A Socialism Spill on Aisle 9


1027_biz_WALMART_MAIN_mlThe working class in the United States has no better champion than Barack Obama. Like most champions of the working class, he has never actually worked at a real job and instead divided his time between academia, non-profits and politics which explains his current work ethic in which he tries to get a speech in between every two vacations.

The progressive law professors, who are currently the only thing standing between the working class and the abyss, at least according to other progressive professors, not only haven’t worked for a living, but don’t know what working for a living entails and don’t even understand the concept.

The protectors of the working class, currently presiding over a country where over 90 million adults are not in the workforce, have a plan to wipe out another 500,000 jobs. Before Obama, 63 percent of working age Americans had jobs. Today it’s 58 percent. And Obama is trying to see if he can drop the country below the 50 percent mark.

A minimum wage hike sounds like a great idea to a progressive professor who, like Marie Antoinette, wonders why the poor can’t just eat cake during a bread shortage. If the poor aren’t making enough money, just raise their salaries.

The first casualty of the minimum wage hike will be some 500,000 jobs. While just 19 percent of the minimum wage increase will go to those below the poverty line, the same isn’t true of that 500,000. The most disposable workers also tend to be the poorest. They are the first ones out the door when a small business comes up against the ObamaCare employer mandate or a minimum wage hike. It doesn’t take much to push them out from full-time to part-time and from part-time to the unemployment line and from the unemployment line to permanent unemployment.

Purge six figures worth of workers and suddenly income inequality becomes an even bigger problem that the Harvard and Yale Friends of the Working Class can use to run for reelection. It doesn’t occur to them that the living standard of the poor is not defined by an infographic comparing their income to Bill Gates’ spectacles budget or George Soros’ villain lair complete with lasers and piranhas.

It isn’t even defined by their salary, but by the buying power of that salary.

A salary is just a number. It was once possible to buy a meal for a dime and a politician for a hundred dollars. Today dinner with a politician will cost you that hundred and the politician may cost you a hundred thousand.

The businesses that minimum wage workers depend on are peopled with other minimum wage workers. Even assuming that the pay hike would be employment neutral, which it most certainly is not, it would rebalance once the businesses they patronize pass on the pay hike as a price hike. And then before you know it everyone is making more money that still buys about the same amount that their old paychecks did.

Income inequality is class warfare, a subject of interest to Marxist professors, but of very little relevance to the price of a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk and a pound of ground beef.

The prices of basic staples have risen sharply under the Friend of the Working Class in Washington. While he dines on faux Wagyu beef at White House dinners, the working class victims of his class warfare are standing in Aisle 9 trying to assemble a puzzle that consists of their upcoming paycheck, a Payday loan and a grocery list.

The woman weighting a can of beans in one hand and her pocketbook in the other trying to decide what she can afford to take home doesn’t need income equality with a Harvard Law prof. What she needs is a living standard that will allow her to afford what working Americans used to be able to afford. A minimum wage hike is a blunt instrument that looks good until it puts her out of a job or until she comes back to Aisle 9 and sees that the price hikes match her new paycheck.

Each progressive solution makes life worse in Aisle 9, but progressives never visit Aisle 9. If they did, they would outlaw the other half of the products in it that they haven’t already outlawed through various contrived legalisms.

In the Venezuelan Aisle 9, mobs are fighting over powdered milk in government stores in a country that has 85 percent of the oil reserves in the region. Everyone is entitled to powdered milk and other price controlled staples. But being entitled to something doesn’t mean that you can get it. Not until the government seizes control of the entire production process of powdered milk and when that is done, then no one will ever drink powdered milk again.

The path to Venezuela’s Aisle 9 is surprisingly similar to America’s Aisle 9. Governments can raise wages or lower food prices, but they can’t enforce the availability of food or jobs and they can’t control how the working class will work around the consequences of foodless government supermarkets and minimum wage jobs that have been priced out of the marketplace.

Venezuela’s Friend of the Working Class, Hugo Chavez, kicked the golden bucket with an estimated net worth of 2 billion dollars. The Friends of the Working Class are also doing comfortably well in D.C. where it pays to be an expert on poverty and an advocate for helping the working class by adding 12 million illegal aliens to the job market with illegal alien amnesty, shutting down jobs with environmental regulations and freeing the people still working from that dreaded “job lock.”

For the Washington Friends of the Working Class drifting from one cocktail party and fundraising dinner to another, the minimum wage hike is their latest gimmick for winning in 2016. They are as ignorant of the lives of the waiters who bring them their Wagyu beef and the vagaries of a working class budget as they are of Ancient Sanskrit or the geography of the moon.

In Aisle 9, things are simple and inflexible, but in politics and academia everything is subjective.

Weighing a can of food in your hands that you need but cannot afford wonderfully focuses the mind on the real, but at the cocktail parties of the Friends of the Working Class, everything is wonderfully unreal. There are no hard facts, only ideas and slogans.

Like The Great Gatsby’s Tom and Daisy, the progressive law professors and community organizers inhabit a “vast carelessness” of conferences and cocktail parties from which they emerge to carelessly smash things up before retreating back into it with no real awareness of what they have done and a certainty that the people on Aisle 9 whose lives they have smashed up ought to be grateful to them.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    Next thing you know, if you have to let go of some employees because of the minimum wage increase, Obama will require you to state in a sworn affidavit that the reason you’re shedding employees has nothing to do with the minimum wage increase, just as he is requiring employers to do with the Obamacare mandate.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The harder they make it to fire employees, the fewer will be hired. Everything will be sourced to contractors and part timers with predictable results.

      • NAHALKIDES

        Indeed, this is exactly what we see in France, which is just slightly further along the socialist trail than Barry Hussein Obama’s America.

      • A Z

        Corporations already have over a generation of practice. The corporations will win.

        Your best bet if you do not get hired by a firm out of college is to get hire by a temp firm work at a place and if they like you and your work they hire you.

        Obama only spent a year behind enemy lines in a law firm. With his attitude he could not have learned much, nor is a law firm representative or retail, manufacturing and other businesses.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          indeed

    • carpe diem 36

      the next thing you know is not the next thing, it is now a fact. he stated so when he talked about those employing between 50 and 99 when he postponed the law forcing them to buy health insurance for them by one year. this is something even the vicious law does not require, this is totally what he invented!! he is a diktator ( or as someone said a dicktator). no one voted for a dictator but they have him now.

  • truebearing

    Obama doesn’t have a clue about economics, but he really knows his Greekonomics, and that is where we are headed.

  • Kahane had it right!!

    Brilliant article. One other salient point not mentioned is that the sharp increase in the minimum wage also basically guarantees that no teenager in America can ever get a job. How can you instill a strong work ethic in young people when Government policies make it impossible to work?

    • uptownsteve

      Total insanity.

      • Omar

        And you are a lunatic.

      • truebearing

        Says the man speaking at the mirror.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Total inanity …

      • iluvisrael

        you = total irrelevancy

      • alannah mcgrowdie

        my Aunty Grace got a nearly new blue Kia by
        working part time from the internet. look at this now F­i­s­c­a­l­P­o­s­t­.­ℂ­o­m

        • tickletik

          Mods, we have a Nigerian scammer on aisle 11, repeat, clean up on aisle 11

      • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

        “Total insanity.”

        Yes, it most definitively is.

      • tickletik

        Serenity now, INSANITY LATER!

  • Bamaguje

    It’s unfortunate that a nation richly endowed with brilliant minds has a dunce running it.

    • danfan

      B, ya gotta stop with the ‘dunce’ thing. Vladimr Ann Dunham’s Bouncing Baby Balkinizing Beligerent has been groomed to hate America since birth. The Commie-rati finally greased all the right -leftist- wheels and got the guy they wanted to finish up the 100+ year plan to take down the greatest country in the world.
      It’s all just following the plan – tho the timing didn’t always go their way.

    • carpe diem 36

      there more of them than of “brilliant minds”, so the eediot won.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Did I hear Obama say “you can keep your job if you like it?”

    Good article. Horowitz is right in his “Have a Heart” campaign that we should expose the left for the harm it causes.

  • Joseph

    So minimum wage is higher than America in nearly all European nations, and we have a lower unemployment rate (bar Britain I believe). And yet you believe a minimum wage hike will destroy America?

    Or are you just making up bullshit and being alarmist in order to scare America into going against the policy so you get to keep more of your $1,000,000 rather than give a little to workers who are struggling to provide for their families?

    • reader

      Unemployment rate is lower in Europe? You’re smoking dope way too much. On average, real unemployment in Europe has been double ot that in the US for years – that is until Obama would be elected.

      • uptownsteve

        That’s not what he said dummy. He clearly stated that our unemployment rate is lower than virtually all of Europe.

        • carpe diem 36

          so the rise in minimum wage will make it equal to that of europe.

        • reader

          What you just wrote is a literal nonsense, comrade. Europe is a continent. Unemployment rate is a numeric value. And you’re no Catholic. You’re a fraud.

        • NAHALKIDES

          And since our unemployment rate is lower than that in Europe, obviously the correct policy is for government to harass businesses and pass minimum wage laws until we catch up to their unemployment rate – brilliant thinking, Steve!

          • uptownsteve

            You’d have a point if you could prove that the minimum wage causes unemployment. Which of course, you can’t.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Logic, every study ever done, and the non-partisan CBO all agree – this minimum wage hike will destroy jobs. What else do you think would happen when a wage increase reduces demand for the finished product? (Higher prices generally mean fewer units sold, and if demand is for some strange reason completely inelastic it means a lower standard of living for consumers whose dollars don’t buy as much as they used to).

            Of course, as a Leftist, you probably believe that the increase in wages will magically lead to increase buying power and demand across the entire economy, leading to a multiplier effect and an economic boom! But that’s the problem with being economically illiterate.

          • uptownsteve

            The minimum wage statute was established in 1938, There have been periods of great prosperity afterwards. During the 50s and the 90s particularly. You make no sense.

          • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

            “You’d have a point if you could prove that the minimum wage causes unemployment.”

            Naturally, there are a lot of different factors that can influence unemployment rates.

            But everything else held equal, there’s no doubt that introducing, keeping or increasing a/the minumum wage will lead to more unemployment, and that abolishing or reducing a/the minimum wage will lead to less unemployment.

          • objectivefactsmatter
      • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

        “Unemployment rate is lower in Europe?”

        No, I think he meant that the unemployment rate is lower in the USA than in most or all Europan countries.

    • nancinger

      Have you been to Europe, Joseph? Have you seen the standard of living for the average European? Do you understand that Obama is leading us toward the European “model” of economics, and that we will be worse off than the Europeans because we have many more illegals draining the welfare system? Do you understand the future of Obamacare and what it is going to do to our standard of living?

      • uptownsteve

        No, why don’t you tell us in detail. If you’re able.

        • Drakken

          It is way above your intellectual level and your capacity to understand simple economics. Nitwits like do not understand economics 101 because the white tax slave pays for you people.

        • Steeloak

          Simple, live in a tiny cramped apartment with bad plumbing. Pay multiples of what you would pay for the same thing in the US and get less of it. Suffer a national unemployment rate permanently higher than the high rate we currently have. Have government regulations hamstring almost anything you want to do. Pay $3000 for a driver’s license and $30,000 for a used Volkswagen. Have unions that have a stranglehold on politics. Walk to work when the transit unions go on strike. Watch your city shutdown by riots if the government even talks about cutting back on a few benefits to control costs. Wait months or years to receive needed CT scans, specialist treatment, or critically needed surgery. Those are just a few thing common to the half dozen or so countries I have been to in the last decade.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Good summary, but it’s wasted on Steve as it would be on any progressive/statist. They’re immune to facts and never say they’re sorry when their policies destroy people’s lives. None of us should waste any more time on Steve than it takes to downvote him until he humbly apologizes for what he and his kind did to Detroit.

          • uptownsteve

            Name the countries.

          • Drakken

            All over Europe, throw a dart at a map of the area and you’ll hit it.

          • Steeloak

            England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary.
            Not that you actually care.

          • Omar

            England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that make up the country known as the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK “England” is offensive to people living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the UK’s three other internal divisions. England has not been a country since 1707, when it (along with Wales) merged with Scotland to form Britain.

          • hiernonymous

            You are partially correct.

            England is not a fully independent sovereign state, but it is a country. The United Kingdom was created from the union of several countries that still identify as such. Full sovereignty is not a necessary condition to being considered a country.

            That said, your point, that the overall state is properly referred to as the UK, Britain, or Great Britain, and not by the name of one of its constituent countries or elements, is perfectly true. “England” is not synonymous with “Britain.”

            (And before someone tries to out-pedant me, yes, Britain or Great Britain technically refer to the islands themselves, but they’re also used as shorthand for “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” in much the same way that U.S. and America are used as shorthand for “United States of America.”)

          • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

            “England is not a country.”

            Oh, it is. It is one of the four “constiuent countries” of the UK. A country, a land or a nation is not neccesarily an independent state.

          • Omar

            Uh, actually, a country is an independent state. Check this link from Matt Rosenberg’s Geography at About.com: http://geography.about.com/cs/political geog/a/statenation.htm and for the reasons why England is not a country: http://geography.about.com/od/political geography/a/englandnot.htm .

          • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

            “Uh, actually, a country is an independent state.”

            Yes, some of them are. Others, like England, are not.

            From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country:

            “A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereignor formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.”

          • Omar

            Do not trust Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Matt Rosenberg is a geography expert.

      • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

        “Have you seen the standard of living for the average European?”

        I have, and it’s most defintitively nothing to cheer for.

    • bob smith

      you are a witless, clueless fool.
      if you can get your head out of your rear and understand one thing it is this…governments cannot create jobs irrespective of whatever wage they decree to be a minimum or otherwise.
      however, they do have the ‘fiscal’ tools available to create lesser impediments to private workforce employers, small, medium and large such that they are induced through attractive and proactive policies borne of the initiative for ‘lesser’ impediments.
      ergo, rather than you spewing your bs, ask yourself why more working class families are on government assistance in the last 6 years than in the history of The Republic. Ask yourself how ONE THIRD of The Republic is not just unemployed BUT ACTUALLY OUT OF THE WORKFORCE ALTOGETHER COLLECTING WELFARE. Ask yourself how taking over 20% of the economy will lead to more jobs? Ask yourself how legalizing 12 million criminals will add more jobs. Ask yourself how a war on global warming will create more jobs. Ask yourself how ostracizing corporations will create jobs.
      I could go on for hours but sadly me thinks a fool such as you just doesn’t get it.
      Are you gainfully employed sir?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Did I say it would destroy America? It will however hurt the people it’s supposed to help.

      Do you really want the US employment situation to look like France or Spain?

    • uptownsteve

      Thank God somebody on this board sees through Greenfield’s incessant lies and bullshit. He just serves these dummies the chum they want gorge on.

      • carpe diem 36

        you are pathetic.

      • NAHALKIDES

        Steve, why don’t you just leave? You’ve nothing to contribute here.

        • uptownsteve

          I know how much you would like me to leave. You numbskulls can’t stand anyone exposing your lies and hatred. I get a big kick out of knowing that you people are the reason there won’t be another Republican President for at least a generation. The loons have taken over the GOP.

          • reader

            Lies and hatred? You even lied about being a Catholic and had your primal Jew hatred betray you, troll. Just sheer fanaticism of your denial is mind boggling.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            The regressive progressives have taken over the democrat party.

            JFK, LBJ, Roosevelt, Truman would not recognize it.

          • Omar

            The loons are the New Left people controlling the Democratic Party. Your beloved Eric Holder is a racist and a bigot. Fact-check.

    • carpe diem 36

      be careful, your ignorance is showing. stop writing and learn before you speak.

      • Drakken

        It’s a black thang, you just don’t understand.

    • NAHALKIDES

      It’s not my responsibility to have my standard of living lowered by having to pay more for fast food, other retail products, etc. (anything whose price is affected by a minimum wage increase) just so politicians and people like you can feel good about yourselves because you “care” so much about these workers. Obviously, you care neither for me and the other workers whose standard of living will be reduced, nor about those workers whose jobs will be lost because the increased cost cannot be passed on to consumers.

      Here’s something for you and your fellow statists to think about: you can’t make a man’s labor worth more by dictating at gunpoint that he receive a higher wage. He’s still only doing so much work per hour – understand?

