2020...

How Interventionism Works

The interventionists emphasize that they plan to retain private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship and market exchange. But, they go on to say, it is peremptory to prevent these capitalist institutions from spreading havoc and unfairly exploiting the majority of people. It is the duty of government to restrain, by orders and prohibitions, the greed of the propertied classes lest their acquisitiveness harm the poorer classes. Unhampered or laissez-faire capitalism is an evil. But in order to eliminate its evils, there is no need to abolish capitalism entirely. It is possible to improve the capitalist system by government interference with the actions of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. Such government regulation and regimentation of business is the only method to keep off totalitarian socialism and to salvage those features of capitalism which are worth preserving. On the ground of this philosophy, the interventionists advocate a galaxy of various measures. Let us pick out one of them, the very popular scheme of price control.
 
How Price Control Leads to Socialism

The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more. This, or course, is contrary to the intentions of the government. It wanted to make it easier for some people to buy more milk. But, as an outcome of its interference, the supply available drops. The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which — again from the point of view of the government — is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.

Now, the government is faced with an alternative. It can abrogate its decree and refrain from any further endeavors to control the price of milk. But if it insists upon its intention to keep the price of milk below the rate the unhampered market would have determined and wants nonetheless to avoid a drop in the supply of milk, it must try to eliminate the causes that render the marginal producers' business unremunerative. It must add to the first decree concerning only the price of milk a second decree fixing the prices of the factors of production necessary for the production of milk at such a low rate that the marginal producers of milk will no longer suffer losses and will therefore abstain from restricting output. But then the same story repeats itself on a remoter plane. The supply of the factors of production required for the production of milk drops, and again the government is back where it started. If it does not want to admit defeat and to abstain from any meddling with prices, it must push further and fix the prices of those factors of production which are needed for the production of the factors necessary for the production of milk. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers' goods and of all factors of production — both human, i.e., labor, and material — and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of industry can be omitted from this all-around fixing of prices and wages and from this obligation to produce those quantities which the government wants to see produced. If some branches were to be left free out of regard for the fact that they produce only goods qualified as non-vital or even as luxuries, capital and labor would tend to flow into them and the result would be a drop in the supply of those goods, the prices of which government has fixed precisely because it considers them as indispensable for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses.

But when this state of all-around control of business is attained, there can no longer be any question of a market economy. No longer do the citizens by their buying and abstention from buying determine what should be produced and how. The power to decide these matters has devolved upon the government. This is no longer capitalism; it is all-around planning by the government, it is socialism.
 

Every Dem Says Illegal Immigrants Should Get Health Insurance
June 28th, 2019
Screen-Shot-2019-06-27-at-9.50.10-PM-e1561686631868.jpg



Every single Democratic presidential candidate on stage Thursday night during the second round of debates said that illegal immigrants should get government health insurance.

The collective group of ten candidates was asked if “undocumented immigrants” deserve health coverage paid for by the American taxpayer.
 
The Biggest Winners of Thursday Night's Dem Debate? Illegal Immigrants.
Leah Barkoukis | Jun 28, 2019 7:38 AM
d1c7bdad-9f14-41a9-b262-e1a1b8138dc3.png


Source: AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee

The Democrats on stage during Thursday night’s debate looked more like they were competing to be the president of illegal immigrants than they were of Americans.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Whatʻs not funny is that most Americans donʻt know that Health Care and Health Insurance are not the same thing. Politicians discuss those benefits as if they are. The two need to be separated to address the price issues that Bernie is so concerned but ignorant about.
Click to expand...
You fucking idiots sound like your holy savior t. As if when you learn something new it's some kind of startling revelation you need to inform the world of . . . next you'll tell us the moon really isn't made of cheese, "people are saying, lots of em!".
 
Hüsker Dü said:
You fucking idiots sound like your holy savior t. As if when you learn something new it's some kind of startling revelation you need to inform the world of . . . next you'll tell us the moon really isn't made of cheese, "people are saying, lots of em!".
Click to expand...
I would be pissed too if those 20 were my best hope.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
You fucking idiots sound like your holy savior t. As if when you learn something new it's some kind of startling revelation you need to inform the world of . . . next you'll tell us the moon really isn't made of cheese, "people are saying, lots of em!".
Click to expand...
Nothingness personified
 
kh-1.jpg

Harris wimps out again: I didn’t mean to strongly suggest at the debate that I’d get rid of all private health insurance

ALLAHPUNDIT Posted at 11:21 am on June 28, 2019

The woke commentariat is heavy-breathing this morning over her attack on Biden for his opposition to busing in the 70s, but this clip may have more legs. For the second night in a row, a top-tier Democrat (two, actually) appeared to endorse flushing the health insurance of 180 million people down the toilet and starting over.

ADVERTISEMENT








Photojournalist detained by ICE, Amtrak raid in Montana





POLITICO

✔@politico
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1144418494592819201
Replying to @politico

Moderator: Many people at home have health insurance through their employer. Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government run plan?

