In Socialism, business are nationalized by the government and property rights are not respected with heirarchies based on beaurocratic positions, in fascism, big business colludes with government in an atmosphere of lawlessness and becomes an authority in its own with heirarchies based on party loyalty and capital. If you're wondering who said that fascism was the collusion of big business and big government, it was Benito Mussolini. Therefore if you look at most of the things they advocate, people who were gung ho for bush and are now calling obama a fascist are themselves by definition fascists based on their policies.
Dude, one of us majored in political science and if you think they're the same thing because your confusing socialism with communism or because you think that all totalitarian systems are the same or can be lumped in one category then I'm sorry but you really are pretty ****ing stupid and may wanna turn off the TV news creatures.
Re: Re: Re: Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Just because Socialism and dictatorships may rule the country
😆
One loves how the president who attempts to fix our economy by assisting the poor, enforcing the middle class, and working towards the redistribution of wealth to create a more equalized and more fair society is a 'socialist dictator', but the Republicans who lie, cheat, reduce civil liberties for dictatorial power gain, and force their religious standards down the populace's throats are apparently awesome individualistic democratic libertarians.
Barack Obama is an economic leftist, to be certain, and thus he is closer to socialist than to neo-liberal capitalism; but Republicans are social authoritarians, which makes them on the same side of the spectrum that houses fascism. Does it make them fascist? Hardly. They advocate a more mild form of authoritarianism, while fascism is an absurdly extreme ideology. Thus, dubbing Obama a 'commie' or a 'socialist' is no more justified than calling than calling Bush a Hitler sympathizer.
On another note: socialism and fascism are compatible. Socialism is an economic philosophy (the extreme of economic leftism), while fascism is the extreme of social authoritarians- you see, they both sit on differing axises in the widely accepted 'Political Compass' chart. A mixture of them is like the Soviet Union- it can exist. But the fact is, liberal agenda is one of personal liberty- they're social libertarians, not authoritarians (pro-abortion, drugs, gay marriage, no censorship...).
Re: Clear Channel ready to lay off close to 1,000 people so Rush Limbaugh gets a raise
Originally posted by Darth Jello
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200905050007Basically, Rush Limbaugh hammered out a $400 million 8 year contract with annual bonuses contract with Clear Channel, something they can't afford and now they are melting down and firing people left and right without scruples just to keep Limbaugh. Not just talk show hosts but programers, interns, engineers, DJ's...so much for caring about American values.
What are "American Values"? It's all about the people at the top. The company I work for has laid off close to 10,000 workers in the last year, middle management recently took a 5% pay cut "because of economic conditions" but the CEO got a 147% raise.
These are "American Values"
You get what the market bears, and if you drive the market than you'll get what you want, regardless of how ridiculous your beliefs are. I'm not saying it's morally right for others to lose their job, but it's reality. No one cares about Bob from Accounting's life, but they'll sure as hell tune in to soak in or vent over Rush's controversial goulash. And attention equals dollars.
I assume anyone who has a problem with radio personalities getting ridiculous contracts are also in the streets of Hollywood, banging pots and pans in protest of actors and actresses who command $20 million salaries for two months' worth of work. Because bottom feeders in Hollywood lose their jobs, too. Just ask the boatload of people who used to work at Warner Brothers.
Originally posted by botankus
You get what the market bears, and if you drive the market than you'll sure as hell get it, regardless of how ridiculous your beliefs are. I'm not saying it's morally right for others to lose their job, but it's reality.
Except that the company I work for, like many companies where the fat cats are still being taken care of, is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Circuit City was another good example of excessive salaries and bonuses being paid to top management in the companies waning days. Where are they now?
Ford Motor company's CEO got a $200 million bonus last year but now the company needs government handouts and is blaming the unions.
The list goes on and on. America is broken and our "values" are crap.
Originally posted by botankus
You get what the market bears, and if you drive the market than you'll get what you want, regardless of how ridiculous your beliefs are. I'm not saying it's morally right for others to lose their job, but it's reality. No one cares about Bob from Accounting's life, but they'll sure as hell tune in to soak in or vent over Rush's controversial goulash. And attention equals dollars.I assume anyone who has a problem with radio personalities getting ridiculous contracts are also in the streets of Hollywood, banging pots and pans in protest of actors and actresses who command $20 million salaries for two months' worth of work. Because bottom feeders in Hollywood lose their jobs, too. Just ask the boatload of people who used to work at Warner Brothers.
