Comments by "josh fritz" (@joshfritz5345) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lennysandroff8168 Dems voted for military conquest too. Neo-libs and neo-cons are warmongers.
Ethno-fascism? No one gives a shit about race in the US, other than the Dems who want to get rid of white people. Or, at least they did until the realize they didn't need illegal immigrants to win the vote when they can just harvest ballots.
China is a threat, but frankly, we've got a more immediate problem of authoritarians in the whitehouse and congress right now. I think the word "fascist" is corrupted, but it's not entirely wrong. They act like fascists, or socialists of some kind. They want to take away speech and guns, since those represent the main opposition to them gaining power. People will vote for socialism if you can censor the truth.
Think of it this way. As we switch over to digital currency, they can make all of our money disappear with the flip of a switch. They can already do that with our bank accounts, your bank account is nothing but a number on a spreadsheet. When they confiscate your wealth with a keystroke, you'll beg them to give you more funny money, be it through printing more or stealing it from others. At this point, it doesn't really matter. Kensyan economics has already taken over, and it allows them to print infinite money, skipping the need to steal the wealth from the rich, they can just print whatever they need and de-value the money that exists, stealing the value without even needing to confiscate it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coolioso808 That's a socialist framing of capitalism. Capitalism is just letting people own property and trade freely without much state interference. At a very small scale, capitalism is just two people exchanging goods without government agents trying to arrest everyone involved for not paying taxes or having the right permits.
Socialism is formed along the premise of giving control of the "means of production" (land, goods, etc.) to the people. Since that requires taking from those who own those things, in practice that just means the government takes and owns those things.
Fascism or corpratism is a halfway point between the two. Specifically referring to Italian style fascism here, Nazism is it's own thing which is in some ways, actually closer to socialsim than Italian fascism. (Both suck in their own way.) Fascism is essentially where the corporations and state cooperate, the state has indirect control over the corporations (we see this with the government ordering censorship of political dissidents) and the corporations influence the state (bribing public officals with promise of campaign funds or future high paying positions in exchange for making laws which benefit corporations.) Fascism is annoying to pin down because leftists claim it's right wing, while right wing people claim the opposite. In reality, it's kind of it's own, highly authoritarian ideology that has both right and left-wing influences.
If this was "real" capitalism, which does not exist in any meaningful way in our world today, the massive corporations would not have massive advantages written into the law for them by the government. If this was "real" socialism, the industries would be directly owned by the state itself. Even China's system in some ways more closely resembles fascism than communism, at least from an economic perspective.
I'm sympathetic to the idea of wanting great wealth for everyone, but the fact is, we don't have a fully automated industry. Labor is still very important to prosperity. If people stop working, there won't be any goods to produce, and no matter how much money you print, you won't be able to afford food, cars, smart phones if no one is making them. I would love to see people better rewarded for their work, I'm very pro-worker and am working class myself, I want to cut income tax and decrease cost of living for working class people, but the way to do that is NOT more government overreach.
Sure, but it sounds like you're using buzzwords without laying out an actual plan for it. If we de-regulate certain industries, rich people will invest their money in creating all of the technologies we need to do that for us. Our economy is not like a video game where we can decide to invest in one technology or another. If we just leave it alone, companies motivated by profit will make breakthroughs because they want to make money by selling us things we like. We can't rely on companies (or governments for that matter) to always do the ethical thing, but we can rely on companies to do the profitable thing, so we should try to make sure the most profitable outcome is the one that benefits the most people. Remove taxes on goods low and middle income people buy (food, gas, etc.) and you'll have companies competing to provide the lowest price because they want to sell us the stuff we need in the largest quantity possible.
Forget about research grants, companies want to do things cheaper and more efficiently on their own. Every greedy billionaire wants to be the first one to crack the secret to nuclear fusion power because that would let them under-bid their competition on the price they can sell energy for. That would result in cheaper electricity for all of us. Who cares which billionaire runs it, as long as we get cheap, high quality energy and goods?
1
-
@coolioso808 Yes, the socialist framing is the mainstream framing these days. Your idea of capitalism is shaped by academics who have a socialists mindset. Capitalism is dead already, it has been for decades. I know that's a strange thing to hear, but we really don't live in a capitalist society, and the people in charge bash capitalism so hard because they realize the threat it poses to their plans. The fact is, private property is just about the last fragment of capitalism we have left, and working class people like myself will quite literally kill to keep our property from being seized by the state.
Haves and have nots are just a fact of life. There is no economic system in existence that does away with inequality. We have two choices, we can create a system with equal opportunity, or we can not. No matter what you do, you will never eradicate inequality of outcome because people have different desires and skill sets from one another. People seek different resources and use them differently. No central controller could ever account for the diverse amount of different perspectives that people have, centrally planned economies are doomed to fail because of this.
In a free market economy, people manage their own resources and trade without outside interference from the government. This absolutely is the most efficient system. No beaurecrat will ever know better than a lifelong industrialist or basket weaver how to make and sell engine parts or baskets better than the people who spend their entire lives doing just that. The only reason a government should ever intervene in an economy is to try to achieve some secondary goal at the expense of efficiency, such as banning foreign imports to support domestic industry, with the full knowledge that this will have negative repercussions such as increasing the cost of those goods.
There is a lot of bloat, a lot of people work pointless jobs. A lot of those are government jobs. I'd like to shrink government and repeal the regulation that creates such a sheltered place for bloated companies to survive when they ought to be out-competed by better run competition.
There aren't any people in space for billionaires to sell things to. They want our money, and they always will, we can use that to our advantage. As a pro-labor individual, I want to make it easier for workers to make money from their labor. We can't just abolish labor outright, that's a fantastic utopia that might someday exist but which does not now. Severing the link between labor and income will simply create a divide between those who receive income for free, and those who work hard and have their money stolen by the state to fund the unemployed lifestyle. We already have this with an expansive welfare state. We should reform welfare so it doesn't discourage people from working, one example would be instead of having a hard cut-off, slowly decrease the amount received based on one's income level, that way it doesn't discourage people from working more hours and getting raises/ promotions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LBart218 I was considering DeSantis, but I'm not confident he won't stab us in the back the instant he gets into office. Although to be fair, Trump didn't build the wall which was one of the biggest things he ran on. Both have done authoritarian stuff I don't approve of (banning bump stocks, going after Julian Assange, and some of Ron Paul's anti-woke policies went a little too far IMO.) Trump is the known evil, and he is, as far as we know, the least bad choice.
Maybe DeSantis would be better, but I'm not willing to take that risk. I haven't seen a Democrat I'd even consider voting for in years. The most likely Dems to run should all be rotting in jail for one reason or another. Killing a bunch of old people in nursing homes, arming terrorist groups, taking bribes from foreign powers, etc. Some Republicans have done the same, but the fact that 4 years of Russiagate has turned up nothing means that Trump must be pretty clean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1