Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. I know exactly what it is. All I have to do is watch the "change we've been waiting for" to understand incrementally-induced socialism.
What you are seeing is mercantilism, corporatism, and at a pinch a bit more social democracy all within a pretty much capitalist system.
Socialism would be public ownership
, not subsidies.
Yes, if we had a revolution. We didn't. So, we are getting socialism on a sliding scale. You say it's not socialism. I say it is. You will appeal to the dictionary. I will point out the dictionary is but a textbook-ish definition that doesn't cover this situation.
For example, if someone is poisoned to death, it may be one massive dose or it may be a series of small doses over a period of time. The end result is the same.
If President Obama has his way, we will be a socialist society. Well, except he won't give up his wealth. So, no, it won't be a "Marxist" utopia. It will be a Marxist-Obama utopia.
I'll deny denying that. So, in classic Danivon language: stop telling me what I believe.
I did not say that you were denying it. I said you 'can'. This is not the same as saying "If x is right and blah blah blah..." - that most definitely is telling people what they think/say/believe.
But we should not stop researching one area because another area needs to be looked into as well. Human progress is not linear or pre-programmed.
I'm not suggesting progress is linear. I am simply saying current methods are getting nowhere--unless you invest in the companies and sell your stock while the government buys it, you're backing a loser. The Obama administration is very bad at this. The reason is simple: they invest with their heart (and our money). If it was their money, out of their wallets, they would not do 90% of the crap they do.
This is the nature of bets. Not all come off. Certainly there does need to be an evaluation of the losing bets, but also in context with the good bets, and also any lessons learned from 'bad bets'.
It seems rather imprudent to borrow money from China, or anyone, to roll the dice.
And the 'town' level example is frankly their problem - the federal government is where I thought your beef lay.
They're no better.
For what it is worth, we just got back from the Midwest. We drove the whole way and saw many wind turbines. Not one was moving. Not one.
1) I love your belief that one political party is really going to make that much of a difference (we all subsidise the rich, whoever is in power in governments, because the rich can buy governments and politicians)
This subsidy WILL bite the dust. It is unfair and foolish.
2) prices are declining now, and across the 'unsubsidised' section. Tesla are projecting they will have models out in a few years for half what you can get a new one now.
Great. As soon as they are not subsidized, it will be wonderful to see how they sell, particularly with our ever-escalating electricity prices. See, there's the funny thing: Obama's EPA is going to drive electricity through the roof by regulation. So, all these folks who own electric cars will be crying for a bailout.
3) I also love how your response to me saying "I think..." - expressing an opinion - is a simple and flat "Wrong". as if you are disproving an asserted fact, with evidence and stuff.
If something is "wrong," it is wrong. Expending time on it is time I won't get back. You throw out notions and then play the same tired game--disprove my assertions. No. I'll rebut them with assertions of my own. Thanks.