Well, basically any market that isn't communistic in nature thrives upon the idea of 'survival of the strong'- because resources are limited in nature, if more resources (read: wealth) are distributed to one individual, than less must be distributed to another one- which occasionally results in unemployment and such. It's fair that more qualified and more successful individuals earn more money, too... I don't think a plumber deserves to earn as much money as a successful film director, or even close to as much money, for that matter.
But there's a considerable problem when Rush Limbaugh, who already got rich off spewing lies, fearmongering, pseudoscience, and juvenile insults needs to get even more money, thus depriving people of a legitimate source of income. Why does he have to make more millions? Does greed truly go so far? Frankly, it's repulsive. I'm also certain that, if the people who Limbaugh got to unemployed ask for welfare, than the Fat One will be the first to lead the 'personal responsibility- money is mine, not your's, socialist collectivist pigs!' campaign.
Personal preference of opinion and the redemption of market value are mutually exclusive in my book.
This is an exaggerated example, but if I didn't like the creator of Wheel of Fortune for whatever reason (which is irrelevant to any discussion on market talks), I guess I'd be upset about him cashing other people's paychecks, too.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Well, basically any market that isn't communistic in nature thrives upon the idea of 'survival of the strong'- because resources are limited in nature, if more resources (read: wealth) are distributed to one individual, than less must be distributed to another one- which occasionally results in unemployment and such.
This assumes a zero-sum wealth. Isn't it possible to create new wealth/assets?
True that at any moment, there is a finite amount of USD in circulation...but that's not what I mean.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
It's fair that more qualified and more successful individuals earn more money, too... I don't think a plumber deserves to earn as much money as a successful film director, or even close to as much money, for that matter.
I agree. Director has a MUCH bigger customer base per "job."
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
But there's a considerable problem when Rush Limbaugh, who already got rich off spewing lies, fearmongering, pseudoscience, and juvenile insults needs to get even more money, thus depriving people of a legitimate source of income. Why does he have to make more millions? Does greed truly go so far? Frankly, it's repulsive. I'm also certain that, if the people who Limbaugh got to unemployed ask for welfare, than the Fat One will be the first to lead the 'personal responsibility- money is mine, not your's, socialist collectivist pigs!' campaign.
Dude, it is the fault of the people for propping Rush up. He is allowed to thrive because the people WANT him to. Think of it this way: If no one ever responded to trolls, troll threads, or trolling, would trolls actually be trolling? (Oddly enough, Rush fits the trolling definition quite well.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
This assumes a zero-sum wealth. Isn't it possible to create new wealth/assets?True that at any moment, there is a finite amount of USD in circulation...but that's not what I mean.
how would a currency which there is infinite of be valued? (not that I'm totally aware of how they are currently valued)
Originally posted by inimalist
all material is scarce though...
What? No. What are you talking about?
Alright, let me bring it back to an example that sticks out:
Zimbabwe.
Those whose assets realized a majority in things other than currency, remained wealthy...whereas, those who did not, lost wealth.
Also, an individual can consider a skill set, an asset. A company's name and reputation is also considered and asset. Sure, currency is finite, but there is more than one way to measure wealth.
Pretend you buy a huge plot of land. You build something, with your bare damned hands, from the materials around you. You just increased the value of the land by more than you put into it. You literally became wealthier just by changing the conditions of your assets. That is similar to creating wealth from thin air. True, that you paid for the materials and the land. The whole is greater than its parts. (My Father in law builds his own damn houses. I lol'd when he told me he did....but he just buys land, the materials, and builds it...like a friggin' one man construction crew.)
Now, that is one example. I'm sure that there are many examples similar through invention or service ideas...but those rely on currenty a bit too much to get the idea across. Also, new wealth is consistantly being added to the system..which is why it isn't a "zero sum" system.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What? No. What are you talking about?
there is a theoretical maximum to all resources in the universe
Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretend you buy a huge plot of land. You build something, with your bare damned hands, from the materials around you. You just increased the value of the land by more than you put into it. You literally became wealthier just by changing the conditions of your assets. That is similar to creating wealth from thin air. True, that you paid for the materials and the land. The whole is greater than its parts. (My Father in law builds his own damn houses. I lol'd when he told me he did....but he just buys land, the materials, and builds it...like a friggin' one man construction crew.)
interesting, though this doesn't account for the scarcity of land and building supplies
Maybe it is just me, but I get the impression you are talking about infinite wealth in an economy...?