What if socialists designed airplanes...

[Tristar]

Tristar-

Clinton did what the APA wanted... your understanding of it is common but untrue....

Then please explain and enlighten me (no sarcasm here, I find this very hard to believe).

 

[Tristar]

If Socialists built airplanes they would look like this:

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva][FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva] http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aeroflot/Tupolev-Tu-144/1482740/M/[/FONT][/FONT]

It would be a crown jewel of the republic! It would be a design masterpiece. Of course, designing airplanes is expensive, so much of the design would be stolen, and it would be rushed to beat the first flight of the competing design. A total of 17 would be built over a period of 15 years. Of course, having been a bit rushed in the design, there would be some reliability problems, and it would have be unable to reliably operate one flight per week. It would be used in scheduled service for less than three years, and would only fly passengers for seven months. It would primarily be used to fly mail. Occasionally, it would break up inflight.

 

[relief tube]

Max,

Put the pipe down.

O.B.A.M.A.

One Big Ass Mistake America

Bush - Not gonna spend the time thinking about a cute acronymn but that dude was the biggest mistake in the history of federal leadership. Fella makes hoover look like Lincoln.

Listen all, unfettered capitalism got us into this mess. And unfettered capitalism made the airline industry go from a much sought-after job to a sham of a career. Not a big fan of socialism, but we need a more regulated environment.

No more mortgage derivatives, no more subprime lending, no more $109 airfares.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Then please explain and enlighten me (no sarcasm here, I find this very hard to believe).

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=107428

Start with post #33

Also see #36


The rest of the thread is good reading....

 

[Tristar]

Thanks - very interesting.

 

[JustaNumber]

And what of the losers? Keep in mind those losers are Americans.

If we all worked together we wouldn't be thinking about the best man and company winning.

I am not sure you do.....

Our current "free market" system provides more wants over needs and leaves too many Americans in need with nothing....

A system that doesn't discriminate against people provides the best opportunities for everyone, including the losers, to improve their lives. Would you rather be a loser because you just didn't try hard enough, or because the system was stacked against you?

I think most of us would join together and would advocate having the brightest, hardest working people succeed, and having the most efficient companies offering the most value succeed.

Your last statement is completely unfounded. The United States economy, while not entirely based on a completely free market, has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Even our neediest have food, shelter, and amenities that are the envy of the world.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

A system that doesn't discriminate against people provides the best opportunities for everyone, including the losers, to improve their lives. Would you rather be a loser because you just didn't try hard enough, or because the system was stacked against you?

I can control my own effort. I can't control the system stacked against me. So until we live in a country that provides a level playing field for all, we've got much work to do.

If our American system is flawed, then it is our problem. However, the attitudes and and culture promoted in this country, a blend of "pull up the ladder I got mine" and Keeping up with the Jonses"

IOW, there isn't a group or community effort make America 'all men created equal'

I think most of us would join together and would advocate having the brightest, hardest working people succeed, and having the most efficient companies offering the most value succeed.

I disagree. We live in a very private and individualistic society. "I won't bother you, you don't bother me". Sure we see times of charity and help.

Look at illegal workers in the US. We all don't like it, but yet, we support corporations that use illegals. Why do illegals keep coming? We aren't getting to the root of the problems because we is me.

In other words, we don't function as a community. We aren't interested in public solutions to problems. We want to coerce the opposition to our will.

Your last statement is completely unfounded. The United States economy, while not entirely based on a completely free market, has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Even our neediest have food, shelter, and amenities that are the envy of the world.

This is a common talking point of the right wing think tanks. As long we are better off than the rest of the world, then we don't need to improve? If American is a 7 and third world africa is a 2, how far do we slide before we call BS? 5? 3?

We've already slid back in the last decade. Our purchase power has decreased while exec elites have
used workers as ATM machines. The disparity in pay in the 1980s between workers and execs was 41x. Today it is 433x. No one seems to care except when the govt works out a homeowners bailout, then people go apeshi t. Remember keeping up with the Joneses?

Why is it when our fellow citizens act poorly we get angry, but when our corporate citizens act criminal, we are indifferent?

Just because our economy provides a better standard for most, doesn't mean it isn't as effective as it can be... I say it is not, with so many Americans in poverty.

Why should our "free market" system provide so much excess all while we have so many in need both domestically and globally? Real capitalism, righteous capitalism provides growth and reward for risk takers all while providing goods and services that real people need.