    • A Z

      The U3 rate has no bearing on the pain caused by Democrat policies. check out the U6 rate and the Labor Force Participation rate.

      US Labor Force Participation Rate: 63.00% for Jan 2014

      http://ycharts.com/indicators/labor_force_participation_rate

      Alternate Unemployment Charts
      http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

    • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

      “So minimum wage is higher than America in nearly all European nations, and we have a lower unemployment rate (bar Britain I believe).”

      Perhaps you’re committing a fallacy here. Correlation does not mean causation.

      By the way, “higher” nominally or relatively? Where did you read the word “destroy”?

  • rbla

    Question – when the liberal ruling class gets their minimum wage will they actually enforce it with effective penalties? I doubt it because that would mean that all of those illegal aliens working off the books would have to be sent packing.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They’ll legalize 12 million illegals leading to the importation of 12 million more to fill their old jobs

      • mtnhikerdude

        Daniel , is uptown Saul Alinsky’s son ?
        This is a person who during the 2012 elections keyed cars with Romney stickers while wearing a KKK sheet.

        • tagalog

          To be Saul Alinksy’s son would require a level of distinction and sophistication that our fellow poster uptownsteve has yet to display.

          Just another left-wing boob spouting the usual conventionalist PCisms, I daresay.

      • tagalog

        Then they’ll raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Good catch on the increase to nominal wages … which mean little when prices rise. Thus, most minimum wage earners get a slight increase (after taking account of price rises), and some have their wage reduced to zero (jobs lost).

    Net net, the poor will have less. Any increase in unemployment means less will be produced. There will be less to go around, i.e. less consumption. And it won’t be Bill Gates who will be consuming less … it will be people of modest means: those who have to pay the higher prices or those who lost their jobs.

    Bill O’Reilly has been supporting the minimum wage increase. He mentions how great is was when he was a teen working at Carvel (makes soft ice cream in NYS). Of course, the black kid who couldn’t get that job nor afford the ice cream cone wasn’t mentioned. This is what Bastiat called the seen and unseen. It’s our job to make sure the unseen isn’t unheard of. Once again, good job.

  • uptownsteve

    More rightwing stupidity. What the heck is wrong with workers getting livable wages and having more money to infuse into the economy?

    • LibertyWriter

      Just how is “more money” getting infused?

      • uptownsteve

        People earn more, they spend more. Duh.

        • Headed4TheHills

          People earn more – true. They spend more – also true, but why? Not because they have more disposable income but because the price of the goods or services they want has gone up. Net result will be zero or negative change. Think about it, steve.

          Joe Blow from Kokomo makes $7.50 / hour. Obama says give him a raise to $10.10 /hour. Real sweet of Obama to do that. Joe’s boss, Senior Evil Corporate Dude, WILL raise the costs of the widgets they make to cover that raise. Very few companies want to deal with profit squeeze (have seen it too many times). Instead of hurting their bottom line, they will increase (even if it’s just a few cents on the dollar) what they charge thee and me.
          So, Joe gets his raise. Happy happy joy joy. Oops, prices of required widgets has raised, so we have to pay more for them. Pay raise? IRS gets part of that extra cash too. In the end, ol’ Joe Blow may even be worse off than before that oh-so-wonderful pay raise.

          • uptownsteve

            Please provide ONE example of product costs being raised directly as a result of a higher minimum wage. Just one. With evidence.

          • reader

            It’s quite obvious. Most of Union contracts peg union wages to statutory minimum wage, comrade. Can you do math from here? I doubt it, but it’s not normal people’s problem.

          • uptownsteve

            ONE FACTUAL EXAMPLE. Please?

          • reader
          • uptownsteve

            LMAO!!!!!

          • reader

            How about – yawn. Everytime you’re out of arguments, a simple few letter meaningless word comes up with about as many exclamation signs. I hoped for more common LIES!!!! – but, well, yawn, again.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Notice how Steve always asks for proof, but rarely follows up.

            It’s a trollish tactic.

          • uptownsteve

            He provided no proof. He just posted an irrelevant link.

          • reader

            Well, I definitely proved you to be a fraud, steevo. Hands down. No ifs and buts about. And it’s them Joos again. Dang it.

          • uptownsteve

            pathetic.

          • reader

            Can you recite Hail Mary, steevo? Hint: it does not start with the “Proletareat of all countries unite”

          • tagalog

            He’s not a fraud at all. He’s a genuine idiot.

          • Omar

            It’s everyone’s favorite troll, uptownsteve. All you do is troll and project. You don’t give any intellectual arguments at all. You are simply the less radical version of the annoying Australian Marxist troll, Reco2. You are simply an annoying bigot. Fact-check.

          • Drakken

            You obviously flunked lunch didn’t you window licker?

        • carpe diem 36

          but if the other earn more the prices have to rise, so you gained nothing but lost entry level jobs that make it possible for the young and inexperienced to get their foot in the door, and if they are good they will not stay long on the first rung of the ladder. Duh!!!

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Tell that to the owners of my favorite coffee shop. They hire many young people to help out at their shop, which is open from 6am to 10pm. They are just barely making money, as it is.

          I talked to one of them, yesterday, and he said that if this minimum wage hike is passed, he will have to shorten shop hours, and lay off several high schoolers who work there.

          Real world. Real unintended consequences. Less “infusion” of cash into the economy …

          • uptownsteve

            urban legend.

          • Drakken

            Open a econ book shortbus, you might learn something. Money to you magically appears doesn’t it?

          • tagalog

            Except when it’s convenient to assume the posture that all economies involve zero-sum markets.

          • Drakken

            Very true, anyway you look at the problem in the US, it will not get better until they get a handle on entitlements, debt and spending.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Is that uptownsteve-speak for “liar”?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            An urban legend is a form of modern folklore consisting of stories that may or may not have been believed by their tellers to be true.

            When I tell you about a single local business, one that has had numerous pressures put upon it by Obama’s policies, you can take it to the bank. It’s not about the old lady who has spiders living in her hair.

            Previously, the same shop had people people … including African-American young people … working behind the counter, and outside contractors who made the baked goods they sold. There’s only three young people working there, now, and the owners have to make the baked goods,themselves.

            The young people still working there? They are the children of the owners. So, entry-level positions gone, and contractors without work.

            Obama hates work. That’s why he golfs, so much. He leaves the task of governance to his Marxist toadies …

          • tagalog

            How can you be sure the consequences are unintended?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            That’s a good point. You can’t be sure …

          • laura r

            small businesses should not have to pay the new minimun wage.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Exactly. I agree with you. Let Boeing pay new hires $10.10 per hour. But small businesses? Insanity …

            But the whole point of the new minimum wage is to destroy the middle class, resulting in a two-class society … the rulers, and those dependent on them.

    • Headed4TheHills

      steve, steve, steve… it isn’t about denying a person a “livable” wage. It’s about the fact that your so-called livable wage will only reset the bar higher.

      Let’s see if you understand it this way:

      Raise pay of minimum wage earners (wonderful idea on paper but then the rubber meets the road of the real world) – will the company in questions (i.e. McFastfood Joint) suck it up and take that extra pay out of their profits? No, they will not. They will lay off employees and / or raise prices of their produced goods (most likely both) to cover those costs and maintain their profit margin. As has been seen recently in many companies who are now being forced to provide health coverage under Ocrapacare.

      • uptownsteve

        More rightwing nonsense. Most businesses support Obamacare and see it as helping employees and bringing down the cost of healthcare. Same with the minimum wage. Despite the yelping from the right, research shows that minimum-wage increases have little to no effect on
        employment. In fact, there is proof that labor market
        conditions can improve after a minimum-wage increase because low-wage
        workers have more money to spend, and they’re less likely to be
        scrambling to find higher-paying jobs. That’s why 85 percent of small
        businesses already pay wages higher than the minimum, and some big
        corporate entities are following suit.

        • Headed4TheHills

          Don’t know what crack you’re smoking there, steve, but you aren’t in the real world. I work every day. I know what has happened at the companies where I live. I have seen the employees losing hours, losing jobs, etc.And why? Because of Obamacare. I have seen what happens every time minimum wage has been raised. I have earned minimum wage for long periods at a time. I watched the IRS take more.I watched my dollar buy less. Don’t tell me it’s right-wing crap.It’s fact, steve. Get your head out of Obama’s arse long enough to breath fresh, clean air and maybe you’ll see the truth as well.

          • Drakken

            If bummer was right in front of down low dumbazz, he would get on his knees and with total adoration, suck Obummer dry and ask for seconds. There is no talking sense to a Obummerbot, you might as well talk to the wall.

          • Headed4TheHills

            I know, Drakken, I forgot the top two rules:
            1) Don’t feed the trolls
            2) DON’T FEED THE TROLLS

            I’ll try to do better

        • reader

          85 percent of small businesses paying wages higher than the minimum proves that there’s no meaningful justification to have mandatory minimum wage at all. On the other hand, your rant is not meaningful.

        • mtnhikerdude

          The epitome of Left wing nonsense ..Detroit

        • Omar

          As usual, you post more left-wing nonsense.

        • Omar

          So why is the healthcare website not working properly?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      If you read the article, you’ll see what’s wrong.

      • uptownsteve

        I read the article. You don’t make any sense. Or you lie.

        • reader

          It makes sense to people with IQ above a floor trim, steevo, so your comment makes sense too – kind of.

        • kikorikid

          Steeveroony, You put ALL information thru your
          ideological strainer and then call what is left, Truth.
          You could have a bar of Gold but you prefer
          a bag of pennies. You epitomize the term “Libtard”.

        • NAHALKIDES

          Time to stop feeding this troll – like most progressives, he’s completely ineducable, and everything he thinks he knows his wrong. Downvote him and move on.

          • uptownsteve

            Ohhhh. Rightwing censorship. So much for the 1st amendment and love of the Constitution. You clowns make this too easy.

          • Omar

            You support left-wing censorship. Look at what your role models are doing in Venezuela, where the Marxist police and storm troopers are attacking peaceful protesters from the democratic opposition. Fact-check.

    • UCSPanther

      You’ll be eating your words when you are fighting with hordes of people over that last, long expired generic brand of canned beans on the bare shelf of a government-run grocery store…

      That is the future under Venezuela-type socialism/communism…

      • uptownsteve

        The minimum wage was established in 1938. Why hasn’t it crashed the economy before now?

    • carpe diem 36

      you really know your economics and it shows.

  • Yulia Demkin

    Squirrel this on away in that file for the Best OF GD book that some day you will be going around the country signing.

    Reserve a copy for me.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The Freedom Center has a best of ebook from last year for me out now.

      https://secure.campaignsolutions.com/fpm/donation8/?initiativekey=MYDXUZYISMU1

      • uptownsteve

        Reel them suckers in, huh Greenfield?

        • Yulia Demkin

          I am not big on ad hominems, but you know Steve, you are really just an annoying jerk.

          • reader

            That’s an understatement of the year. Hands down. Otherwise, an accute observation.

          • reader

            and astute too.

          • uptownsteve

            Yulia, if I want any crap from you I’ll just squeeze your head.

          • reader

            That’s years of “Catholic” school talking, no doubt. A commie hero bravely insulting women on line. What a winner.

          • uptownsteve

            Where I’m from there is a saying. “Don’t start none, won’t be none.”

          • reader

            In that case, I understand why you’re prone to do it on-line and anonymously. Makes sense – finally.

          • uptownsteve

            BTW Reader, I find your stalking kinda funny.

            Just shows the neurotic obsessiveness of you righties.

          • reader

            I like to smoke commie trolls out. It’s my favorite pass time.

          • uptownsteve

            Shows you have no life.

          • Omar

            Actually, that would be you, you lunatic.

          • uptownsteve

            So you’re obsessed with someone with no life? What does that make you?

          • reader

            When someone swats a moscuito, it does not make this someone obsessed, steevo.

          • trickyblain

            No, but if he says that swatting “moscuitos” (sic) is his favorite pastime, you gotta wonder if he should take up golf or fishing or something.

          • reader

            Is it some kind of commie thing?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPVLyB0Yc6I

          • Omar

            All you do here is troll nonsense on Front Page Magazine. You smear American patriots and conservatives of any kind. You are clearly one of the president’s fanatical supporters who silences any legitimate critique of the administration.

          • hiernonymous

            “American patriots and conservatives”

            You do understand that those terms are not synonyms?

          • Omar

            They are in this context. And would you quit following me?

          • hiernonymous

            You’ve got real issues when you assume that one political party or point of view has a monopoly on patriotism. There are many patriots who aren’t conservative; many conservatives who aren’t really patriotic. When you start thinking that way, you stop listening to others; that’s not how a democratic republic should work.

          • truebearing

            There is one party that isn’t patriotic. The Democrats. They are now controlled by the far Left, which is a revolutionary party. They want to overthrow our democratic republic and replace our constitution with some derivation of Marxism, therefore, by definition, Democrats are not patriotic. yet another of your deluded theories meets the light of truth and logic. Rough week for you.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, let’s see how many different ways we can have fun with this.

            First, let’s come to grips with your characterization of the Democrats. To label them as “far Left” is to say more about your limited understanding of what “far Left” actually means, than to characterize the party.

            I can’t recall which British wit tried to explain American politics to one of his countrymen, but he said something along the lines of “There is the Republican Party, which closely resembles our Conservative Party; and there is the Democratic Party, which also resembles our Conservative Party.”

            The most radical ‘socialist’ proposals out of our modern Democratic Party would still place them firmly in the center of any collection of European parties. “Far Left” implies the end of private property, and while it’s fashionable to pepper political ‘discourse’ in the U.S. with comparions of the Democratic Party with Communists (usually in the same line as Sociaists, Fascists, and Nazis, as if the writer had never learned to distinguish among them and was afraid to leave part of the menu out), there’s no credible accusation that can be leveled at the Democrats of plans to end capitalism and private property in America.

            “…which is a revolutionary party.”

            Really? I thought it was the Tea Party that was appropriating the Revolutionary trappings.

            “They want to overthrow our democratic republic and replace our constitution with some derivation of Marxism”

            You do realize that you’re raving, now? The Democrats want to overthrow our democratic republic? I’ve noticed that you have a tendency to exaggerate the positions of those you disagree with, but this is extraordinary. It’s interesting that while you level that charge, many others are expressing dissatisfaction with our two-party system because there’s not enough difference between the two parties.

            But all that aside, being on the left end of the political spectrum in no wise suggests that one is not or cannot be patriotic. A patriot is someone who loves his country, who wants it to be as good as it can possibly be, and it is the most arrant hubris to assume that one’s own pet political position is the only position that could be good for the country. I’d suggest to you, for example, that the progressives and the unions, by achieving workplace safety regulations, the minimum wage, the 40-hour-work week, etc, made our country stronger, more prosperous, and were just as vital in laying the groundwork for the American Dream as any of the great captains of industry from the Gilded Age.

            Democrats are not patriotic? The obvious question is – who are you to say that? What patriotic service have you done your country that outshines, say, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman? How do you stack up to Daniel Inouye?

            “…yet another of your deluded theories meets the light of truth and logic.”

            “Communism bad; them Communists!” is not the light of truth or logic.

            “Rough week for you.”

            It seems sadly important to you to believe so. If it’s any comfort to you, it was a rough week, but that was for medical reasons.

          • reader

            It’s easy to call your crap out. Just tell us if you think that marxism is good for this country.

          • uptownsteve

            Who is promoting Marxism? You’re making a strawman argument.

          • reader

            Come on, steevo. Just answer the question. Isn’t it what you keep saying here?

          • uptownsteve

            No. marxism is an extremely flawed ideology.

          • reader

            So, why are you following it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What about socialism?

            Good stuff, isn’t it?

          • tagalog

            What elements, exactly, cause Marxism to be flawed as an ideology, in your estimation?

          • hiernonymous

            Me? No, I don’t think so. I also don’t think that most of what gets called “Marxist” on these boards is remotely Marxist.

            “It’s easy to call your crap out.”

            What does that even mean?

          • reader

            Really? And yet you consistently vote for marxists. Obama is definitely one, and so is Pelosi and Reed. But tell me how is their progressivism different from Marx’s 10 step program outlined in his Manifesto?

          • hiernonymous

            “Really? And yet you consistently vote for marxists.”

            An interesting comment, considering that you have no way of knowing my voting record. This is a good example of one of those situations where you should find out what you’re talking about before drawing your conclusions.

            “But tell me how is their progressivism different from Marx’s 10 step program outlined in his Manifesto?”

            When you keep in mind that Marx’s ten short-term demands include universal conscription into armies of agriculture and labor, confiscation of property, redistribution of population to even out agricultural-urban populations, and the abolition of all right of inheritance, if you need assistance in distinguishing that from minimum wage, safety and health inspections, and market regulation, you may be lost to reason. The better question is, how could you find much similarity?

            (It was a rhetorical question. I suspect that you’ve run across something like this piece of third-rate thinking and are prepared to triumphantly produce it. But I cheerfully acknowledge that this is just speculation.)

          • reader

            Really? What’s interesting that you did not say that you had not voted for Obama, because it’s obvious that you did. Of course, Obama marxism is that of the Mid-Western Academy one, where the “world revolution” strategy was replaced with the “evolutionary” one. So, the conscription into labor armies is graduate via displacing millions of people from full employment with benefits into underemployment – mostly part-time employment; confiscation of property is done in many ways, of course – through increased direct and hidden taxation, regulation and outright imminent domain action; inheritance is attacked via death tax; etc, etc. And by the way, your condescending tone and poorly disguised but obviously intentional ambiguity also betrays you as a college marxist.

          • hiernonymous

            “Really? What’s interesting that you did not say that you had not voted for Obama, because it’s obvious that you did.”

            You’re squirming. You said that I ‘consistently’ voted for Marxists; covering that bit of nonsense by asserting that you can tell I voted for a single presidential candidate is disingenuous. What’s “interesting” is that you stated as fact something you had, and have, no way of knowing, and you’ll continue to bluster through it rather than acknowledge what’s obvious to any reader.

            “Of course, Obama marxism is that of the Mid-Western Academy one, where
            the “world revolution” strategy was replaced with the “evolutionary”
            one.”

            Translation: “When I said “Marxist,” I meant something else.:

            “So, the conscription into labor armies is graduate via displacing
            millions of people from full employment with benefits into
            underemployment”

            Translation: “Marx called for one thing, and I’m calling your attention to something completely different, and hoping you don’t notice.” Marx’s idea was that everyone in society had an obligation to contribute to the labor that supported everyone. When you start seeing plans to put stockbrokers behind the wheels of tractors, and forcing bankers into factories, you’ll be on to something.

            “…confiscation of property is done in many ways, of course – through increased direct and hidden taxation…”

            Again, that’s not what Marx was calling for. You rely on “taxation” to mean anything that Marx wrote: confiscation, abolition, conscription, destruction – yet, with at least of century of such taxation behind us, we see no indication that the properties in question are now in government hands.

            In fact, during the recent crisis, the government had the perfect opportunity to execute a mass confiscation – they could have simply taken over GM and declared ownership – had they been executing a Marxist agenda. Not quite how it panned out, was it?

            “inheritance is attacked via death tax;”

            It appears to have escaped your attention that taxing inheritance is not abolishing it – and, in fact, the motives behind the two are at odds. Marx’s concept was to eliminate the ability of the rich to accumulate wealth and then pass it on to their heirs; I see no sign that the Waltons and Gates of America are in any danger of having their offspring face life with the same assets of the rest of the proletariat.

            “And by the way, your condescending tone and poorly disguised but
            obviously intentional ambiguity also betrays you as a college marxist.”

            Trust me, it’s not only a college marxist that would look down at your posts. Sorry, bub, but when someone who doesn’t know me announces how I vote, it’s really hard to treat him as anything but a gasbag.

            And there weren’t any Marxists at all at my undergrad institution, that I’m aware of.

          • reader

            Errr. So many words, and yet you voted for Obama. Obama is a marxist. Your assertion that marx’s idea was that everybody supports everyone is flat out fallacy. His and every other utopian’s pretense was the proverbial “common good,” but the idea was an outright dictatorship – what Obama translated into “I got a pen and I got a phone.” Your mumbling about tractors vs brokers and what marx meant simply illustrate the fact that you don’t understand what property is. In fact, marx did not quite understand that either. The GM example is indicative of that. The ownership of GM is determined by he who controls its balance sheet, and the government effectively does that. The Waltons and Gates are no different from Engels and Lenin’s pal Armand Hammer – again, the idea was not that every body would be in the rice field. The elite would always be in the cocktail parlor. You can look down on my post all you want, but I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m getting bored by your lack of elementary logic. As they say, the worst fools to suffer are those who are convinced in their intellectual prowess.

          • hiernonymous

            “Errr. So many words, and yet you voted for Obama.”

            You haven’t yet explained that “consistently voted for marxists” yet. Cat got your tongue?

            “Your assertion that marx’s idea was that everybody supports everyone is
            flat out fallacy. His and every other utopian’s pretense was the
            proverbial “common good,” but the idea was an outright dictatorship…”

            No, the idea was an eventual worker’s paradise. It was an unworkable idea, and it clearly never got translated into anything like that, but we’re talking about Marx’s idea, not its eventual attempts at implementation. What you might be thinking of is the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that was intended as an intermediate step that might be necessary before achieving true Communism.

            “Your mumbling about tractors vs brokers and what marx meant simply
            illustrate the fact that you don’t understand what property is.”

            An odd comment, given that I was mumbling about tractors vs brokers, not in a segment dedicated to property, but to the Marxist demand for the assembly of the armies of agricultural and industrial workers – which had exactly nothing to do with the nature of property or its disposition.

            “The Waltons and Gates are no different from Engels and Lenin’s pal
            Armand Hammer – again, the idea was not that every body would be in the
            rice field.”

            The comment on the Waltons and the Gates was not a discussion of who was going to be in the rice fields – you somehow misread that part as a discussion of property – but on the abolition of inheritance. If you’re suggesting that Marx and Engels would have given their rich buddies a bye had they implemented a Communist revolution, that’s interesting conjecture, but inconsistent with the ten demands – or “planks,” as you put it – that you’ve insisted are being implemented by the ‘progressives.’ No sign of that happening.

            “You can look down on my post all you want…”

            I did, thank you.

            “…but I’m not impressed.”

            Your impassioned commentary notwithstanding.

            “In fact, I’m getting bored by your lack of elementary logic. As they say, the worst fools to suffer are those who are convinced in their intellectual prowess.”

            Do they say that? Why didn’t you listen?

          • reader

            You clearly do not even understand the meaning of the Manifesto. Again, the worker’s paradise is but a mere draping. The key phrase in the Manifesto is that – and I’m paraphrasing – the Proletareat will be lead by the Communists, the advanced elite. That is the idea. Everything else is – as you condescendingly put it – a third rate strategy outline as to how to put this advanced elite into the saddle. Likewise, you clearly do not understand what constitute property, so you may need to go back as far as John Adams, John Locke and Edmund Burke – far more advanced philosophers than marx was, and whom you seem to never familiarized yourself with. As far as why didn’t I listen – well, if I didn’t I wouldn’t know, would I? Even your condescension is kind of a third rate. Sorry.

          • hiernonymous

            “…the Proletareat [sic] will be lead [sic] by the Communists….”

            Yes, you’re referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s a phase in Marx’s work, not the end state. Marx expected that the capitalists would resist the proletariat with force, and that might require a period in which the proletariat enforced its rule before society was ready to progress to Communism. What you appear to be ignoring or denying is the critical role played by Engels’ conception of the “withering away” of the state.

            It’s quite true that the state never seemed to wither away in any actual attempt to implement Communism, but that’s neither here nor there when trying to understand what Marx and Engels had proposed, and putting “this advanced elite into the saddle” was never the conceptual end-state of Communism.

            “Likewise, you clearly do not understand what constitute property, so you may need to go back as far as John Adams, John Locke and Edmund Burke -far more advanced philosophers than marx was, and whom you seem to never familiarized yourself with.”

            What are you nattering about? You challenged me to show that ‘progressives’ were not implementing Marx’s ten demands (or ‘planks’); Locke, Burke, and Adams, admirable Enlightenment thinkers, were not the authors of the Manifesto; I can’t think of any reason that answering your question would involve invoking any of them.

            “Even your condescension is kind of a third rate.”

            Kind of a third rate what?

            Never mind, I don’t think it really matters.

            “Sorry.”

            It’s okay, I think I understand.

          • reader

            Quite right, you seem to be struggling to understand anything at all. I mentioned Locke, Burke and Adams – in no particular order, because they did understand what constitutes property. Neither you, nor marx can claim this apparently tricky feat. And – about marx’s work – he has written many works. His Manifesto is his most straight forward, concise and transparent “work.” Yet, you don’t seem to be up and up enough to understand its logic at all. That’s where you’re stuck. The basics. Everything else is a derivative. If you’re intellectually honest, you will go back to the sources and will try to comprehend their meaning. Otherwise, you will drone on in the intellectual rice fields you’ve already been deployed at.

          • hiernonymous

            Let’s see what we needed to address:

            1. Where did you learn that I “consistently” vote for Marxists? I think we can consider that well and truly dodged, and no need to belabor the obvious here.

            2. You challenged me to demonstrate that the “progressive” agenda was different from the 10 demands (which you called “planks”) that Marx had written into the Manifesto.

            That was pretty straightforward: identify a few of the salient demands and briefly show that they are clearly not being implemented by the Democratic Party, which I understood to be whom you referred to by “progressives.”

            You apparently didn’t enjoy that demonstration, and are now raving about Marx’s other works, and some unrelated Enlightenment thinkers, while asserting that I do not understand the nature of ‘property.’ That’s a bit of a red herring, and it’s irrelevant; you didn’t ask me for a treatise on Burke, or Das Kapital, but for an examination of an element of the Manifesto. You’re transparently trying to change the subject.

            3. Although a bit of a digression, you’ve taken issue with my characterization of the end state of theoretical Communism. The most charitable reason I can think of for this is that the end state Marx and Engels called for was never likely to happen in real life; the “withering away of the state” was certainly a bit Utopian (now’s the time for Utopian!). Lenin focused on the dictatorship of the proletariat. All that said, Marx and Engels were pretty clear on their vision, and you are plainly confusing what they considered to be an intermediate stage with the end stage.

            If you want to continue to posture, knock yourself out. But if you’re going to keep at it, perhaps you will condescend to tell me how you got a peek at my voting record?

          • reader

            I’ve already told you – repeatedly – that you’re an Obama voter, which you never denied. Obama is a marxist. He was raised by marxists, his closest advisors are marxists, and his policies are marxist. That’s who you voted for.
            I can tell you that you are also a marxist, because you’ve already wrapped yourself into a common for marxists circular logic, or dialectics – as they fancy to call it – whereas they deny being marxist and, at the same time, whitewash marxist vision. Of course, it makes no sense, but you’re dead set on it.
            As far as why I know what the real end game was – it is called the scientific method – essentially meaning that empirical evidence must support the hypothesis. We have already plenty accumulated. It is unequivocal. marxism is not about “common good.” Marxism is about unrestricted power at any cost. The ends justify the means – and hence tremendous amount of misery it spreads and negligent amount of concern on the part of those who spreads it around.
            Also, there are plenty of marx’s peripheral “works”, in which he displayed himself as a vile hater without any regard to the “common good” he supposedly envisioned in his cause.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’ve already told you – repeatedly – that you’re an Obama voter, which you never denied.”

            Obama is one man. Even if Obama were a Marxist, that would not begin to sufficiently support your claim. You claimed that I consistently vote for Marxists. “Consistently” implies often, and “Marxists” is plural. If you simply overplayed your hand and made a contention you can’t support, just have the stones to admit it. If you think you can support it, by all means, do so.

            “I can tell you that you are also a marxist, because you’ve already wrapped yourself into a common for marxists circular logic, or dialectics – as they fancy to call it – whereas they deny being marxist and, at the same time, whitewash marxist vision.”

            You’re referring to the dialectic, not dialectics, a concept Marx borrowed from Hegel. It didn’t involve circular logic, but was rooted in Hegel’s idea that a Thesis called into being its Antithesis, and the struggle between them produced the Synthesis. Marx applied this to Communism.

            At any rate, quite plainly, you’ve not seen me advocate a political position remotely Marxist. Your ad hominem, which can hardly be called a chain of reasoning, is redolent of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, in which the mob triumphantly demonstrates the Brian is the Messiah because he denies that he is the Messiah, and as the zealots confirm, “Only the True Messiah would deny His divinity!” Apparently, you’ve concluded that I am a Marxist because I deny being a Marxist. How droll.

            “As far as why I know what the real end game was – it is called the scientific method – essentially meaning that empirical evidence must support the hypothesis. We have already plenty accumulated. It is unequivocal. marxism is not about “common good.”"

            Here’s what you’re struggling with. Marxism is an ideology.

            You don’t use the “scientific method” to determine what Marx’s ideology prescribes and predicts; you read Marx. You certainly can and should use historical observation to determine how Marx’s ideology was put into practice, but that wasn’t in question. Every practitioner of Marxism has departed from Marx’s vision to some extent. Lenin shifted emphasis to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Mao abandoned the requirement for the natural development of the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a necessary development in an agrarian state. To the extent that they departed from Marx’s ideology, they weren’t being Marxist.

            In short, you can be as emphatic as you wish that Marx’s theories could never have become a practical reality as he envisioned them. I agree. You can insist that Marx’s works are full of hatred and inconsistency and any number of terrible qualities. I won’t argue with you. You can insist that Marx didn’t live up to his “common good” values in his own life. Again, good for you. All of that may well be true, but it is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to identifying what Marx and Engels had established as their ideology.

            By way of analogy, to help you with this, let’s look at the Declaration of Independence as Thomas Jefferson’s “Manifesto.” Jefferson established that three of the inalienable rights that everyone possesses are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; in describing them, he insisted that “all men are created equal.”

            So it would be reasonable to state that Jefferson thought that all men should be free – that’s the ‘liberty’ part. He undeniably championed that idea.

            But wait – Jefferson also helped write the Constitution, which contained provisions for slavery. That’s not consistent with his “Manifesto.” And Jefferson’s personal life wasn’t consistent with that ideology – he kept slaves, for Pete’s sake. So does applying the “scientific method” prove that Jefferson did not champion the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

            Of course not. It means that the implementation of his ideology was imperfect. It means that he didn’t personally live up to his ideals. But it doesn’t mean that those weren’t the ideals he espoused.

            Similarly, Marx and Engels championed Communism as a path to achieving a stateless society in which everyone contributed to the general welfare, and everyone benefited from it. Did anyone ever implement Communism in that way? Nope. Could it even have worked? Probably not – it made some pretty unrealistic assumptions about human nature. Did Marx live up to his own ideals? Nope. But that doesn’t change what Marx’s ideology was all about.

          • reader

            Another one bites the dust. At least you did not claim to be a Catholic – as steevo here did. Yes, the implementation of this ideology was “imperfect” – we’re talking about over 100 million people slaughtered in its name. By the way, it’s the marxist “implementors” who insisted that marxism is “Science,” not an ideology.
            So, Obama is one marxist, and this marxist you – another marxist – did vote for.
            I’m done with you, thank you very much. “Good night and good luck.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Another one bites the dust. At least you did not claim to be a Catholic – as steevo here did.”

            Why would I discuss my personal beliefs with you?

            “Yes, the implementation of this ideology was “imperfect” – we’re talking
            about over 100 million people slaughtered in its name. By the way, it’s
            the marxist “implementors” who insisted that marxism is “Science,” not
            an ideology.”

            You’re still confusing your (justified) distaste for Communism as it was implemented with Marx and Engels’ writing.

            “So, Obama is one marxist, and this marxist you – another marxist – did vote for.”

            Did that make sense even to you?

            In short, you have no idea who I’ve voted for, and you lack the integrity or courage to admit that your comment was unsupportable. The willingness to proclaim as fact something you don’t know, and then to try to find some subsequent justification for doing so, doesn’t speak well for your credibility.

            “I’m done with you, thank you very much. ”

            Did it go any better as ‘reader?’

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fabian socialists claim to be “non-Marxist.”

            No Marxist in politics these days can ever allow himself to be called a Marxist. And to the left, it’s like gender identity.

            How dare you call me a man? Never you mind which urinal I just got through using. I don’t feel like a Marxist or a man, so you just watch your tone.

          • hiernonymous

            “How dare you call me a man?”

            I didn’t.

            “I don’t feel like a Marxist or a man”

            Those are both probably true.

            The problem with your analogy, though, is that people only come in two genders. Well, close enough for our purposes. If you’re not a man, you’re a woman, and vice versa.

            Economic ideologies are not genders. There are more than two of them, and even within some of the broader categories, there are many, many variations.

            You are attempting to manipulate the vocabulary by taking a term that has a relatively precise meaning – Marxist – and apply it to a broader spectrum of ideologies and positions. The purpose for doing so is transparent: Marxism is anathema for several reasons: it has proved to be a failure in practice, and it was the ideology of our sworn enemies during the Cold War. You reckon that if you can stick that label on others you dislike, it will help you turn public opinion against them. Presumably, to you, there are laissez faire free market capitalists, and there are Marxists. Period.

            As a political maneuver, it’s clever enough, if you can get away with it. It’s intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly dishonest, though, so it’s worth asking yourself if you’re an “ends-justifies-the-means” sort of man. Woman. Whatever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The problem with your analogy, though, is that people only come in two genders. Well, close enough for our purposes. If you’re not a man, you’re a woman, and vice versa.”

            It’s a flawed analogy, like virtually every other analogy. But the point is that we have a process for determining gender and the subject doesn’t always cooperate with that process even when it’s as plain as the – ahem – nose, or whatever, on…well you get the idea.

            Ideas have a kind of genealogy. The evidence is less compelling than DNA evidence, but the process of discovering the genealogy is similar.

            That was my point.

          • hiernonymous

            The problem with your ‘point’ is that you see Marx’s DNA on anything that isn’t an enthusiastic embrace of unbridled capitalism, and that’s arrant nonsense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The problem with your ‘point’ is that you see Marx’s DNA on anything that isn’t an enthusiastic embrace of unbridled capitalism, and that’s arrant nonsense.”

            All you can testify to is that it doesn’t make sense to you.

            Unbridled capitalism means limited regulations. Enforce contract law and that’s about it. There are plenty of regulations that I support, and others that I don’t support, but don’t consider Marxist.

            As I’ve said before, most of the non-Marxist ideas eventually are embraced or accepted if they are valid. Or the left just gives up. But what creates intractable rifts are the delusional ideas that the left just won’t give up on and won’t investigate when we tell them they are looking for something that does not exist and is in fact destructive rather than productive.

            For crying out loud the entire banking crisis proves just how far “the ruling class” will go along with these delusions and just how stubborn the left is in denying their own failures. They blame everything on capitalism when it was “social justice” interventions that caused it. Because Marx convinced the world of free lunch through the magic of technology as a given, and through central planning.

            The left has already gone too far, broken things, and blamed the right. And you don’t recognize this? Not all political disputes can be fully understood through the lens of class struggle analysis. Can’t you see that it’s possible for some to be in error and others to be correct? It can happen.

          • hiernonymous

            “All you can testify to is that it doesn’t make sense to you.”

            Well, no, you’ve subsequently admitted that you label people Marxist on the basis of criteria that range from “not Marxist” to “not uniquely Marxist.”

            “They blame everything on capitalism when it was “social justice” interventions that caused it.”

            That’s certainly an odd take on it. What’s your understanding of the ‘social justice’ origin of the banking crisis?

            “The left has already gone too far, broken things, and blamed the right. And you don’t recognize this?”

            Well, no. The most compelling analysis of the crisis I’ve encountered lays primary blame on Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s erosion of the Glass-Steagall Act.

            “Not all political disputes can be fully understood through the lens of class struggle analysis.”

            I don’t think anybody has suggested that they could be. Of course, if you insist on labeling all of your political opponents as “Marxists,” then one of the faulty consequences will be that you start to anticipate or assume that they are employing Marxists historical materialism as their primary tool of understanding political conflict. Certainly, nothing I’ve written suggests I subscribe to that theory, so it’s interesting that you inject such a caveat.

            “Can’t you see that it’s possible for some to be in error and others to be correct? It can happen.”

            On a given issue? Sure. I’ve yet to find a political philosophy or party that delivers the reliably correct answer for every situation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, no, you’ve subsequently admitted that you label people Marxist on the basis of criteria that range from “not Marxist” to “not uniquely Marxist.”"

            Nope. I said that it depends on context. Marxist often means “Marxist lineage” or “Marx derived” or even “tainted by Marxism.” Clarity is always preferred, but the time to be perfectly clear is not always taken because it’s not always available.

            I some times take the time to be clearer and more precise, but in casual conversations, especially when there is a lot of dialog to keep up with, shorthand versions of the term are often employed. That’s all it is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s certainly an odd take on it. What’s your understanding of the ‘social justice’ origin of the banking crisis?”

            The banking crisis was caused by government regulations that forced investment or loan creation for the purposes of “social justice” and “righting past wrong” where the theory was that people who are sometimes not qualified for loans based on objective measures should be able to get loans because they and their family and peers have been oppressed historically.

            That might all be true, but the problem comes when risks are hidden and magic accounting is used to sell the programs.

            The government created regulations that forced banks to create high risk loans. Those loans become toxic, and because the banks were required by law to make them, the government could not really let “the guilty” banks fail. They were all guilty by obeying the law!

            It’s true that the risks were amplified by complicated schemes to share risk. But the risk calculations were based on the government insuring or ensuring (through the law in some cases and by implication in other cases) that the risk was not great.

            The banking crisis actually provided ample evidence that all of these “social justice” interventions carry huge risks, and that the way they are sold to the public are deceptive at the very least. It led to even more magical thinking about economics and the failure should have been a great lesson. Instead, it is considered the result of “greed,” which is pure insanity. That’s Marxist thinking even if not uniquely Marxist.

            The rational way to do it is to set aside money each year for reparations if they are indeed due. That’s a harder sell, so people use the magic that’s worked in the past.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, no. The most compelling analysis of the crisis I’ve encountered lays primary blame on Gramm-Leach-Bliley’s erosion of the Glass-Steagall Act.”

            Of course. If anything breaks we must assume that it was due to not having enough regulation.

            Some of the stock market values would not have been as high, but toxic loans are toxic loans. That is the root of the problem. It still is.

            And if this was a result of “bad behavior” we would just let the investors fail. If the government wanted to “stimulate the industry” it would have been better to let the old ones fail and invest in new banks that would behave better.

            No, they propped up the old institutions because in the end all of the insiders knew who was at fault. They even want to try it again because they think the “magic” is all a balancing act. They don’t learn because they believe in the magic.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are attempting to manipulate the vocabulary by taking a term that has a relatively precise meaning – Marxist – and apply it to a broader spectrum of ideologies and positions.”

            I’m not manipulating anything. I’ve observed how the word is used and how it represents an idea. You think it’s not valid because you’re both familiar with the more precise use of the term and unfamiliar with the idea as it’s used by nonleftists who are critical of Marx, his delusions and the various ideas that he spawned.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are attempting to manipulate the vocabulary by taking a term that has a relatively precise meaning -Marxist – and apply it to a broader spectrum of ideologies and positions. The purpose for doing so is transparent: Marxism is anathema for several reasons: it has proved to be a failure in practice, and it was the ideology of our sworn enemies during the Cold War.”

            I try often to distinguish between Marxists and dupes. But it gets boring for people and they already complain that I’m a windbag. Most people familiar with the discourse understand the broader use of the Marxist label.

            “You reckon that if you can stick that label on others you dislike, it will help you turn public opinion against them. Presumably, to you, there are laissez faire free market capitalists, and there are Marxists. Period.”

            I reckon that I can provoke some of the dupes in to defending themselves to that they can hear more precisely what some people have done, very often mendaciously, in order to pursue Marxist delusions.

            Basically if you think you can plan on “progress” coming from the magic state central planning, interventionism, far off future technologies or robots that somehow never need to be capitalized or maintained again, you’re a Marxist or a dupe of his delusions.

            But of course we could have lengthier discussions and draw distinctions between various movements in the post-Marxist world, but it’s convenient at the outset of these conversations to point out who came up with the framework for presenting these delusions as rational and even “scientific.”

            So we label the free lunch crowd as Marxist. It gets the conversation started. It might seem cynical but it’s not really. It’s as cynical as making lifesavers bright red so that drowning people can more easily see them.

          • hiernonymous

            “Basically if you think you can plan on “progress” coming from the magic
            state central planning, interventionism, far off future technologies or
            robots that somehow never need to be capitalized or maintained again,
            you’re a Marxist or a dupe of his delusions.”

            How did you come to determine that faith in technology, utopianism, or even centrally planned economies were uniquely Marxist? It’s not clear what you mean by “interventionism,” but if you’re referring to state regulation or involvement in the market, that’s plainly not a Marxist concept.
            By your own admission, you’re applying the label “Marxist” on the basis of criteria that span a spectrum from not remotely connected to Marxism to (in the case of central planning) frequently, but not uniquely, associated with Marxism.

            “So we label the free lunch crowd as Marxist. It gets the conversation started.”

            Really? Seems that its objective is to get the conversation stopped, by discrediting one of the positions before it can really be discussed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How did you come to determine that faith in technology, utopianism, or even centrally planned economies were uniquely Marxist?”

            I believe what I said was that Marx created a framework for presenting delusion as “scientific.” It could be that he didn’t have any original thoughts of his own. But he put together a framework that became widely known and widely used to present these ideas as rational when incomplete or completely delusional.

            And he created a framework for arguing that the successful people of the past were oppressive by their very success. He created new ideas for arguing about “fairness”, “class struggle” and so forth.

            These are all delusions that influence the thinking of today’s left. These ideas are very powerful and have a lot of ideological “currency” in today’s debates and conversations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By your own admission, you’re applying the label “Marxist” on the basis of criteria that span a spectrum from not remotely connected to Marxism to (in the case of central planning) frequently, but not uniquely, associated with Marxism.”

            I’m pointing out how the term is some times used. I told you it’s not a precise term when used that way. It’s pointing out a class of thinkers. It’s usually used that way in hostile conversations to test an opponent or generally classify a subject.

            I told you that I agree that it’s not precise. It’s not the preferred term at all. It’s a starting point for making broad generalizations. That is not to say it’s totally invalid or out of bounds.

            “Really? Seems that its objective is to get the conversation stopped, by discrediting one of the positions before it can really be discussed.”

            I don’t know. I can’t speak for others. I’m sure that’s true at least some of the times. But that doesn’t invalidate other uses.

            It’s actually kind of dangerous to use that label because the Marxists have done a good job propagating their ideas, including “political correctness” in getting people to react with hurt feelings rather than continuing the conversation. So conservatives or other critics that overuse the label can possibly fall in to a trap set by…the Marxists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The real agenda for the communists is to have a new oligarchy replace the old oligarchy under a set of theories where technology enables all of it. That and a little revolution here and there.

            It’s a Ponzi scheme unlike any other.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Before Marx, socialists didn’t try to come up with ”scientific” or “magic” formulas that allow delusional leftists to describe every social justice project as win-win. Now it dominates virtually every idea from the left.

            Why? Because if you could make a rational case for it without magic bullshit, the right would adopt any synergistic sensible program that comes along once the horse trading is done.

            No, the long delayed “progressive” projects are the ones that don’t work because they depend on magical thinking and the left continues to blame the right for “negative thinking.”

            That all comes from Marx.

            Strictly speaking, philosophers and intellectuals do further subdivide leftist ideologies when there is a need to distinguish between those who still think Marx was a genius and those who mask the influence he has over their social-justice-paid-for-with-magic delusions. But they are all Marxists, whether or not the majority of Marxists want to realize or admit it.

            If they didn’t fall in to the Marxist delusions, they’d reject all of these absurd ideas. Or at the very least they’d stop lying about it the faux science-magic that supposedly makes all of these programs so sensible.

            Marxists delusions completely dominate the left today. You can deny it all you want, and for the same reasons that it’s convenient to conflate the Nawzi Party with “conservatives” today.

            Without its mendacious and delusional roots, there would be no modern left today. Or rather it would be something else entirely. And the world would be a lot better place if that were true.

          • hiernonymous

            “Why? Because if you could make a rational case for it without magic
            bullshit, the right would adopt any synergistic sensible program that
            comes along once the horse trading is done.”

            Which actually describes the progressive movement in the U.S. pretty well. It made pretty concrete suggestions – food inspection, safety regulations, etc – and, after the ‘horsetrading’ with the convervatives, they were implemented.

            There’s a kernel of truth to what you’re saying, in that Marx pretty explicitly rejected what he considered ‘reforminst’ socialism, precisely because he was afraid that the ‘horsetrading’ you refer to would, in effect, allow the capitalists to address the worst of the symptoms without ever admitting of the cure. So, sure, I’d say that’s one good distinction to draw between socialists and Communists.

            Where you go astray is in asserting that everyone on “the Left” in the U.S. has somehow been tainted by that Marxist rejection of reformist socialism. I’d submit that the nature of the progressive reforms in the early 20th century is prima facie evidence of its reformist nature and its rejection of Marx’s all-or-nothing approach.

            Even you must, at some level, recognize the circular nature of the argument:

            Marx proposed absurd ideas.

            “The left’s” ideas are absurd.

            Therefore, the left is Marxist.

            Marx laid out a pretty explicit prescription. Marxists follow that prescription, and where they depart from it, they tend to try to justify it from an ideological perspective.

            “Without its mendacious and delusional roots, there would be no modern left today.”

            Given that the ‘modern left’ is essentially reformist, though not always socialist, in nature, that’s a pretty hard sell.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Where you go astray is in asserting that everyone on “the Left” in the U.S. has somehow been tainted by that Marxist rejection of reformist socialism. I’d submit that the nature of the progressive reforms in the early 20th century is prima facie evidence of its reformist nature and its rejection of Marx’s all-or-nothing approach.”

            I don’t know that the entire American progressive movement was tainted by Marxism. Perhaps the threat of communism motivated them in part, I don’t know. That’s not my point.

            I’m saying that today the unresolved issues are largely because their expectations are delusional. We’ve addressed virtually every sensible idea. Horsetrading or not, things that should get done do get done eventually after sensible processes. Not that we shouldn’t address the corruption, but that’s another matter that isn’t particularly a feature of any political faction.

            Calling someone a Marxist is not declaring that they are trying to foment a violent Marxist revolution. It’s pointing out the ancestry of their delusions that prevent us from finding rational compromises or any solutions at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Marx laid out a pretty explicit prescription. Marxists follow that prescription, and where they depart from it, they tend to try to justify it from an ideological perspective.”

            Many generations followed after, each building on the modified approach but what doesn’t change is the delusion that technology will free people from work and because of this, the capitalists will have an unfair advantage because of the “unjust” ways in which they abused capital. This foundational “discovery” or “revelation” is at the root of all the anger, stubbornness and mendacity you find on the left when they take up intractable positions and demand things that are impossible and unreasonable.

            As I’ve said, we generally find that without these Marxist delusions that the parties can work together and come up with solutions. The intractable problems are caused by delusions on the left. It’s not like the Republicans have been demanding zero income tax for decades and constantly funding demonstrations to get their way. It’s the deluded leftists that program their children to fight for their entire lives for things that are simply impossible or based on delusion. Like a “green earth,” with no way to objectively measure when someone should be satisfied with our solutions.

            Those are just examples.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Given that the ‘modern left’ is essentially reformist, though not always socialist, in nature, that’s a pretty hard sell.”

            Of course they present their programs as reformist. The entire sum of what I’m saying is that it’s not really that hard to build consensus on truly sensible reforms. It’s the delusion based demands that become intractable. And that’s pretty much all they have. That and their appeals to populism.

            How could any patriotic American support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement? It’s like I said about the Iranians. Getting angry about treating the Shah is one thing and storming an embassy is something else. Those idiots massed in squares all over the country without being able to contribute positively to a single issue. It was purely an emotional appeal. They feel hurt and betrayed about stuff. They are envious. That is not something any American leader should encourage.

            It’s radical demagoguery in America. On the left. And when they do it on the right, they’re trying to appeal to duped leftists.

          • hiernonymous

            “Of course they present their programs as reformist.”

            It would be hard to present a reformist program as anything else.

            “It’s the delusion based demands that become intractable.”

            And you’ve decided what’s delusional and what’s sensible? And the current ‘left’ has nothing but delusional programs? What’s ‘delusional’ about them?

            “How could any patriotic American support the “Occupy Wall Street” movement?”

            Easy. There are those who are concerned that increasing disparity in wealth weakens the country. It undermines its democratic ideals, it undermines the mutual dependency between the government and its citizenry. Some of those who support OWS did so from very patriotic motives.

            “Those idiots massed in squares all over the country without being able
            to contribute positively to a single issue. It was purely an emotional
            appeal. They feel hurt and betrayed about stuff. They are envious. That
            is not something any American leader should encourage.”

            What, expressing hurt and betrayal should be discouraged? When Americans think they’ve been screwed, they should just shut up and take it – that’s the American Way? That’s patriotism, in your book?

            Last I checked, this country was founded by a bunch of people who felt hurt and betrayed and decided to let their government know about it. And when their government told them to get stuffed, they did something about it. When did it become American to kowtow to power?

            “And when they do it on the right, they’re trying to appeal to duped leftists.”

            Allen West is trying to appeal to duped leftists?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And you’ve decided what’s delusional and what’s sensible? And the current ‘left’ has nothing but delusional programs? What’s ‘delusional’ about them?”

            I already explained to you. If you want to argue that humans should never work more than 3 days a week and 7 hours a day, you might be able to justify that. But if you want to argue that it will simultaneously boost productivity by forcing investment in robot technology or something *delusional* then I will point out the flaws in your reasoning.

            Usually the way it works is that the 3 day work week boosting productivity will become the meme, and most people won’t know the fully articulated justification. IOW, they don’t know that their argument depends on the magic robots.

            Are you understanding me now, even if you disagree? There are objective ways of discerning what is possible and what is impossible. If something is questionable I’ll give people the benefit of the doubt given how skeptical people have been of projects that ended up working out in the past.

            But harnessing the energy from the moon? Delusional? See, we already know a lot about quantum mechanics. A lot of these ideas depend on say, electrons suddenly overcoming their organic behavior and so forth. The advocates just don’t know this when they preach the magic benefits of solar energy or green this or whatever.

            People often get stuck in to thinking that “obstructionist” are simply “clinging on to power” because they naturally view the world and its resources as limited and fixed. The leftists believe that the conservatives want to dominate all of the fixed supplies of resources. They approach most negotiations as zero sum, and yet they think they have the keys to magic formulas. They don’t really understand what drives progress, which is increased productivity and discovery of valid new and useful scientific discoveries. It never comes from the top down.

            Let’s go make progress. OK, let’s do that. That’s not how it works.

          • hiernonymous

            “I already explained to you. If you want to argue that humans should
            never work more than 3 days a week and 7 hours a day, you might be able
            to justify that.”

            Wait – you had said that the left had “nothing but” delusional programs. You appear to be referring to a talk given by the New Economic Foundation suggesting that the 40-hour-work-week is an anachronism, a holdover from our industrial days – but leaving the merits of the proposal aside, it’s not a platform, much less a centerpiece, of the Democratic Party – which is what I assume you’re referring to when you talk about the “left” in the context of the U.S.

            “Are you understanding me now, even if you disagree?”

            No, not really. You had said that the left had nothing but delusional policies, but you’ve had to reach to a pretty fringe organization to produce one example. What I was expecting was for you to outline three or four of the most significant current DNC planks and explain how they were all delusional.

            “The advocates just don’t know this when they preach the magic benefits of solar energy or green this or whatever.”

            It’s not clear what you’re trying to argue here. Plainly, we need to find alternative energy sources; are you suggesting that trying to do so is silly?

            “People often get stuck in to thinking that “obstructionist” are simply
            “clinging on to power” because they naturally view the world and its
            resources as limited and fixed. The leftists believe that the
            conservatives want to dominate all of the fixed supplies of resources.
            They approach most negotiations as zero sum, and yet they think they
            have the keys to magic formulas. They don’t really understand what
            drives progress, which is increased productivity and discovery of valid
            new and useful scientific discoveries. It never comes from the top down.”

            You keep talking about vague “theys” and what “they” believe; it’s hard to figure out just who and what you’re really talking about.

            As for “top down” and “bottom up,” both have their benefits. There have been any number of ‘top down’ efforts that have been successful. One obvious example is the Apollo moon landing. Another is the internet; the government described a need, and provided the resources to solve the problem; turns out that the solution to the problem – providing redundancy to previously vulnerable point-to-point data communications in the event of a nuclear war – is what allows you and me to have this conversation.

            So, sure, there’s a place for entrepreneurial approaches to solving problems, but it’s hardly the only successful model.

            “Let’s go make progress. OK, let’s do that. That’s not how it works.”

            And sometimes it is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You appear to be referring to a talk given by the New Economic Foundation suggesting that the 40-hour-work-week is an anachronism, a holdover from our industrial days.”

            No, I’m not. You’re jumping to false conclusions. I’m giving you a hyperbolic example of some of the ways issues are created. There is already broad consensus that the 40 hour work week is “good” or at least acceptable as a standard. But that does not justify this idea that we must forever look for new progress by reducing the hours worked per week.

            Put another way, even if we agree that the 40 hour work week is fine, that is not the same as agreeing that the government must intervene frequently and decide how many hours people should work in order to achieve progress. The left already won that battle because they were able to reach a working consensus. That doesn’t validate every idea that they have as truly “progressive.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, not really. You had said that the left had nothing but delusional policies, but you’ve had to reach to a pretty fringe organization to produce one example. What I was expecting was for you to outline three or four of the most significant current DNC planks and explain how they were all delusional.”

            The ACA is based on delusion and magical thinking.

            The economic justifications for illegal immigration amnesty are based on delusion.

            The economic arguments for raising minimum wages are built on delusion.

            You tell me if I overlooked something. That’s just off the top of my head.

            Oh yeah, the “income inequality” priority is probably the most delusional of all. And their approach to “global climate change” is also delusional.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The better question is, how could you find much similarity?”

            What does the Fabian Society http://www.fabians.org.uk/ have in common with Marxism?

          • Steve Bryant

            hiernonymous, you are similar to Marx in that you think you have more right to determine how to spend someone else’s money than the person who earned it does. Pretty simple, really. YOU are SMART and will help all of the “little people”. Isn’t that about it?

          • hiernonymous

            @Steve:

            If I understand your post correctly, you raise two issues:

            1. The idea of the government spending other people’s money is usually known as taxation. You appear to be suggesting that taxation is a symptom of Marxism, and that inferred support for taxation can be taken as evidence that one is a Marxist.

            2. You believe that I, personally, want to spend money to help those I consider my inferiors. You appear to be implying that arrogance and inferred support for taxation demonstrates that I, personally, am a Marxist.

            Before I go further with this, have I accurately summed up your argument? Did I leave anything out or misunderstand something?

          • Steve Bryant

            Yes, you have it all wrong. I’m not implying you are a Marxist. I am saying straight up that you are typical liberal and think everyone is your inferior, and that you think you have some moral right to take someone else’s earnings and spend it the way you think is best.
            Clear enough for you, comrade?

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes, you have it all wrong. I’m not implying you are a Marxist….Clear enough for you, comrade?”

            Ummm. Well, no, not really. I mean, apart from the mixed message on the Marxist front (unless ‘liberals’ have also taken to calling one another “Comrade?”), perhaps you could clear up a point or two.

            1. You’re convinced that I believe that I have a ‘moral right’ to take someone else’s earnings and spend it as I think best, and you’re specifically not talking about supporting the idea of taxation. So how did you reach this conclusion? What policy recommendation or other position did I take that could be accurately summed up in this way?

            2. Why do you assume I think that everyone is my inferior? And it might help if you were a bit more specific in what you mean by “inferior.” Do you think I mean that I believe others are all social inferiors – just as strong, smart, clever, and handsome as me, but they owe me deference or obedience due to a lower social status? Or do you mean that I believe others are less talented, strong, or intelligent? Or did you mean it in some other sense? And, again, how did you reach this conclusion?

          • Steve Bryant

            Is English your first language?

          • hiernonymous

            You’re dodging.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I also don’t think that most of what gets called “Marxist” on these boards is remotely Marxist.”

            And how would you identify a Marxist?

          • reader

            It’s ironic, but it’s just like Lenin used to say about “capitalists”, “give ‘em a rope and they will hang themselves.” Apparently, it works much better on the marxists. With all the superficial fluff, it’s the predictable modus operandi:

            - how do you know the I am a marxist (with a fake indignation)?
            - nobody understand marxism except for marxists
            - marxism did not work only because it was implemented incorrectly
            - none of that is logically contradictory, because of the “dialectic,” which only marxists understand properly.

            Mark Levin calls these people drones. I actually think that there’s a healthy level of schizophrenia involved.

          • hiernonymous

            As someone who champions Marx’s vision of Communism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And what do you call people who hope to do that but modify their plans based on present conditions?

            And what about people that have hopes for Marx’s vision but realize they must cloak their intentions?

            What do you call the people that may not understand the vision, but get caught up in the promises made by the deceptive leaders?

          • hiernonymous

            If they champion Marx’s vision, I call them Marxists.

            If they are Social Democrats, I don’t assume that they are Social Democrats because they secretly harbor visions of Marx’s worker’s paradise and are afraid to say so. I don’t assume that syndicalists actually want state socialism, but are afraid to say so.

            “What do you call the people that may not understand the vision, but get caught up in the promises made by the deceptive leaders?”

            Promises made by what deceptive leaders? You mean the leaders who are Communists but don’t realize it? The leaders who a secretly Communists but are practicing taqiyah? (Sorry, wait, that’s a whole different world of paranoia.)

            Here’s what I call someone who sees a Communist in everyone with an interest in social or economic reform: paranoid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If they are Social Democrats, I don’t assume that they are Social Democrats because they secretly harbor visions of Marx’s worker’s paradise and are afraid to say so. I don’t assume that syndicalists actually want state socialism, but are afraid to say so.”

            I don’t assume that either. I wait until I hear what they say.

          • hiernonymous

            Which takes us back full circle to the beginning of this conversation, in which I suggested that not everyone who gets called a “Marxist” on these boards is actually a Marxist.

            Waiting until you hear what they say is a good start, if you then proceed to draw the warranted conclusion and use the appropriate label.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Which takes us back full circle to the beginning of this conversation, in which I suggested that not everyone who gets called a “Marxist” on these boards is actually a Marxist.”

            I agree that there are very few Marxists according to your narrower use of the term. Nor am I alleging that your use of the term is wrong. I’m simply saying it’s not the only legitimate use of the term.

            “Waiting until you hear what they say is a good start, if you then proceed to draw the warranted conclusion and use the appropriate label.”

            Waiting for final judgment is always the best course. Waiting silently rather than trying to provoke a discussion is some times a losing strategy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Promises made by what deceptive leaders? You mean the leaders who are Communists but don’t realize it? The leaders who a secretly Communists but are practicing taqiyah? (Sorry, wait, that’s a whole different world of paranoia.)”

            Nancy Pelosi and others like her promise free lunch and magic economics. She’s kind of a caricature and while most are not quite that bad, you do know she holds a leadership role for the Demagogic Party, don’t you?

            I don’t know that she’s a communist. I doubt very much that she is. But she’s a Marxist because she’s fully invested in the “science” of Marx’s ideas. Even if she doesn’t understand the specific ancestry of those delusions.

            We might be able to come up with better labels, but communication is about exchanging ideas and the Marxist label is the best we have under the circumstances. Most critics understand precisely what is being said. She’s deluded about how the government “should be able” to deliver “added value” by magic formulas. She looks to the private sector for taxes and to the government for progressive leadership.

          • hiernonymous

            What policy of Pelosi’s, specifically, do you find “Marxist?” Don’t talk about ‘free lunches,’ unless Pelosi has proposed that we all get free lunches. What specific policy recommendations has she made that you see as evidence that she is a Marxist?

            “I don’t know that she’s a communist. I doubt very much that she is. But she’s a Marxist…”

            What distinction are you drawing between the two?

            “….and the Marxist label is the best we have under the circumstances. ”

            On the contrary, there are many much less inflammatory choices readily available. As just one example, “socialist” captures pretty much all Marxist thought and an even larger number of approaches that are not Marxist.

            “She’s deluded about how the government “should be able” to deliver
            “added value” by magic formulas. She looks to the private sector for
            taxes and to the government for progressive leadership.”

            But looking to the government for action is neither the centerpiece of Marxist thought, nor is it unique to Marxism. You’ve just described social democrats, Fascists, and the French revolutionaries.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What policy of Pelosi’s, specifically, do you find “Marxist?” Don’t talk about ‘free lunches,’ unless Pelosi has proposed that we all get free lunches. What specific policy recommendations has she made that you see as evidence that she is a Marxist?”

            Magical thinking: http://www.examiner.com/article/nancy-pelosi-claims-raising-minimum-wage-to-10-10-will-create-85-000-jobs

            Serious attempt to predict reality:
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/

            That’s not the only example but it’s the most recent and the easiest to expose as absurd. I only wish it was the only example. It works for this discussion though.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay. Your example of magical thinking is a rise in minimum wage. Past minimum wage hikes have not borne out the label “delusional” or “magical thinking.” There’s some disagreement over its exact effect, and the dispute centers on whether the benefit to the low-end workers offsets the presumed rise in unemployment. The Economic Policy Institute published a study that was the basis of Pelosi’s figure; it argued that the amount of money added to the economy by minimum wage hikes would be a net creator of jobs. Nothing risible there, and there’s certainly nothing inherently Marxist about a minimum wage hike or the argument offered in its favor. It’s interesting that in citing this, you chose an article that heaps scorn on Pelosi, not through sound reasoning by someone knowledgeable in the field, but by reporting a series of quips offered by members of the public.

            Not sure how the CBO report plays into this. Are you citing it as proof that Pelosi thinks magically, because its prediction differs from the EPI’s, or does it stand on its own as an example of Marxist thinking? Not clear on the intent.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Okay. Your example of magical thinking is a rise in minimum wage.”

            No, it’s specific arguments attached to the suggestion.

            “The Economic Policy Institute published a study that was the basis of Pelosi’s figure; it argued that the amount of money added to the economy by minimum wage hikes would be a net creator of jobs.”

            It’s magical thinking. Sure in theory some jobs would get added because in theory some people have more money to spend. Where did that money come from? Does that mean others have less to spend? No matter. Ignore that stuff.

            The best you could hope for is that no jobs would be lost. Even that is a bit delusional. But claiming that net jobs will be added? That’s bullshit. Anyone who accept that has swallowed the wrong pill.

            You’re not critical enough of these organizations and economists that put forth these suggestions. Yes, you can stretch out the projections and it seems rational because it seems comprehensive. But any objective accountant or economist will at the very least highlight the flaws and risks and not present it is just “smart planning” that creates jobs whereas those on the right object to it because it “erodes their power over the oppressed wage earners.”

            It’s bullshit deception of various degrees and flavors. Of course they have to keep mixing it up or more people will get wise to their scams. There are new Ponzi scams created quite frequently and a lot of them are presented and sold as policy suggestions by leftist politicians.

            If you want to raise minimum wages for some reason, by honest about it. Stop acting like there are magic recipes. Sure it’s common to “sell” something by presenting only its positive features. The government regulates that kind of thing and often calls it fraud when someone does that in the private sector. So why are politicians allowed to play with taxpayer funded projects using the same fraudulent sales techniques that are often outlawed in the private sector?

            I’m sure you’ve looked at loan contracts and real estate disclosure forms. Certainly few if any politicians follow the spirit of those regulations when playing with much bigger projects.

            They’re a bunch of frauds. But the constituents on the right generally police their leaders much better than the left and don’t fall for the Ponzi schemes. If they go along with them it’s because they’ve calculated that it will be a plus for them, not for the nation. And usually they will be exposed by their constituents.

            But this also harmonizes with my statement that both sides fall for these leftist delusions, but to various degrees and for different reasons.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Not sure how the CBO report plays into this. Are you citing it as proof that Pelosi thinks magically, because its prediction differs from the EPI’s, or does it stand on its own as an example of Marxist thinking? Not clear on the intent.”

