Kasich: Prominent Congressman to come out for Biden tomorrow

Let's not forget that Facebook and Amazon wouldn't exist without DARPA, a government funded research program.

 

Don't even get me started if someone brings up Elon Musk, and Tesla/Space Force. And these are the same people that glorify these three companies that likely hate the idea of the US government funding a subsidized infrastructure plan to revolutionize green energy to prop up global leaders in the industry that can change our global energy consumption needs & create a new major global export that keeps America relevant against China & India.

 

Hard press to see any former or current Republican coming out for Bernie. But with Biden, not that hard of a choice for those that believe in fair capitalism, given that Trump doesn't believe in that concept and has acted against it.

 

Before I reply to this one of my pet peeves is the use of the term "Socialism". Government regulation isn't socialism, neither is Social Security. Socialism as defined by Marx is the state owning the means of production. The things being discussed here aren't anywhere near the state owning the means of production and it's been a misuse of the term by both the Left and the Right.

Regarding the legacy of Reagan I can agree it's problematic and the role of deregulation that started with Reagan has led to problems and things like the 1987 savings and loan collapse, the failures of many legacy airlines, and the 2008 collapse policies that were started under Reagan did play a role. We have to consider though where the US and the World was at in the 1970's just prior to the start of the Thatcher / Reagan revolution. We where then in a global slump at a time when we were also seeing individual incomes and wealth plummeting and with governments unable to respond. The problem was that the previous New Deal legacy and Labor system was too inefficient to respond to rapid changes in technology and global trade that were coming on the scene. While we did seen in the 1970's the rise of many new technologies it is no accident that they didn't get widespread in the market until the 1980's when deregulation encouraged entrepreneurship and innovation in not just the US economy but many other economies that followed that model. As such we've seen unprecedented wealth creation since then.

The inherent problem with Socialism and that government regulation of the economy are in and of themselves good is that a large dynamic economy is intrinsically chaotic. Attempting to control it can lead to many unintended consequences and we've seen repeated examples in history of command economies leading to widespread poverty and stagnation.

That doesn't mean there isn't a role for government regulation and certainly regulations for health and safety are needed and a true laissez faire economy can lead to massive problems. In terms of how wealth ends up being distributed in an society and addressing inequality there are roles for government. So yes any major functioning economy will have to be mixed but for creating wealth an economy that leans more towards capitalism is the way to go.

 

I don't glorify Elon Musk but Musk is the type of entrepeneurship that should be encouraged. This isn't an either or situation. Government can fund pure research and build infrastructure but it takes entrepreneurs to develop new markets and rapidly get technologies to markets. For example would personal computers be as prevalent if not for an upstart company named Apple? IBM which had been around for a long time and was very tied into government had no interest in personal computers until Apple came on the scene and showed there was a market.

When we talk about the PRC there is a reason why it Deng dismantling the Socialist state industries for the PRC to take off economically. In the process they've significantly raised the standard of living far beyond what was possible if they had stuck with the Maoist structure.

 

They had a falling out before the election and they never endorsed him, they did say he was a legitimate candidate.

They were not caught off guard they where warning he could win very early, sorry you cannot create your own facts to make a point.

https://fortune.com/2016/06/06/trump-morning-joe/

https://www.axios.com/the-long-history-of-trump-and-morning-joe-2450366500.html

 

Not specifically calling anyone out for this but this is D&D and the GARM a lot of the time.

 

People who defend capitalism like it's a religion don't understand how publicly traded companies have almost no insentive to invest in high risk research. Only society has that interest. When someone invests in the stock market, they are looking for short term gain. They couldn't give a **** about research that might be profitable in 10 years.

 

But no one is saying we don't need entrepreneurship. Plenty of people are saying we don't need government or at least plenty think government slows down progress. It's supposed the a symbiotic relationship.

Publicly traded companies slow down progress.

Too many people think people like Bezos and Musk built these companies by themselves without the massive support of infrustrcture and research that US tax payers provide.

 

you know who's also wrong all the time? Trump.

 

Get back to me when you learn what economy actually means. Social Security are wage supplements or replacements which is part of the economy. All of the things that I mentioned are part of the economy.

 

I agree we need government and as I said true laissez faire economies can also lead to disaster. I strongly disagree though that publicly traded companies slow down progress. I think it's the exact opposite. It's true that markets aren't good at pure research or long term thinking but governments aren't good at efficient distribution or innovation. Government are too inefficient and risk adverse. It takes people willing to take risks including investment to do that.

Consider again the personal computer. Without Apple's success it's not clear if we would have widespread use of the personal computer. While some of the basic technology was developed at government labs it took risk takers like Jobs and Wozniak to get it widely available. Neither the government nor old line businesses like IBM saw any value in the personal computer. At the same time that Apple was successful there were also a lot of failures, anyone rember the Sinclair? Those are risk that shouldn't be taken on by government. As noted government is too inefficient but also there is too much chance of corruption as many will want to get their hands into that type of project. That is one reason why government contracts are usually so bloated but also why command economies like the USSR and Maoist PRC were failures.

Advancement cannot happen without risk. That risk is rightfully in the hands of entrepeneurs and freely traded capital markets.

 

my bad, his parents were from Syria

the atmosphere for creativity and genius was here
not Wuhan

 

They want to escape their side losing military or political battles, violent crime, authitarian regimes, a better education, and things of that nature as much as they do capitalism. If it was purely capitalism they wanted, they'd go to places that were more capitalist than the United States.

 

what if he wanted to watch an NBA game?

see , America is awesome

 

That is true moreso in the socialist countries of France, Spain, UK, Denmark, etc. They have a greater rate and opportunity of upward social mobility in those countries than here in the United States.

 

Damn, seems like somebody has been watching VHS tapes of newt gingrich. Good idea, college is closed anyway.

@tincel

 

Onto the main subject. For those who didn't hear Kasich's speech they should. It's a great message explaining that while he doesn't agree with Biden on everything but there needs to be unity. It follows the message from Gen. Mattis that no president has divided this country like Trump and that we need to find unity and common purpose.

 

We need people like Elon Musk to decide to move and operate in the USA and not other nations like China. A lot of the success in the USA is from immigrants and outsiders coming to America and being successful to a large degree. The USA has been and very much is the land of mavericks.

While many people now find Musk's antics tiresome, he has greatly added to the success of the USA. It isn't up to Musk to reign in his companies or shut his mouth, it is up to the government to distribute the wealth such that there isn't widespread massive wealth inequality, but where there is still enough freedom that people with big ideas still want to come to the USA.

Imagine where the USA would be right now without the success of Silicone Valley. Where would the USA be if the break through had been in China? The economy would be bad.