1f6ab.png
Biden
1f6ab.png
Bennet
1f6ab.png
Buttigieg
1f6ab.png
Gillibrand
2705.png
Harris
1f6ab.png
Hickenlooper
2705.png
Sanders
1f6ab.png
Swalwell
1f6ab.png
Williamson
1f6ab.png
Yang


415
6:33 PM - Jun 27, 2019

213 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy




That answer was surprising, and not the first time she’s been surprising on this topic. Soon after her campaign launched in January, she was asked on CNN why she’s co-sponsoring Bernie’s Medicare for All bill. Wouldn’t that eliminate private health insurance? Harris responded with a short speech about access and bureaucracy under the current private system, finishing with “Let’s eliminate all of that.” Sounded like a yes! But she took heat afterward for it from centrist liberals who were hoping she’d be a compromise choice as nominee between the Bernie wing and the Biden wing, someone younger and more progressive than Uncle Joe but not so far out there as Comrade Sanders that she’d want to dump all private plans. So, a few months later, in another interview with CNN, she cleaned upher answer. What I meant when I said “Let’s eliminate all of that,” she claimed, was all of the bureaucracy associated with private health insurance, not private health insurance altogether.

ADVERTISEMENT






But the bill you’re co-sponsoring wouldeliminate all private insurance, countered Jake Tapper, except for ancillary stuff like cosmetic surgery.

To which Harris replied, essentially: Well, that still counts as private insurance. Ahem.

ADVERTISEMENT






Fast-forward to her answer last night, seemingly re-endorsing the idea of scrapping private health insurance. Another flip-flop? Nope — she claims she misunderstood the question. Never mind that the candidates on the first night of the debate were asked this very same thing, whether they’d support eliminating all private insurance; never mind, as my pal Karl notes, how super-prepared Harris was on all other topics except for this perfectly foreseeable one. She wants you to believe that when Lester Holt noted that many people have insurance through work and then asked if the candidates would “abolish their private health insurance,” she understood “their” to be a reference to the candidates’ own personal health insurance, not Americans’health insurance. Even though no other candidate on stage seemed to have trouble understanding the question.

ADVERTISEMENT






And even though Holt’s use of the word “abolish” made it perfectly clear that he was talking about a policy change, not choosing to switch one’s own private plan to a government plan.

Time for another clean-up, then. She executed the rare flip-flop-flip-flop on CBS this morning, insisting that she misunderstood Holt — coincidentally, in front of a televised audience of progressives getting their first sustained look at her agenda — and that private health insurance would still exist under her version of Medicare for All. But again, only for penny-ante stuff like cosmetic surgery, not for any meaningful health benefits. To Harris, that counts as protecting private insurance even though it would still mean tossing 180 million people off of their current plans. For all her alleged boldness last night towards Biden, she simply cannot bite the bullet as Warren did two days ago and own the logic of the health-care policy she’s endorsed. It’s reminiscent of Obama’s big “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” lie. You can’t keep your plan under Harris’s proposal, but if you like your private insurance, you can keep some meager form of private insurance. If you’re in the market for a tummy tuck, sure, feel free to go out and buy a plan that’ll cover that. Everything else gets swept up in socialized medicine, though.
 
GettyImages-1152455128.jpg

Attribution: AFP/Getty Images
Bots like clockwork
Just like 2016: An army of very suspicious and racist anti-Kamala Harris posts began during debate
Jun 28, 2019 8:59am PDT by Walter Einenkel, Daily Kos Staff
comment_large-8adbba5c278ed0dbc656081bd1f2827c.png
272370
Canada’s National Observer reporter Caroline Orr pointed out Thursday night, as the second Democratic debate played out, that, along with the normal online commentary for and against the many Democratic candidates appearing, an interesting burst of anti-Kamala Harris messaging had started appearing on Twitter. The attacks on Harris were racial.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
How Interventionism Works

The interventionists emphasize that they plan to retain private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship and market exchange. But, they go on to say, it is peremptory to prevent these capitalist institutions from spreading havoc and unfairly exploiting the majority of people. It is the duty of government to restrain, by orders and prohibitions, the greed of the propertied classes lest their acquisitiveness harm the poorer classes. Unhampered or laissez-faire capitalism is an evil. But in order to eliminate its evils, there is no need to abolish capitalism entirely. It is possible to improve the capitalist system by government interference with the actions of the capitalists and entrepreneurs. Such government regulation and regimentation of business is the only method to keep off totalitarian socialism and to salvage those features of capitalism which are worth preserving. On the ground of this philosophy, the interventionists advocate a galaxy of various measures. Let us pick out one of them, the very popular scheme of price control.
Click to expand...

Easy to talk in broad strokes, but my read is most American's aren't fighting a war of capitalism vs. socialism outside the right wing echo chamber.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
GettyImages-1152455128.jpg

Attribution: AFP/Getty Images
Bots like clockwork
Just like 2016: An army of very suspicious and racist anti-Kamala Harris posts began during debate
Jun 28, 2019 8:59am PDT by Walter Einenkel, Daily Kos Staff
comment_large-8adbba5c278ed0dbc656081bd1f2827c.png
272370
Canada’s National Observer reporter Caroline Orr pointed out Thursday night, as the second Democratic debate played out, that, along with the normal online commentary for and against the many Democratic candidates appearing, an interesting burst of anti-Kamala Harris messaging had started appearing on Twitter. The attacks on Harris were racial.
Click to expand...

Why does the fact that the only one you're posting about is KH, that she must have done pretty well in the debates?
I mean, let's be honest; why else would you be talking about her...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top