            The CBO is held to more stringent standards. That’s why they differ. To show a plus in jobs, you have to make several assumptions that are not reliable.

            Another way these reports can deceive is by showing what can happen in the short run, due to “stimulus” without modeling the long term effects. They don’t accurately disclose the risks and probably long term effects.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t know that she’s a communist. I doubt very much that she is. But she’s a Marxist…”

            I already explained to you that taking a critical view of people that advocate magical thinking that have their ideological DNA traced back to the “science” or Marx can be referred to as “Marxist.”

            It’s certainly possible to develop more precision but it works for informal conversations. Think of it as an icebreaker statement in casual conversations. Most “Marxists” are imply dupes of the delusions that he created a supposedly rational framework for.

          • hiernonymous

            “Magical thinking” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a dismissive way of referring to something, but you’re not very precise on what that something is. If it’s simply the efficacy of government involvement or intervention in policy, you’d have a long row to hoe to show that to always be wrong, or to always to be Marxist.

            “Magical” seems to be a fair descriptor of how you distinguish a Marxist from a non-Marxist.

            “It’s certainly possible to develop more precision but it works for informal conversations”

            This is an informal conversation, yet your level of imprecision has me, dozens of posts in, with no clear idea of what criteria you’re really applying to define someone as a Marxist. It still seems so impossibly vague and broad as to capture a meaninglessly large segment of the political world.

            “Most “Marxists” are imply dupes of the delusions that he created a supposedly rational framework for.”

            “Dupe” is a pretty loaded term, and ascribes an almost mystical force to Marx and his followers. It’s particularly fraught when these people are dupes of something as vague as your Expanded Marxism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”Magical thinking” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a dismissive way of referring to something, but you’re not very precise on what that something is.”

            I gave you examples. Usually is comes from presenting incomplete theories as facts. Like taking a complex analysis of the effects of wage interventions and isolating the positive effects but ignoring the negative ones and the bottom line estimates. Or using theories that have been disproved.

            Or imagining that because in theory superconductors hold a lot of promise, we should be able to make solar energy viable for replacing a certain amount of our energy needs. Imagining that these things can be reliably predicted and then used in economics forecasting is magical thinking. It’s irrational wishful thinking.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This is an informal conversation, yet your level of imprecision has me, dozens of posts in, with no clear idea of what criteria you’re really applying to define someone as a Marxist. It still seems so impossibly vague and broad as to capture a meaninglessly large segment of the political world.”

            I gave you examples and rather than drilling down for more precision you jumped over elsewhere. I’m not in the end responsible for what you learn or accept.

            It’s a broad subject. I gave you loose parameters with a few specific examples. If you got nowhere at all, I’m not convinced that you want to understand.

            Then again it’s not clear to me what you’ve read to this point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “”Dupe” is a pretty loaded term, and ascribes an almost mystical force to Marx and his followers. It’s particularly fraught when these people are dupes of something as vague as your Expanded Marxism.”

            Mystical? You’re saying people are not deceived in to following ideas dogmatically? Isn’t that your entire explanation for religion? Is that what you mean by “mystical,” that people accept dogmas without ever challenging them objectively?

            Well OK. It is exactly like a religion except that there is no closed or official canon to refer to. So it’s even harder to follow.

          • hiernonymous

            “Isn’t that your entire explanation for religion?”

            You appear to be confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall trying to explain religion.

            By “mystical,” I meant “mysterious, without objective explanation.”

            I suppose that if you want to employ a religious motif, one could say that, in my experience, the devotees of the Church of Hayek generally accept their church’s dogma with no greater objectivity or understanding than those of the Church of Keynes or the Church of Marx. It’s understandable that the lay elders of the Austrian School heap scorn on the Marxists as wild-eyed cultists, but that’s no reason to see in every devout Keynesian a secret disciple of the Engelic Choir.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I suppose that if you want to employ a religious motif, one could say that, in my experience, the devotees of the Church of Hayek generally accept their church’s dogma with no greater objectivity or understanding than those of the Church of Keynes or the Church of Marx.”

            I’m exhorting you to gain more experience before you think there are not more delusional thinkers among some of those factions than the others. And more importantly you can solve some of these “mysteries” by rooting out and identifying specific flaws that are today considered disproved theories but still used by certain factions.

            I can explain the reality and the theories behind the “magic” part pretty well. It actually comes from a lack of understanding about what motivates people to work and succeed. Generally speaking the larger the group you propose to lead, the more difficulty you will have in “stimulating” productivity or leading to success. Productivity is always going to be higher when there is flexibility in the planning and accountability is pushed down as low as possible (decentralized). Moral hazard is also an issue because you want the planners to have a maximum stake in the success of their plans.

            However, you can in some instances in the short term from the lofty heights of the centralized offices stimulate good feelings about the future that will make a difference in the moment. But that’s a rare thing to pull off successfully. It’s not something you can count on. You can’t quantify it until after it’s happened.

            You’re better off putting your faith in the stakeholders and simply empowering and rewarding the people that are capable of doing the work that must get done.

            Interventions can be justified but only rarely. Interventions motivated by partisan politics almost always require magical thinking of the kind you find in Ponzi schemes.

            That only leave the “social justice” equations out of it and those arguments should be separate. The problems come from trying to employ policies that lead both to maximum GDP and whatever some idiot or idiots think will be “socially just.” Presenting plans that do both at the same time pretty much will always require magical thinking or just plain old deception.

          • hiernonymous

            I believe I understand you to be a True Believer. I don’t really mean that as cynically as it sounds; you have a heartfelt belief about how economics and human relationships work. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

            What I have trouble with is what amounts to a grand ad hominem by association, in which you associate an inordinately large and diverse number of economic and political positions under a label calculated to discredit them before any real discussion can begin.

            I don’t want to belabor our points. You believe that you have offered examples; what I am reading is still far too vague, broad, and in the language of the ideologue. You identify Marxists positions and policies by the fact that they’re rooted in “delusion.” That’s a value judgment, not – dare I say it – an objective fact. You can’t look at a policy proposal and check it for “delusional” or not.

            You apparently have honest intention when you claim that you can detect Marxists by their reliance on “magic” economics; but what you’re really saying is that those economics don’t agree with the economics you’ve been taught to respect, and that’s tautological. As simply one example, there are sound arguments to be made for increased deficit spending during a depression; Hayek and the Austrian School, on the other hand, oppose that vigorously. You correctly note that different economists focus on different timeframes, but, contrary to your viewpoint, that doesn’t imply that one approach is more honest, rigorous, or correct than that other. (“In the long run, we’re all dead,” don’t you recall?) The Keynes prescription reeks of all of the thinks you seem to associate with Marxism: it’s interventionist, it relies on governmental (and central bank) action – and it has worked. That’s the kicker: it has stood up to the acid test of the real world. This suggests that your view of what is magic and what is not, what is delusional and what is not, and what is Marxist and what is not, is both oversimplified, and relies too heavily on your assumption that your own preferred economic school represents some objective reality; that the others are valid only to the extent that they approach yours.

            “I’m exhorting you to gain more experience before you think there are not
            more delusional thinkers among some of those factions than the others.”

            One of the reasons that I spend as much time on these boards as I do is to get a sense of the quality of thought behind the various political and policy positions that people take. It’s not an encouraging activity. And, no, I can’t say that conservatives – politically or economically – are any better than others at being able to articulate what they believe and why. And in the world of politics, I’ll see your Nancy Pelosi and raise you Allen West. I don’t really spend an awful lot of time tracking Pelosi; she seems to be a very savvy politician, and very impressed with – and committed to retaining – her own power. She rubbed me the wrong way when she objected to a senior officer calling her “ma’am” – she’s plainly arrogant. But I don’t get the impression that she’s a Marxist. To be fair, she’s a slippery enough politician that I can’t be sure what she believes. West, on the other hand, is a populist buffoon. Sadly, a politician can be dim and still be quite dangerous. I mention him, because if you exhort me to look more closely at the different economic schools, I’ll return the favor and ask you to consider the sort of individual who is attracted to West. There’s no Marxism there, but there is a great deal of nationalist demagoguery, and that’s an ugly side of the right wing that deserves attention – not as “leftist” ideas misused by the right, but something a bit sinister on its own.

            On a final note, I consider myself too experienced to put my faith in any single ‘ism.’ Laissez faire capitalism is efficient; it’s good at motivating people to solve technical and economic problems; it’s the most efficient way we’ve yet come up with for allocating scarce resources. Left unchecked, it’s also brutal and leads to unacceptable abuses. Socialism has its strong points; it helps us address issues that don’t have immediate economic impact, yet are important. It’s a good way of organizing resources for situations that require collective action. Warfighting is one such; I spent most of my life in uniform, and the Army is about as socialist an environment as you could ask for. Socialism is also inefficient, and can be as abusive as capitalism. And so on. I’m probably pretty typical in that I think a core of capitalism, with a very healthy dose of interventionist and regulatory government, is as good as we can manage. One reason I object to fellows like you trying to paint all of that “social justice” side of the equation as “Marxist” is that the ‘left,’ as you put it, plays an indispensable role in keeping our country strong and liveable. Similarly, when it comes to the whole “top down” and “bottom up” issue, they each have their place. “Bottom up” is generally more efficient; on the other hand, man faces extraordinary challenges on occasion, and when that happens, a directive approach can be necessary to overcome our natural inertia. I personally believe that the twin issues of the eventual depletion of fossil fuels and the environment will require such a response, but that’s another conversation for another time.

            I’m going to sign off with that; I’ve enjoyed chatting with you, and while there’s a considerable number of points we disagree about, you do it civilly and articulately. I’ll read your response with interest, but unless you introduce something just absolutely novel and compelling, I think this will be my last on this conversation. Regards.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “On the contrary, there are many much less inflammatory choices readily available. As just one example, “socialist” captures pretty much all Marxist thought and an even larger number of approaches that are not Marxist.”

            It depends on the audience. Socialist is more precise but many people are unclear what that means. Some think it just means that a person has warm and fuzzy ideas about helping others in society. Many communist and socialist regimes spent a lot of resources on propaganda.

            You’re hyper critical of theology based religions but completely gullible about the atheistic belief systems.

          • hiernonymous

            “You’re hyper critical of theology based religions but completely gullible about the atheistic belief systems.”

            Eh? If you went around calling everyone who wasn’t Christian a Muslim, I’d be just as skeptical.

            Not sure how you interpret a minimal degree of precision in discussing political ideologies as gullible, but whatever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, it’s like calling someone Abrahamic and they get offended because they’re reformed something or the other and even though it’s literally correct it’s not precise enough for the respect they demand that you have for their beliefs.

            “Not sure how you interpret a minimal degree of precision in discussing political ideologies as gullible, but whatever.”

            It’s not your demand for precision that makes you gullible. Although there might be some relationship that isn’t what I was getting at.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But looking to the government for action is neither the centerpiece of Marxist thought, nor is it unique to Marxism. ”

            It is implicit that these changes have to come by establishing new paradigms for sovereignty. Therefore these actions must occur through or around the established sovereigns.

          • hiernonymous

            If it’s not unique to Marxism, it’s useless as a shibboleth for Marxism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s your straw man. I didn’t say that demanding government action is in itself Marxist. I only said that Marx expected it to happen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ve just described social democrats, Fascists, and the French revolutionaries.”

            Social democrats and Fascists are Marxists in the sense that I’ve described. They deviate from his articulated visions but their ideas are rooted in his.

            The French revolutionaries didn’t have any well-formed ideas about how to reconstruct the economy. Maybe they were deluded but not in the same way that Marx later articulated.

          • hiernonymous

            To categorize Fascists as Marxists is to render both terms meaningless, and the history of the 20th Century incomprehensible.

            That’s to jump down Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism rabbit hole; I’ve got better uses of my time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To categorize Fascists as Marxists is to render both terms meaningless, and the history of the 20th Century incomprehensible.”

            I’m not completely conflating the terms. I’m pointing out what they have in common.

            Would you deny that Fascism was a particular variant of socialism?

            None of these statements are about obscuring history. It’s about understanding the rhetoric used in common conversations as a starting point for then building on a conversation that illuminates the facts in a useful way.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Here’s what I call someone who sees a Communist in everyone with an interest in social or economic reform: paranoid.”

            You have the freedom to do that. You miss the opportunity to understand their concerns if you do.

          • hiernonymous

            Once you’ve declared that you’ve decided that all to your left are ‘Marxist,’ there’s really not a lot left to understand, is there?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s ridiculous. I hope you’re joking.

          • hiernonymous

            If I indicated that everyone to my political right was a N a z i, would you infer that I was thinking rationally and that my position merited a great deal of “understanding?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, because I understand that while you’re not equating the right’s agenda with all of the specific programs employed by the Nawzis that you are drawing on fallacious parallels. It’s not that I object to generalizations like that in general but that I think the arguments in the end are false.

            Even the most jingoistic Americans don’t approach the race-based nationalism of the Nawzis. I mean maybe you can find some crazy guy somewhere, but he would never get elected and people barely tolerate the rhetoric when they show up. A lot of times they will get shouted down from the right. And nationalism is really the only connection between American conservatives on the right and the NS of Germany from that notorious era.

            And you don’t ever see leftists shouting down magical thinkers because these delusions are fundamental to their platforms.

            Calling someone a Nawzi wouldn’t end the conversation if you were prepared to back it up.

          • Drakken

            The left and right are to far apart for the twain to meet, one way or another this doesn’t well.

          • hiernonymous

            “The left and right are to far apart for the twain to meet”

            In the United States? There’s about as much substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats as there is between the Colts and Patriots, and there’s probably about as much serious thought that goes into deciding which party most Americans root for as there is in which football team they follow.

            “…one way or another this doesn’t well.”

            Well, true, there’s going to be many a snarky comment posted on the internet before this is over.

          • Drakken

            Ok I’ll put it another way, our current paradigm of our political establishment is unsustainable. When our economy crashes, what we end up with will be a crap shoot. Better?

          • uptownsteve

            The economy crashed under Bush. Obama has presided over a steady recovery. You make no sense.

          • Drakken

            More people are unemployed , underemployed and fell off the rolls under your messiah Obummer than on Bush’s worst day, your just to ignorant and blind to see it. That is ok, when your democratic hero’s get amnesty passed, you blacks will really love it then, but of course you will blame that on repubs as well and continue to vote for your own demise by keeping on the democratic plantation, good luck with that, your going to need it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The economy crashed under the weight of failed socialist banking policies put in place before Bush was elected.

            “Obama has presided over a steady recovery.”

            Only if you like fake analysis. Which I don’t doubt.

          • hiernonymous

            It sounds more like thought, yes. But what do you think is unsustainable?

          • Drakken

            Our current political reality, the more repubs try to move to the middle the more they are democrats, and the democrats keeping moving the goal posts further left, there is no longer room for compromising.

          • hiernonymous

            I’d agree that there appears to be less room for compromise, though you left out one of the most remarkable dynamics – the civil war of sorts in the Republican Party between the Tea Party and the moderates. But okay, there’s certainly a confrontational feel to politics these days.

          • Drakken

            The Tea Party is scarring the daylights out of the firmly entrenched republican establishment of business as usual. Who is going to win that battle at this point is a crap shoot, but if the public ever comes out of its self induced stupor, it could very well go to the Tea Party. If I were you, I would start offshoring your assets, times are about to get a little tough.

          • hiernonymous

            Meh. I’m retired military. My child’s college is eating all of my assets. On the bright side, if they get as tough as you imply, I’ll probably be called back to active duty. Every cloud has a silver lining…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because key decision-makers don’t understand the fundamentals of economics and especially productivity. They tend to focus more on theories (most unproved theories) and fantasies than fundamentals. In short, the country is ruled by demagogues looking for magic recipes inspired by Marx’s delusions.

            Foreign policy is another matter, but there could theoretically be a FP awakening on the left. I doubt it though.

            But as far as economics, once those ridiculous leftist theories go away they’ll have to reinvent themselves as progressive conservatives. When they truly understand what drives progress.

          • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

            “They tend to focus more on theories (most unproved theories)”

            Or, worse yet, disproved theories…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yes indeed.

          • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

            “Yes indeed.”

