggest speculator of them all...

crimsonranger38 said:That’s just incorrect, because there aren't actually any elements of socialism at play here. Are you trying to suggest that Japan was a socialist state fifteen years ago? That’s precisely why capitalism survives while socialism fails—it adapts to new realities. The government hasn't gone out and nationalized the banks; they’ve simply taken an equity stake, and once the crisis blows over, they’ll sell those shares right back. In actual socialism, all primary means of production belong to the collective. Any surplus generated by those collective resources is also owned by the collective. People really shouldn't get carried away with these labels unless they want to end up disappointed.

The only real letdown we’re looking at is if we end up feeling the impact of an American collapse ourselves.
Honestly, it's their own fault, but the rest of the world is going to end up footing the bill. I don't care what label people slap on how things are run here—America basically stays afloat by picking everyone else's pockets. Call it capitalism or call it socialism, it doesn't matter. It's all just one big shake-down.

Samuel Brown88 said:Man, what "socialism" or... Communism...

Bottom line is, the government shouldn't be stepping in like this...

Once the crisis passes... but what if these companies don't even make it through? Who picks up the tab? Some wealthy CEO who's been raking it in for years isn't gonna pay... it's always gonna fall on the taxpayers, aka the people...

Sure, surplus is social property, but so is a deficit or a loss... so the real question is, who keeps covering these companies' losses if they just keep bleeding money?

That's just not how capitalism works...

The government should stick to social safety nets and helping workers by cutting taxes or whatever... stimulus checks and stuff... maybe the Federal Reserve messing with interest rates, but that's about it...

Thanks for the response. I guess crimsonranger38 pretty much covered everything for you.
Just to add a few more companies that the government decided not to bail out.
I suppose one has to wonder why the US didn't step in to bail out the banks that were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and triggering this entire economic meltdown. It’s curious why they didn't extend a hand to the investment funds either. Instead, it seems the plan is to rescue the auto industry just to save a few specific people's skins. Capitalism, by its very definition, should mean that if you perform well, you rise to the top, and if you fail, you simply cease to exist. The government really shouldn't be intervening at all; honestly, any time the state steps in like this, it feels like nothing more than pure socialism. 🙂

melloworca652 said:Thanks for the response. I guess crimsonranger38 pretty much covered everything for you.
Just to add a few more companies that the government decided not to bail out.
I suppose one has to wonder why the US didn't step in to bail out the banks that were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and triggering this entire economic meltdown. It’s curious why they didn't extend a hand to the investment funds either. Instead, it seems the plan is to rescue the auto industry just to save a few specific people's skins. Capitalism, by its very definition, should mean that if you perform well, you rise to the top, and if you fail, you simply cease to exist. The government really shouldn't be intervening at all; honestly, any time the state steps in like this, it feels like nothing more than pure socialism. 🙂

The reason they stepped in to bail out the auto industry? Simple. It’s one of the last massive pillars left in America. We're talking about millions of jobs on the line—not just at places like General Motors or Chrysler, but for all the suppliers and support businesses too. Huge stakes!

And yeah, you could totally call it socialism. I mean, the government stepping in to save jobs just so workers don't end up out on the street? That's basically the definition!

restlesscrane152 said:The reason they stepped in to bail out the auto industry? Simple. It’s one of the last massive pillars left in America. We're talking about millions of jobs on the line—not just at places like General Motors or Chrysler, but for all the suppliers and support businesses too. Huge stakes!

And yeah, you could totally call it socialism. I mean, the government stepping in to save jobs just so workers don't end up out on the street? That's basically the definition!

I wonder why they didn't step in at the very start of the 2007 crisis when the banking system, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began to crumble; instead, they waited until they were weakened and then moved to nationalize them. They even took over the largest bank.

Then there were the two massive banks, like Lehman Brothers, which I believe shed 1,500 employees immediately and lost $2.8 trillion in just a matter of days.

Then you have the third giant, Merrill Lynch, which lost $19.2 billion and declared bankruptcy. It was taken over by Bank of America, and everything seemed fine until about a month later when they announced they were cutting 35,000 jobs.

As for AIG—which we see on the MU jerseys—once the crisis hit, the government stepped in with an $85 billion credit line.

What happens to the small businesses? There are rumors that 1,600 small retail enterprises will lose everything and be forced to lay off their staff. Nobody seems interested in helping them.

And I am not even just talking about the state taking over the auto industry; I mean any large corporation. This is pure socialism. Imagine being a citizen, paying your taxes and saving your money, only to have a government that promises security buy up private companies with your money just to bail someone out. You get nothing from those acquisitions, and if the crisis persists—with the dollar losing value and oil prices dropping globally—it might just mean the crisis spreads further into the American economy. So, you work your whole life and pay into the system, only for the government to make a bad call on a buyout, leaving them unable to honor your hard work. Or worse, they announce layoffs because the budget is overextended. I think anyone would protest in that situation, much like what happened in France.

Thanks

The reality is simple: the government should not intervene....

What power is allowed to stop the state from protecting its own market?

Or rather, which power would actually benefit from that?

restlesscrane152 said:The reason they stepped in to bail out the auto industry? Simple. It’s one of the last massive pillars left in America. We're talking about millions of jobs on the line—not just at places like General Motors or Chrysler, but for all the suppliers and support businesses too. Huge stakes!

