Pages

Jump to bottom

12 comments

1 RoadWarrior  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 11:22:50am

Populism, while manifesting on the right as racist or nationalistic, manifests on the left, with far greater regularity since WWII, as redistributionist and as class warfare.

Populism is the opposite of democracy because it consists of a tyranny of the majority and a denial of rights, whether to ethnic minorities in one case or to producers in the other case.

The fact that Charles Moore has the credibility of a convert does not, by itself, make his line of argument correct.

"The Rich" do not run any global system and such a comment is damningly conspiratorial in its timber. And the working class are made to work ever harder, ironically, only when less capital competes for their services, which is why hick-ups in capitalism can be politically self reinforcing, providing for an alternative route to Hayek's serfdom; namely, as leftist populism vitiates underinvestment, competition for labor lessens and so worsens the terms of trade for workers vs. employers, again further "proving" the failures of capitalism, further strengthening populism, lessening investment, and so on.

Wages increase as the capital-to-labor ratio increases. Wages will fail to increase until excess labor is absorbed. Excess labor will not be absorbed until investment creates sufficient jobs to do so. Investment occurs with investor confidence that their investment will not be expropriated outright or by taxation or regulation or shared with labor monopolies and extortion, aka unions.

This is simple stuff and self-evident.

Somehow, these self-evident truths, elude leftists, even those who are trained in economics.

The most telling line I know, reflecting the leftist mind, is the following lyrics from "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After in 1971, two years after they played Woodstock.

"Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor
Till there are, Rich no More"

Notice that their redistributionist goals

1) express the belief that giving the poor money is the best way to help the poor and
2) express ONLY the objective of eliminating the rich, NOT of eliminating poverty

This reveals prioritization of class warfare over humanitarian objectives.

I guess economics--and rising tides--just ain't their bag.

2 blueraven  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 11:39:48am

re: #1 RoadWarrior

The most telling line I know, reflecting the leftist mind, is the following lyrics from "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After in 1971, two years after they played Woodstock.

"Tax the Rich, Feed the Poor
Till there are, Rich no More"

Notice that their redistributionist goals

Are you kidding me? You are taking a line from a 40 year old song and trying to make it a statement of what liberals think in 2011?

Unbelievable! laughable and just plain wrong.

3 RoadWarrior  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 11:57:46am

Blueraven,

The tactic of identifying one statement in your opponent's extensive argument that you can characterize is inaccurate, and evading any intellectual challenge to the crux of the argument, appears to demonstrate a lack of valid counterargument on your part.

I hope that I am mistaken. Please do prove it.

4 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 12:35:00pm

re: #1 RoadWarrior
You are absolutely correct in your assertion that people on the left- unlike the right- are unbelievably ignorant of such self evident and simple things as economics. I think the left needs to learn from the right on economics AND PRAY DAMN IT! PRAY!

5 Interesting Times  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 2:20:12pm

re: #3 RoadWarrior

The tactic of identifying one statement in your opponent's extensive argument that you can characterize is inaccurate, and evading any intellectual challenge to the crux of the argument, appears to demonstrate a lack of valid counterargument on your part.

No, it demonstrates that one stupid statement is all it takes to invalidate the rest of a TL;DR wall of text :)

6 RoadWarrior  Sat, Aug 6, 2011 10:24:47pm

PublicityStunted,

Both BlueRaven and Yourself have failed to demonstrate that I have made any stupid statement, at all.

BlueRaven has asserted that the Left has changed its views on whether "the Rich" should continue to exist, since 1971.

His assertion:

1) demonstrates that he believes that the song lyrics I cited indeed represented the pervasive view of the Left in 1971; and

2) failed to demonstrate any validity of his assertion that the Left has changed.

Further, your claim that finding one inaccuracy, even when it is peripheral to your opponents main argument, is sufficient to discredit anything your opponent may state.

By that metric, we are, all of us, including yourself and your entire ideological camp, forever discredited, for there is not one among us who is without error.

Hardly a sound argument.

However, your tactic DOES enable you to avoid confronting views with which you disagree and enable you to persist living intellectually unchallenged.

I humbly submit to you that you are following a recipe for mental stagnation, denial and intellectual dishonesty and counsel you consider confronting and debating the merits or demerits of viewpoints counter to your own.

The only thing you have succeeded in demonstrating is that my sample on this thread of Leftists performing hit-and-run "got-ya" rhetoricals (to coin a word) is 2 for 2.

7 Interesting Times  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 9:52:06am

re: #6 RoadWarrior

LOL. Blueraven (a she) wrote these exact words:

Are you kidding me? You are taking a line from a 40 year old song and trying to make it a statement of what liberals think in 2011?

Which you ludicrously and falsely claim to mean:

he believes that the song lyrics I cited indeed represented the pervasive view of the Left in 1971

One of these things is not like the other. So, all you've demonstrated is that you're either a liar, or someone who fails extra hard at reading comprehension :) Buh-bye, troll.

8 Interesting Times  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 10:15:50am

And just an extra note for anyone else who happens to read this thread: it's typical for teabag types to immediately respond to something like:

"Let's return top marginal tax rates to what they were under Clinton"

with:

OMG you want to redistribute wealth until there's no rich people left!!!11!! COMMIE!!

...which to me is just as idiotic and absurd as the socon types who insist that legalizing gay marriage will automagically lead to the legitimacy of bestiality and incest.

9 jaunte  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 4:55:10pm

re: #8 publicityStunted

"Let's return top marginal tax rates to what they were under Clinton"


Just imagine what they must think of Dwight Eisenhower.

10 blueraven  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 4:57:18pm

re: #6 RoadWarrior

You misunderstand me. I dont think your argument even deserves consideration. But you summed it up with your impression of liberals based on lyrics from a 40 year old song. Its a song...not the collective mind-set of liberals. Not then, not now.

Better?

11 Kewalo  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 5:12:11pm

re: #10 blueraven

Road Warrior is stunning in his arrogance isn't he? I didn't go to college until the 70's and back then we were pretty simple. We still believed we could change things. But there was always at least one person that was so sure of their thesis that they couldn't get what was actually going on around them. At the time we called them pseudo-intellectuals and often had a very hearty laugh at their ignorant ramblings. I would think that RW fits the bill very well. It's truly stunning at the shallowness of his intelligence. I can't think of a more ridiculous topic.

12 RoadWarrior  Sun, Aug 7, 2011 6:51:23pm

The dangers of populism is indeed an important topic.

None of those in opposition to my views on this thread have addressed this issue and, instead, have chosen to insult me.

I submit that such a debating tactic is far more characteristic of the left than the right.

Such is how they avoid confronting economic arguments that would discredit their favored policies and methods.

It is a form of denial for the purpose of averting cognitive dissonance and to the further end of marginalizing those whose arguments threaten them.

Further, my post consists of no trolling whatsoever. The post itself twice mentions populism and associates it with the right, hence, my response.

Aside from identifying the fact that populism on the Left is a danger to the interests of the middle class and the poor, I explain how, economically, that occurs.

I welcome counterarguments to the importance of investment and a rising capital-to-labor ratio to improve both wages and productivity.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh