<p>
[quote]
If we were at Socialism then the government owns the means of production
[/quote]
But that's what I was saying in my other post. That isn't necessarily true. Socialism is a very big umbrella with many subtypes - heck, even communism can be considered a subtype of socialism. Economists usually identify five subtypes of Socialism, called "Public Enterprise Centrally Planned Economy" (e.g. Soviet Union), "Public Enterprise State-Managed Market Economy" (e.g. modern-day China), "Mixed economy" (e.g. Sweden), "Public Enterprise Employee Managed Market Economies" (e.g. mid-20th century Yugoslavia, would be kind of like if unions owned the businesses that their employees worked at), "Public Enterprise Participatory Planning" (social ownership of MOP with decentralized democratic planning committees).</p>
<p>Jarn reread what I posted. I am aware of the different types of socialism, but when I made the chart above
Capitalism-------------Z----X--------------------Socialism----------------------------------------------Communism
I was refering to a time when those other or more modern types of socialism were concived but were truly not even taken seriously. For the Majority of the 1900's up to the 80's Centralization was everything with the ideas of the Public Enterprise Centrally Planned Economy.</p>
<p>With market socialism the market was still directed and guided by socialist planners.</p>
<p>This where we differ and when we talk about markets we are talking about 2 different things.</p>
<p>To me a market must be free or its useless. I think you think differently.</p>
<p>The idea of markets is capitalistic, so if you have socialism with full free markets its not as socialist as lets say Public Enterprise Centrally Planned Economy, it is more capitalistic. </p>
<p>If you have free markets and add regulation, you start to move towards socialism.</p>
<p>Economic or Fiscal conservatism or economics classical liberalism is what made America. It is America and what allowed America to become a nation, the greatest power the world has ever seen as well as the envy of the world which it still is today.</p>
<p>America didn't get Huge by taxing the **** out of its citizens and placing ridiculous regulations on persons and the private sector. America became what it is from a hand off approach. America became the worlds super power with no income tax, minuscule sales tax and simple excise taxes.</p>
<p>Only when we started govt intervention did things get tough or worse and many say that Americas days are numbered, Not because of to little regulation and intervention but to much.</p>
<p>Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry. Obama</a>, McCain diverge on solution for energy woes - Yahoo! News</p>
<p>Dr. Horse believes in the economic One Drop Rule: any working economic system with a hint of capitalism is 100% genuine capitalism, while any failing economic order with a hint of socialism is 100% genuine socialism. The reality is that the best economies of the 20th century have had both elements of capitalism and socialism, and neither one in their extreme have worked.</p>
<p>The United States has many socialist elements. For example, an almighty Federal Reserve Chairman manipulating interest rates sounds pretty socialisty to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^That's right! That's why all the sudden he's offshore drilling.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a difference between willing to consider offshore drilling, if it is necessary to give the other side that particular issue, in order to achieve a greater and greener goal (i.e. a comprehensive energy plan), and being a loudmouth proponent of offshore drilling as a panacea to the nation's energy problem. Obama is of the former while McCain is of the latter.</p>
<p>The futures market for oil has dropped to 118 a barrel today since Bush announced he supports offshore drilling. The threat of offshore drilling has changed the mindset of the traders.</p>
<p>McCain and the rest of the GOP are up in the polls, because they support offshore drilling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a difference between willing to consider offshore drilling, if it is necessary to give the other side that particular issue, in order to achieve a greater and greener goal (i.e. a comprehensive energy plan), and being a loudmouth proponent of offshore drilling as a panacea to the nation's energy problem. Obama is of the former while McCain is of the latter.
[/quote]
When has McCain ever said offshore drilling was a 'cure all'? His plan is a lot more believable than Obama's. He wants 40 more Nuke plants, sign me up - that actually sound like an intelligent plan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The futures market for oil has dropped to 118 a barrel today since Bush announced he supports offshore drilling.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That drop also coincided with Obama's trip to the Middle East.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When has McCain ever said offshore drilling was a 'cure all'? His plan is a lot more believable than Obama's. He wants 40 more Nuke plants, sign me up - that actually sound like an intelligent plan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>McCain believes that offshore drilling will actually have an affect. Drilling offshore will add 200 000 barrels a day to the American oil supply (if the Americans can buy that oil in the first place). Guess what? We use 20 million barrels a day! </p>
<p>All this nonsense about "American oil" is infuriating. Look, the oil industry is not a nationalized one. If an oil company drills Floridian oil, it has the right to sell it to the highest bidder. It doesn't automatically go to American oil pumps. No, that would be something like communism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.
[/quote]
[quote=Factcheck.org]
By the time Obama voted for final passage, many of the Bush administration's original proposals had been stripped out, and in fact most Senate Democrats sided with Obama in supporting the bill. Clinton was one of only 19 Democrats to vote against final passage. Obama was among the 25 Democrats who voted in favor.</p>
<p>Bush announced he is lifting the ban on offshore drilling on July 14th. The prices on oil dropped the next day. Obama went to the Middle East on July 20th. </p>
<p>Obama's media circus tour did nothing to lower the price at the pumps.</p>
<p>Are you just going to ignore what Factcheck.org has to say about it? Most of Cheney's proposals had been stripped out, thus, it was not Cheney's plan.</p>
<p>How do you know what I believe, you are wrong. Even if you read my posts, you couldn't have come to that conclusion about me. I believe in zero govt market intervention. If there is no govt intervention then your economy is poorly capitalistic. If the govt then regulates a sector, controls or creates a fiat money system, has a central bank, etc then you start to move away from Capitalism to Socialism.</p>
<p>Capitalism has never truly been tried, due mostly to the fear that anarchy could become apparent to civilians and civilians could see the lack of need for govt. Possible move to anarcho capitalism.</p>
<p>The US does have many socialist elements, again if you look at the thread I posted with the nice picture I made, it shows socialism, Remember this where I said Z was the USA. Remember Jarn agreed with me.</p>
<p>The Fed a central bank is very socialist, it is unconstitutional and if you read the federalist papers, you would know that a central bank was one of the biggest fears the founding fathers had. Adjusting a fiat money system is very socialistic and guess what, it doesn't work. No human can possibly be smart enough to regulate something so volatile as a market or currency. Computers cant even do it.</p>
<p>Remember who said this</p>
<p>"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."</p>