And yeah, you could totally call it socialism. I mean, the government stepping in to save jobs just so workers don't end up out on the street? That's basically the definition!

THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM IN ANY SENSE SOCIALISM.

You really ought to know that; if not for objective biological reasons, you have parents, aunts, and uncles.

melloworca652 said:I wonder why they didn't step in at the very start of the 2007 crisis when the banking system, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began to crumble; instead, they waited until they were weakened and then moved to nationalize them. They even took over the largest bank.

Then there were the two massive banks, like Lehman Brothers, which I believe shed 1,500 employees immediately and lost $2.8 trillion in just a matter of days.

Then you have the third giant, Merrill Lynch, which lost $19.2 billion and declared bankruptcy. It was taken over by Bank of America, and everything seemed fine until about a month later when they announced they were cutting 35,000 jobs.

As for AIG—which we see on the MU jerseys—once the crisis hit, the government stepped in with an $85 billion credit line.

What happens to the small businesses? There are rumors that 1,600 small retail enterprises will lose everything and be forced to lay off their staff. Nobody seems interested in helping them.

And I am not even just talking about the state taking over the auto industry; I mean any large corporation. This is pure socialism. Imagine being a citizen, paying your taxes and saving your money, only to have a government that promises security buy up private companies with your money just to bail someone out. You get nothing from those acquisitions, and if the crisis persists—with the dollar losing value and oil prices dropping globally—it might just mean the crisis spreads further into the American economy. So, you work your whole life and pay into the system, only for the government to make a bad call on a buyout, leaving them unable to honor your hard work. Or worse, they announce layoffs because the budget is overextended. I think anyone would protest in that situation, much like what happened in France.

Thanks

Pardon the interruption, but before you start talking—if you are even going to start—I should point out that government intervention doesn't save anyone, it saves the ASSES of the taxpayers, which is exactly why taxes are collected.

And from what I can gather, PRIVATE INITIATIVE is not being threatened at all. Quite the opposite. Over there in the USA.

Regards

melloworca652 said:I wonder why they didn't step in at the very start of the 2007 crisis when the banking system, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began to crumble; instead, they waited until they were weakened and then moved to nationalize them. They even took over the largest bank.

Then there were the two massive banks, like Lehman Brothers, which I believe shed 1,500 employees immediately and lost $2.8 trillion in just a matter of days.

Then you have the third giant, Merrill Lynch, which lost $19.2 billion and declared bankruptcy. It was taken over by Bank of America, and everything seemed fine until about a month later when they announced they were cutting 35,000 jobs.

As for AIG—which we see on the MU jerseys—once the crisis hit, the government stepped in with an $85 billion credit line.

What happens to the small businesses? There are rumors that 1,600 small retail enterprises will lose everything and be forced to lay off their staff. Nobody seems interested in helping them.

And I am not even just talking about the state taking over the auto industry; I mean any large corporation. This is pure socialism. Imagine being a citizen, paying your taxes and saving your money, only to have a government that promises security buy up private companies with your money just to bail someone out. You get nothing from those acquisitions, and if the crisis persists—with the dollar losing value and oil prices dropping globally—it might just mean the crisis spreads further into the American economy. So, you work your whole life and pay into the system, only for the government to make a bad call on a buyout, leaving them unable to honor your hard work. Or worse, they announce layoffs because the budget is overextended. I think anyone would protest in that situation, much like what happened in France.

Thanks

It's because the government in a democracy is basically slow as hell when it comes to reacting. Plus, they had to vote on that $700 billion, and it didn't even pass until the second attempt.

Personally, I think small businesses didn't get saved because they aren't important compared to the massive corporations (mostly looking at the auto industry here), whether you look at total jobs or all the suppliers that rely on them.

restlesscrane152 said:It's because the government in a democracy is basically slow as hell when it comes to reacting. Plus, they had to vote on that $700 billion, and it didn't even pass until the second attempt.

Personally, I think small businesses didn't get saved because they aren't important compared to the massive corporations (mostly looking at the auto industry here), whether you look at total jobs or all the suppliers that rely on them.

Bush requested the $700 billion, and the government didn't bite until the second try.
But looking at this situation, I wonder if things will change if the government pours that money into the auto industry. Just a month ago, General Motors and Chrysler were bailed out; $17 billion in aid arrived. If they don't get things moving by March 31st, they'll have to pay that loan back.🙂

graniteowl88 said:

The reality is simple: the government should not intervene....

What power is allowed to stop the state from protecting its own market?

Or rather, which power would actually benefit from that?

THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM IN ANY SENSE SOCIALISM.

You really ought to know that; if not for objective biological reasons, you have parents, aunts, and uncles.

Pardon the interruption, but before you start talking—if you are even going to start—I should point out that government intervention doesn't save anyone, it saves the ASSES of the taxpayers, which is exactly why taxes are collected.

And from what I can gather, PRIVATE INITIATIVE is not being threatened at all. Quite the opposite. Over there in the USA.

Regards

Just to respond to Ann Taylor and the Talbots retail chain, who are considering closing about 12,000 of their stores.🙂