            In earlier and better times we used to refer to them as “lunatics”, “village idiots” and the like. Now they are usually called “politicians”, “professors”, “experts”, “journalists”, “royalty”…

          • hiernonymous

            “In short, the country is ruled by demagogues looking for magic recipes inspired by Marx’s delusions.”

            Well, I’d agree with the first part of your statement. Perhaps some are looking for magic recipes inspired by Marx. Others seek other types of magic recipes. Witness the misuse and misunderstanding of the Laffer Curve, and trickle-down theory. Too true, there’s no shortage of politicians who don’t display keen economic understanding, but they’re hardly all drinking their delusions from the same mug.

            “…they’ll have to reinvent themselves as progressive conservatives.”

            You mean like Teddy Roosevelt?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Others seek other types of magic recipes. Witness the misuse and misunderstanding of the Laffer Curve, and trickle-down theory. Too true, there’s no shortage of politicians who don’t display keen economic understanding, but they’re hardly all drinking their delusions from the same mug.”

            Marx is the one that came up with these “revelations” about capital and his definitions for justice. All of these bizarre manipulation schemes are driven by this idea that top down planning can deliver what the free market can’t.

            Maybe he’s not the only one that came up with this scheme, but he’s the one that came up with the framework for justifying it to the masses as well as to some elites and experts.

            “You mean like Teddy Roosevelt?”

            The world has changed quite a bit since then but maybe so. I’m not sure we can look to history for an ideal role model.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In the United States? There’s about as much substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats as there is between the Colts and Patriots, and there’s probably about as much serious thought that goes into deciding which party most Americans root for as there is in which football team they follow.”

            That’s not really true, but what is true is that the both parties lean left of center. He said left and right, not RP and DP. The RP is the home of conservatives but they sure don’t dominate the place by any stretch.

            The DP is the home of the socialists, communists and dupes. There are no conservative DP members that I’m aware of today.

          • hiernonymous

            That both parties are ‘left of center’ is a unique perspective of the hard American right. Most Europeans consider both of our parties distinctly right-of-center.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That both parties are ‘left of center’ is a unique perspective of the hard American right. Most Europeans consider both of our parties distinctly right-of-center.”

            I don’t expect party elites in Europe to be concerned about American conservatism. I understand the European biases very well. I’m not moved at all by their views of American politics.

            We have to be sensitive about directly harming them of course, but I don’t find much use for their insights. Europeans are by nature more leftists because of their history of theocratic and royal rule.

            And even if Europeans feel capable of emulating American successes (and in many ways they are) they have significant other legacies to deal with that we do not.

            Their views of our politics are not very reliable. The ones that do understand usually move here and join the conservative movement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s making a value judgment. Almost everyone considers themselves to be patriotic. Patriotic to what?

            It might be offensive to hear that someone questions your patriotism but it might help you to make sure you understand clearly what the accusation is.

            Obviously he feels that some people don’t meet his standards for patriotism as American citizens. I know precisely how he feels.

          • hiernonymous

            “I know precisely how he feels.”

            Well, good then. Instead of simply offering the banality “everyone considers themselves to be patriotic,” perhaps you’ll explain the definition of patriotism that allows one to assert that patriotism is unique to the conservative right?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            People in America were generally raised to be patriotic to the nation’s constitution as a way of preserving the “fatherland.”

            On the left, many parents teach their children to be patriotic to leftist ideals. They see that as patriotism too, but when you are patriotic to your homeland and a different vision than traditional American patriotism to the constitution, that will lead to some confusion.

            I know a lot of people that sincerely feel patriotic, but they’re not especially concerned about our constitution and even see it as flawed rather than as a framework for justice unlike any other.

            They are just different definitions. Context matters and we need understand each other more clearly before we get offended if we want to build consensus on how to proceed together.

          • hiernonymous

            Patriotism is about loving and advancing the interests of the country.

            When you convince yourself that your own political viewpoint is the only possible expression of that love, you’ve undermined the essential underpinning of our democratic republic.

            To suppose that you’ve a monopoly of understanding on what would be good for the country would be remarkable, considering that even our great patriotic forebears could not reach such universal agreement. The early years of the republic were marked by profound disagreement on just such matters as mark today’s disputes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When you convince yourself that your own political viewpoint is the only possible expression of that love, you’ve undermined the essential underpinning of our democratic republic.”

            That’s an extreme interpretation and not accurate. I’m saying that patriots that believe in America and don’t have an overly cynical view of it’s power are aware that there are many people who consider themselves patriots but at the same time fundamentally disagree with our power as being “good.”

            They view patriotism that advocates the shrinking of American power as more or less like loving someone that you wish at the same time to become ill.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “To suppose that you’ve a monopoly of understanding on what would be good for the country would be remarkable, considering that even our great patriotic forebears could not reach such universal agreement. The early years of the republic were marked by profound disagreement on just such matters as mark today’s disputes.”

            I wouldn’t say that I have a monopoly. But I do focus on issues where I find a hope of making a significant difference when I can point out to people that their ideas are rooted in fallacies.

            I have lots of differences from others but why would I argue over trivial matters when I don’t have time to argue with everyone. I focus on those that are clearly the most dangerous. I accept diversity and calling out people that I see as dangerous is not at all evidence that I’m strict about what I expect people to believe. I expect them not to promote clear fallacies.

            And don’t call it patriotism when you or someone promotes magical ideas about the economy that end up hurting everyone but the internationalist and or socialist cause. I mean you’re free to do that but I see that as dangerous and I will challenge those ideas.

            And try to remember that it’s usually not personal. By questioning someone’s patriotism you’re asking them to articulate a defense. What does patriotism mean to you?

            We should all have thicker skin.

          • hiernonymous

            “And don’t call it patriotism when you or someone promotes magical ideas
            about the economy that end up hurting everyone but the internationalist
            and or socialist cause.”

            Some of those “majical ideas” include workplace safety, child labor laws, minimum wage, and other approaches that created a strong middle class in this country and propelled it to primacy in the world. Kind of hard to argue that promoting those reforms were “unpatriotic.”

            “What does patriotism mean to you?”

            I’ve already explained that on several occasions over the past day or two.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Some of those “majical ideas” include workplace safety, child labor laws, minimum wage, and other approaches that created a strong middle class in this country and propelled it to primacy in the world. Kind of hard to argue that promoting those reforms were “unpatriotic.”"

            I never said that every leftist cause was about magical thinking. And I was pretty clear that I don’t consider that the case. What I said was that the intractable controversies that the left hangs on to are the result of magical thinking. If the left champions some cause, it doesn’t mean the right is vehemently opposed. It just means they were not the champions. So if you can make a rational case that regulating worker safety is a plus for everyone, even if it costs some “capitalists” some profits along the way, that is usually going to win the day in America as our laws clearly show.

            But what is left over? That is why I mentioned the 3 day work week. If you run out of causes, it’s not often likely that people just go home and take up gardening. Like the race warriors that stood by Martin Luther King, perhaps they did some important work along the way, but are they going to recognize when their work becomes counter productive? What if progress is actually accomplished and that means your job goes away? Is it natural to be able to see that clearly?

            Base on my observations I don’t see that it is. If X progress is acceptable or even clearly a good thing, it’s just as possible that X + Y is bad as it is that it is better. You have to make the case each time you want change. You can’t just say that my faction was right about A so we’ll always be right when we ask for something. Especially when you have to reach back several generations to do it.

            Progress is not linear.

          • A Z

            You might like this. You definitely on the same place when it comes to the Civil War and the War on Drugs.

            He only has about 44 comments.

            Stephen Newton

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/03/navy-pilot-famously-held-captive-by-chinese-running-for-senate/#comment-1232910911

          • hiernonymous

            Thanks. Seemed to be some pretty thoughtful comments.

          • truebearing

            According to who? Leftist liars? Deluded Progressives? Self-appointed arbiters of correctness?
            We do know that the three categories previously mentioned are antonymous to American Patriot.

          • hiernonymous

            “We do know that the three categories previously mentioned are antonymous to American Patriot.”

            You use the term “know” mighty loosely, pilgrim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You use the term pilgrim mighty loosely.

          • Steeloak

            Not necessarily, but generally yes.

          • tagalog

            They may not be synonymous but there’s a correlation.

          • hiernonymous

            You think so? What’s the correlation?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Sounds like two overlapping groups. Centrists can be patriotic too.

          • reader

            If I don’t have life, you’re dead and rotten, steevo. And, I’m sure they sang the Communist International in your funeral.

          • laura r

            what life do you have except this forum? where can we read more of steveareeno? where else do you blog? you have a following.

          • laura r

            steven, are you a plant? do you work for david horowitz? i mean like are you here to liven things up? just asking…….you play the part well.

          • Omar

            Is shouting your normal voice?

          • truebearing

            That doesn’t make it true. Look how you turned out. You’ll start babbling about racism on threads that have nothing to do with race. You’re so obsessed with race that you’ll start a fight if someone says he doesn’t like the Cleveland Browns. you’re nuts.

            Keep this up and you’ll burn out your adrenals. Your brain is already turning to cooked protein.

          • Drakken

            Can’t wait until you bring some, you and others of your ilk are about find out the real hard way, and you will be getting it hard, real hard.

          • uptownsteve

            More veiled threats of race war, huh Drakken? You gonna go up against the armed forces? With a black Commander in Chief?

          • Drakken

            When your messiah Obummer pushes the economy over the cliff, the white tax slave isn’t going to be able to sustain the welfare state any longer, hence the black inner cities will burn because Uncle Sugar cannot provide any longer, then you get Detroit on steroids. Not threatening, only telling you how it will play out.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            uptownbeeathc,

            “race war”? You’re quoting sinister farraklan?

          • Omar

            You mean a mixed-race Commander-in-Chief.

          • tagalog

            Tell that to the Knockout Game people.

          • Steve Bryant

            You must be an English major from Yale then, un.

          • Yulia Demkin

            Thank you Steve for illustrating my observation.

          • uptownsteve

            Please keep posting Yulia. I always yawn when I’m interested.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Take a nap.

          • truebearing

            Ooooh! Seventh grade repartee! I didn’t know you made it that far.

          • laura r

            stevie, you mean “uptown”, like harlem? like way above 125th? like superfly?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Another bathroom mirror moment from uptownbeeatch.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You could avoid the “crap”. You could go back to HuffPo, and stay there …

            (folks, wait for the reaction from the following statement)

            … where folks like you belong.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Uptown Steve sure sounds more like Downtown Steve

          • Omar

            Good one, Mr. Greenfield. That was funny.

          • Steeloak

            Maybe we should call him “Woodshed Steve” because the commenters here have taken him there so many times.

  • UCSPanther

    The elites’ disconnect with the average person has always long been the fertile soil from which revolutions sprout.

  • MarilynA

    Our government has been subsidizing inflation since back in the 1960s when LBJ’s “pointy headed liberal advisers” came up with Cost of Living increases in all government programs as a means to “inflate our way out of the National debt.” By devaluing our money, he and his advisors had this theory that if the debt was devalued by inflation, it could be paid off in cheaper dollars. However, once they discovered the political value of giving more and bigger handouts, salaries, and pay checks, they just kept on running up the debt until we have reached the point where we are today. If interest rates were not being kept artificially low, the interest on today’s national debt would eat up all our government’s annual revenue, and yet, Congress is allowing this self esteem enhanced, jive talking con man to add over $1 trillion to that national debt every year.
    I urge everyone to research what happened during the first Reconstruction after the Civil War. What happened to the Southern states when ignorant and unqualified former slaves were put in charge, and govt. advisers referred to as Carpetbaggers, ran up billions of dollars in bonded debt for projects that were never built and nobody knows where the money went, to todays Second Reconstruction in which ignorant and unqualified people are elected and appointed to offices they are unqualified to run, and today’s equivalent of carpet baggers, the lobbyists and community activists, are lining their pockets with billions of taxpayer’s money by promoting projects that accomplish little or nothing, and nobody really knows where the money is going. History is repeating itself. It took the South over 100 years to pay off it’s debts. How long will it take our children, our grand children and their children to pay off the debt run up by today’s charletons and crooks?

    • uptownsteve

      Yeah, the Southern economy was churning right along during slavery, right? Didn’t have to pay the black workers and white was right. Most of the black officeholders during Reconstruction were congressmen and state representatives. But thanks for your KKK rant. You people make my case every time.

      • tagalog

        On the economics of slavery, please allow me to refer you to Eugene Genovese’s Roll, Jordan, Roll, and Time On the Cross by Fogel and Engerman. Both books deal extensively with the alleged profits accruing to slaveholders from the slavery institution. Their respective conclusions: although the economics made slavery financially worthwhile, it was BARELY worthwhile. The costs involved in housing and feeding slaves, providing medical care to keep the slaves healthy enough to work, together with the obligation (only evaded by murder) to support the elderly slaves who could no longer work, and the children who were not yet ready to work were higher than is commonly understood.

        Those historians conclude that the westward expansion of the United States spelled doom for the institution of slavery and that was why the fight over putative states being able to choose to be slave states or free states was so important to Southern politicians.

        Of course, all three of those historians are white. Maybe Louis Gates has something different to say.

        • uptownsteve

          I don’t think even you are stupid enough to believe slaves had health care. The costs of wooden shacks and burlap bags to sleep on? C’mon man. Peddle this bullshit someplace else.

          • tagalog

            Catholic religious philosophy distinguishes ordinary ignorance, which can be overcome, from invincible ignorance, which cannot.

            I have referred you to the scholarly works that would help enlighten you. Your apparent willingness to ignore them clarifies things considerably when it comes to your arguments here.

            When slaves sold for $1,000 or more (about $25,000 to $50,000 in today’s dollars) in the antebellum years, it was in the slaveowner’s best interest to see to it that the slave was kept healthy in order that the low profit margin from slave labor could be optimized. So yes, there WAS health care for slaves (that “invisible hand” just keeps on popping up, no matter how hard some folks want to deny its existence, doesn’t it?).

            They also didn’t murder the slaves when they got too old to work; they treated them the way they would treat their valued horses or other possessions, to wit: put them out to pasture, figuratively speaking. One reason: the elderly slaves could still father children at a time when the U.S. prohibited the international slave trade after 1808.

            Slavery wasn’t any picnic, but slaveowners weren’t eager to destroy valuable investments through hostility or neglect. But I guess expecting you to see that would be too optimistic of me.

          • uptownsteve

            Scholarly works my butt. “Time on the Cross” was widely panned by historians as “severely flawed and possibly not even worth further attention by serious scholars”. But racist dummies lap it up.

          • tagalog

            I doubt the truth of your assertion about Time On the Cross. Fogel and Engerman inspired an entire new discipline with that book among historians, “cliometrics,” aka “economic history.” It certainly was NOT banned. Historians are not in the habit of banning books, as a rule, since they lack that power.

            The book was not discredited, either. It WAS criticized, as one would expect of any book that challenges the conventional wisdom.

          • uptownsteve
          • tagalog

            The book was reissued on the twelfth anniversary of its first publication with new data and was widely discussed among historians.

            It hasn’t been out of publication since it was first published.

            Clown.

            See that Wikipedia article you cite.

            Aside from the Pagliacci-like tone of your claims, you also lack in the area of reading comprehension.

          • Steve Bryant

            uptight, you wouldn’t be able to contribute anything to this forum if you couldn’t call someone a name. I guess that makes you the aforementioned “serious scholar”, eh?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Whatever the costs, you’re making assumptions about profits. Profit is the difference between income and costs. Do all of the math before you attack someone else’s.

        • James Zander

          yeah, barely financially profitable…lol

          so that is why plantation owners bought them.
          so that is why they kept them by force
          so that is why all those plantation owners

          ——ALSO LIVED IN WOOD SHACKS…

          • tagalog

            Well, the wood shacks and the burlap beds of course made the profits very high. Obviously you’re right and Genovese, Fogel and Engermann are wrong on that point, even though they actually did research and you’re operating from what some 7th grade teacher told your class.

      • MarilynA

        Those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it. Whether you want to admit it or not, this country is going thru a Second Reconstruction which began shortly after WWII when industry started deserting the unionized rust belt north and relocating to the right to work states in the South. This Second Reconstruction is patterned after the first , except this time powerful Southern politicians managed to make it apply nationwide. Just as slavery was used to create animosity toward the South prior to the civil War ( and force Southerners to pay a 50% tariff on all imported good because the Northern industrialists had raised their prices so high they were no longer competitive with European goods)the plight of the black man was once again used to drum up animosity toward the South. Today the entire country has been brought down to the level of the defeated South. White men have been disenfranchised, (about the only way a white man can get a job today is to make one for himself or know someone who will hire him.) we have the affirmative actioned, less than most qualified people in charge of our industries and government agencies, with lobbyists and community activists writing legislation and telling them what to do, money is squandered on useless and nonproductive projects and most of it is unaccounted for. Our national debt is now in the trillions, not the billions that the South was left with. It took the south 100 years to pay off it’s debt. How long is it going to take for this country to pay off it’s debt and what have we got to show for it? Call me KKK or whatever you want, but I see what has happened to our once great country as what it is, a Second Reconstruction. .FYI I am not from the south Your problem is that you don’t have the intelligence to understand what is really going on. You think those $100 welfare checks your people are getting are for their benefit. Not so.
        They are an excuse for the ruling party to create those $100,000 per year jobs overseeing those hand outs for their friends and big donors.

        • uptownsteve

          Oh my. A real live white supremacist.

          • Drakken

            Obviously your reading comprehension skills needs a lot of work, believe it or not, there isn’t a KKK member behind every bush you libtarded dolt.

          • uptownsteve

            You and KKK Marilyn can’t be serious. If a white man can’t get a job why is the black unemployment rate consistently twice the rate of whites? But she did make one cogent point. White guys often get jobs not because they are the most qualified but because they know somebody who’ll hire them.

          • reader

            What you said is quite racist and self-hating steevo. It sounds like blacks can’t get hired by anybody who knows them.

          • tagalog

            Maybe, as the TV commentators at times point out in film clips, jobs that black people could fill go unfilled because too many black people resist working for “chump change” and claim to prefer alternative income-producing activities.

          • uptownsteve

            Hmmmm. So when righties complained about the unemployment rate under Obama, it was because people resisted working for “chump change”? Or are you just stigmatizing blacks? I pick door number 2.

          • tagalog

            I didn’t say either thing. I just asked a question. If you’re too sensitive to stand that particular gaff, maybe you should be looking to yourself for an answer or two.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But she did make one cogent point. White guys often get jobs not because they are the most qualified but because they know somebody who’ll hire them.”

            That’s not the only conclusion one can draw from the statistics. That’s the “Critical Race Theory” conclusion.

      • iluvisrael

        watch the movie ‘Lincoln’ – maybe you want to boycott it since it was directed by a Jew – you’d see how it was the democratic party that was against abolishing slavery you dimwitted pest

      • laura r

        back to the plantation again? cant get it out of your mind. miss it? want it? whats up w/the OCD?

        • tagalog

          Blacks were enslaved from the first decade or two of the 17th Century in America until 1865, approximately 250 years, 10 generations or more. They were kept from getting educations during that time and for a time after the end of slavery. When they were freed in 1865, they were set at liberty in the same sense that an unmoored ship, floating at the whim of the currents, is at liberty.

          So they had a right to be angry. Not being black, nor privy to the traditions of black American life, I can’t say for sure, but I bet that there has been a significant undertone among some black people for the last 6 or 7 generations that “they enslaved us, then they kept us in ignorance, then they set us adrift. Now let them sustain us – after all, that’s what they agreed to in their treaties with the Indians, and the Indians fought them and killed them.” But there comes a time eventually when a group must grow beyond demanding to be put on a permanent dole. I don’t know when that might be, but I think now would be a good time.

          The Old Testament tells us that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons for 7 generations. That seems like enough time to me.

          • Steve Bryant

            Maybe white America (as if there were such an entity) could make amends by ensuring that all black American citizens are on par financially with their African kin folk. After all, they would have logically been “free” to pursue financial happiness in their native home over all of these years, eh.

          • tagalog

            Ouch! I wouldn’t vote for that. I want everybody to be reasonably well-off, not making $300 a year.

            You know what I WOULD vote for? Reparations. Reparations are just a shuck and jive act for black grievance-mongers, but if it could be guaranteed that once blacks got paid their ransom money, they’d NEVER mention slavery and the hard times they had before the Civil Rights Movement again, and we could get rid of disparate impact as a legal theory for discrimination, I’d agree to paying that ransom. Pay ‘em off, shut ‘em up, and move on. No more wallowing in the history of their ancestors’ mistreatment.

          • Steve Bryant

            tagalog, my comments were tongue in cheek. But I agree with reparations…just how much are they going to owe?

      • George Clark

        Too bad Uncle Obama wasn’t around during slave times. He could have waved his magic wand and required slave owners to start paying their slaves a minimum wage. Of course, the slave owners would then have had to cut food rations, clothing allotments, and housing allotments. Obama could then have waved his magic wand again, and required a hike in the minimum wage. Then, the slave owners, not being able to afford to keep slaves anymore, would give them their freedom. Then, Obama could smile as all of the former slaves were welcomed to the wonderful world of sharecropping.

    • http://www.nrk.no/ Birger Skruddusvingen

      “How long will it take our children, our grand children and their children to pay off the debt run up by today’s charletons and crooks?”

      I think it’s spelt “charlatans”. But perhaps you sought to include a reference to Charleston…

  • Omar

    How uptownsteve smears his opponents:
    1. Calls them racists and bigots for opposing President Obama’s politics
    2. Supports Islamist Nazis over Israeli Jews in the Middle East, smearing the latter with false claims like “apartheid”.
    3. Smears conservative minorities as “sell-outs” and “race-traitors”
    4. Smears conservatives with claims that are totally false
    5. Incorrectly calls certain socialists “right-wing” in order to distance himself from them.
    6. Tells outrageous lies about politics in general.

    • uptownsteve

      I think Omar is starting to have dreams about me at night. LMAO!!!!!

      • Omar

        Wrong. I just listed what you always do in Front Page Magazine. I expose your lies and propaganda.

        • uptownsteve

          Nah, you just did what you righties are notorious for. Hysterically attacking and smearing people who dare to stand up to your lies and hate.

          • Omar

            You are the one who is consumed with lies and hate, you lunatic. You simply smear anyone who disagrees with you and then project because that is the only argument that you have.

          • Joseph

            Omar, you make these claims but I see a grand total of 0 evidence.

            You seem to be the one smearing lies here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How long have you been following the conversation?

          • Drakken

            Son, your so full of sh*t your eyes are floating. Now don’t forget to shout RACIST!

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You’ve got to admit that you would be easy to hate, right? And before you say it, remember that I’m as white as your president …

          • ebonystone

            A fine example of irony.

          • iluvisrael

            still down on your knees for the ghetto rat that occupies the White House?

          • tickletik

            He’s a gay coke snorting nancy boy from Hawaii, but I gave you an up vote anyway

          • laura r

            stevie you’re a characture.

  • guest

    Raise the price, and people buy less.
    Wages are the price of labor for a business.
    Raise wages and jobs will be fewer.

    This is as far as you have to go,
    except for the whining, imbecile, leftists.

    They deny. They lie.
    They do anything for power.

    They’re scum.

  • SoCalMike

    Daniel Greenfield perfectly encapsulates the thinking, life experience and mindset of the totally out of touch central planning types who demand the power to force people how to live yet have never done a real day of work in their lives.
    The Faculty Lounge bimbos are running the show and destroying the economic fabric of our society.
    The commenters on here who revile Greenfield are for the most part mentally conformed religious zealots conditioned by mass media to worship the state, the bureaucracy and the Holy Environment, Amen.

  • Ace Boogie

    A most excellent article…

  • tickletik

    “and a certainty that the people on Aisle 9 whose lives they have smashed up ought to be grateful to them”

    That is until the glorious Day of The Rope.

    I hope no one minds my theft from the turner diaries

  • ranchdancer

    great article…concluding the truth

  • Joseph

    Uh, to all the guys getting pissed off with me, I did not realise Obama had seen unemployment fall from 8.3% to 6.6%:

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

    This puts them under Britain, France and many others.

    However, German unemployment remains at 6.1%. And this is after a RISE.

    What are key German economic policies? High minimum wage, high workers rights, high worker board representation, encouragement for union representation and membership; all ‘left wing ideas’.

    And yet the people seem happier – I measure a country’s success on the happiness of the people.

    Yes they are not SOCIALIST, but a damn sight more than anyone else bar Scandinavia.

    So while I stand corrected on the unemployment figures, I stand by my statement socialism works – not Communism as some people have convinced themselves. Thats like me saying your a capitalist, but fascism killed 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians so you support genocide.

    And as a final note, many of you clearly were poorly educated about Marxism. It has never been implemented, so you can’t say it has failed. Marx did not support dictatorship, Marx ‘equated dictatorship to tyranny and vehemently opposed the concepts incorporation into the socialist movement’. Dictatorship in the proletariat was just an unavoidable transitional period between capitalism and communism.

    ‘Marx’s dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports’

    But I suppose most of you Americans have been indoctrinated to instinctively repel any form of socialist agenda, and for that I pity you. Not that Britain is ANY better for that, I was lucky enough to have had a more open and informative upbringing where all political ideologies were explained to me and I was allowed to make my decision.

    • justquitnow

      Most of them were “educated” by the Cult of Freedumb through this website.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “So while I stand corrected on the unemployment figures, I stand by my statement socialism works – not Communism as some people have convinced themselves. Thats like me saying your a capitalist, but fascism killed 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians so you support genocide.”

      1) The connection between socialism and communism is that communism isn’t really achievable in the real world. Socialism is incremental communism regardless of what its adherents believe. The reason is that there are no objective measures for success in socialism. Socialism is coerced “social justice” which means that elites will constantly decide how much to take from successful people and give to the less well off. Now some times that’s OK on a certain scale. But it creates a dependent class that grows and eventually your costs go up and you run out of productive people to tap.

      If you understand Marx’s theories and reasoning you will understand why today’s socialist Ponzi scheme promoters are labeled communists and Marxists even though the dupes don’t recognize the connections.

      Socialism feels good for some people some times. You like it because it works for you right now. Does that make it right? Are you a collectivist? Do you believe that the majority has a right to take assets from successful people to fund special welfare programs just because it’s good for society as a whole?

      That’s collectivism. Marx created a modern framework for making collectivism enforced by the state seem reasonable, just and even scientific.

      If you support those ideas or fall in to the traps of the fallacies that he promoted, you are a Marxist in the broad sense of the term. Not a Marxist that reads his bullshit and promotes him as your guru but a Marxist in the sense that you’ve been caught in the wave of fallacious ideas spawned by his publications and arguments.

      “‘Marx’s dictatorship of proletariat is revolutionary government with majority (proletarian) support which wields absolute power to replace the incumbent capitalist economic system and its socio-political supports’”

      Yeah, that was not part of the foundation of his ideas. That was his predicted model for an ideal state.

      “But I suppose most of you Americans have been indoctrinated to instinctively repel any form of socialist agenda, and for that I pity you. Not that Britain is ANY better for that, I was lucky enough to have had a more open and informative upbringing where all political ideologies were explained to me and I was allowed to make my decision.”

      Do a little research on Ponzi schemes and then realize that socialist programs are exactly like that but on a much grander scale. And there is nobody to police the scammers. If there was no fraud, they wouldn’t need to call it socialism. They’d call it welfare or charity, or something more descriptive of what it is. But they also want the takers to feel that they have a right to take these gifts. Where do you think that comes from?

      Seriously. Why would you tell people that they have a right to receive free gifts from the state?

    • Gislef

      Under which President did it rise to 8.3% in the first place? Or even a bit higher?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “I stand by my statement socialism works – not Communism as some people have convinced themselves. Thats like me saying your a capitalist, but fascism killed 6 million Jews and 12 million Russians so you support genocide.”

      I don’t get it. What are you trying to say in the last sentence?

  • justquitnow

    Raising the minimum wage means people make less and any help you give to the poor just keeps them poor…FREEDUMB!!!!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Nope. Some will be better off, others worse off, but the party that proposes it will be seen as more sympathetic to “the people.”

      It’s just pandering, dummy.

      • justquitnow

        You’re just cynical and like to insult and misdescribe things.
        Doing things for the poor is a politically thankless proposition most of the time. It’s not pandering dummy.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You’re just cynical and like to insult and misdescribe things.”

          Right. That’s the problem because I want to deceive people and talk them out of helpful ideas. I’m evil.

          When the poor can’t get work at that higher rate, they won’t realize that they may have lost a chance because of the politician that supposedly helped them. They’ll blame the guy that won’t hire.

          And for those working among a team where all had their wages raised, it might be nice for them – if they all keep their jobs. But that’s money off the table for merit raises. Social justice?

          Seems nice to reward people for no reason. Doesn’t it? You don’t “regulate” higher wealth. You just can’t do it.

          It seems “nice” and “helpful” to raise the minimum wage by law, but it’s not. It’s pandering, not helping. Maybe some of them are so dumb that they think that they are helping. I can’t say.

          • justquitnow

            There you go…back to the attitude I was making fun of in my original post. You need to look up pandering…and then compare that with solving ANY political problem. If anything you don’t like is pandering then you have lost track of what the word means because your cynical and you like to misdescribe things…and round and round we go.

            Helping poor people is about the most politically thankless thing you can do especially with people like you screaming…don’t help those people…you’re actually hurting them!!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If anything you don’t like is pandering…”

            Who said that something is pandering merely because I don’t like it? It’s not even about what I like. It’s about my objective analysis about what is right against what seems right to dimwitted voters.

          • justquitnow

            Then how else do you determine whether something is done for the people or just done to pander to a certain group. Apparently you can’t tell the difference…so I was assuming you just used “pandering” to speak ill of something you don’t like.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Then how else do you determine whether something is done for the people or just done to pander to a certain group.”

            When something is presented with an attempt to describe it’s pros and cons with a reasonable effort at objectivity.

          • justquitnow

            Riiiight….and you feel that the issue of the minimum wage hasn’t been presented to you with objectivity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Riiiight….and you feel that the issue of the minimum wage hasn’t been presented to you with objectivity.”

            My “feelings” based on observation are that politicians do not present the pros and cons objectively about fiscal issues like wage controls and so forth.

            The question is whether you can show any reason to challenge my observations. Riiight?

          • justquitnow

            This is where you would look up and realize I left halfway through what you were saying to get a drink.

            I probably left when you did the quote pantomime around “feelings”.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you’re overly emotional and slow on top of it.

          • justquitnow

            You’re not even fun to make fun of.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your skills are lacking.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Apparently you can’t tell the difference…so I was assuming you just used “pandering” to speak ill of something you don’t like.”

            Apparently you project your own problems on to others.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Helping poor people is about the most politically thankless thing you can do especially with people like you screaming…don’t help those people…you’re actually hurting them!!”

            It’s really too bad that the only way to help people is to lie and become a powerful elected official so that one can hand out other people’s money in programs that seem effective but aren’t. But hey, it’s a thankless job. Except for all the people that lionize you and vote for you, it’s a thankless role in society; deciding what to do with OPM.

          • justquitnow

            Is the minimum wage socialism now? Now people earning their money is a government handout. I think you’re punditry circuits are fused.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is the minimum wage socialism now?”

            Socialism is an ideology. The policy itself is not necessarily socialist. The reasoning and arguments behind most demands that the state should regulate wages are absolutely rooted in socialism, obviously.

            Or it should be obvious but since socialists also have a great influence over our children and how they are taught, most Americans don’t even know what socialism is. Socialism to most people is the consensus that the government should “help us” to be “fair” to each other in nice, smart, value-added ways.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is the minimum wage socialism now?”

            I can make a non-socialist argument in favor of minimum wages. But you probably wouldn’t like it and you probably couldn’t manage to pay attention because your schooling has led you to feel rather think and to let your feelings have the final say about your opinions.

            And you’d see that maybe some times it’s reasonable but most demands to increase it are based on pure stupidity and ignorance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There you go…back to the attitude I was making fun of in my original post. You need to look up pandering…and then compare that with solving ANY political problem.”

            If there’s one fact we must learn and remember it’s that you can’t be wrong.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Helping poor people is about the most politically thankless thing you can do especially with people like you screaming…don’t help those people…you’re actually hurting them!!”

            I provide real help with my own time and money. I don’t need to lie or coerce others because my ideas are effective and are easily used to produce wealth.