 

[En Mort Main]

There has to be winners and losers or there is no point playing the game. When everyone is a winner no one is a winner.

En Mort Main

 

[Tristar]

While certainly no socialist, I do agree with Rez that at present things here are completely out of whack (and have been for a while now). While I have been a longtime supporter of the party with the elephant, the complete lopsidedness of their practices has left me rather disenfranchised. I'm all for risk takers being rewarded, for true capitalists to make a buck (and in doing so employ others). I am not in favor of Wall St. hucksters manipulating companies simply to wring the last short term dollar out of them, then sell off or shut down the pieces. To at least some degree I do understand globalization, but at the same time I am gravely concerned over how deeply we've scuttled our manufacturing sector. I simply don't believe we can remain a world leader with only service and tech as our primary industries.

Empirical evidence points to the fact that our recent economy has been built on a manipulated house of cards, which has come about through the malfeasance of BOTH parties. I will however, apportion the share of the blame for not only allowing but encouraging many of the financial shenannagins which have resulted in the demise of many of our industries to the Red party.

In turn, I will eagerly thowing the Blue party under the bus for numerous other equally stupid ideas - let's give a mortgage to any moron, whether or not they can pay it back. I simply cannot fathom stupidity of this level, and yet the Democratic party seems rife with it (will someone please tell Barney Frank that he's an imbecile? I really don't think the man realizes, and the Pelosi pack only encourage the likes of him - which certainly doesn't say much for them).

I swear, by comparison to the other two options, that nut job Perot looks better all the time (and like I said, he's damn near certifiable). No wonder we're in this mess.

 

[JustaNumber]

Tristar,
Very well written. I think if we could find a way to spread your attitude we could transform the country. We all need to look at right and wrong, not right and left.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Tristar-

Good reply....


The socialism term is getting pass around like a good bong at a GOP house party.... some guys are actually drinking the water in the bong as they think the fear tactic is that good....

Why am I a socialist because I want my American Corporations to be good citizens? To invest long term in America? Not China, Or Dubai?

I really question the ultra rich with their ability to buy their way into anything. Why would they be patriotic? They can buy citizenship or buy a small country.

Banker Abess in Miami redistributes his wealth to all his workers on his own accord and is hailed a hero, but if someone suggest that AIG reinvests its wealth in America, then we are hissed at and hated as 'socialist'. All while AIG demands bailout money with threats of global collapse if we don't. There is no shame with these execs.

When we look at the average American, how citizen orientated is he/she? We spend so much more time shopping and consuming than we do functioning as public citizens..... this is a major flaw in our society.

The poor in America do not have time, money or resources to fight for their human rights or political rights. The reason is because they are oppressed economically. Why?

If I were part of the govt/corp elitism in this country I would ensure that most workers are economically chasing their tail. For the middle class that means consuming beyond their means, getting in debt (8K avg per household) and always looking for the next purchase, big or small.....

For the poor, it means barely being able to get by, with calling in sick costly and constant debt. Civil rights in the 60s? Big deal....poverty has got them beat down.

What that really means for the poor and middle class is they have very little time to engage in the public domain. To discuss, exchange ideas, express their wants and needs, and form plans of action. In short the poor is too exhausted to engage and the middle class too distracted by a market that provides more wants than needs.

Also, polarizers like Ann Coulter, Rush vs Olbermann, Maddow prime us for key words such as socialism, gun control, abortion, gays, Iraq, so that we react on que and start debating the endless debates, all while the govt/corp elites do what they will......

 

[clippyrip]

To those you you who claim to use fair analysis and think for yourself, I find it interesting that you all come up with the same two names to hate. Frank and Pelosi. It sure is an amazing coincidence.

 

[Tristar]

To those you you who claim to use fair analysis and think for yourself, I find it interesting that you all come up with the same two names to hate. Frank and Pelosi. It sure is an amazing coincidence.

Not really - as much as Limbaugh and Coulter (and in his day, Gingrich) do on the right, Pelosi and Al Franken do on the left: Bring nothing but divisiveness and partisan rhetoric sound bites.

I make no bones about it. I can find little to agree with and even less I like about Frank and Pelosi. I think they are emblematic of what is wrong with this country, and I am appalled that they are re-elected year after year when all they contribute is divisiveness and lame brained ideas. I do particularly enjoy picking on Barney because he won't fess up to the fact that his stupid ideas have contributed considerably to the current crisis.

As I freely admit, I used to support the Republican party - and if they were actually true to their ideals I still would (at least to some extent). Unfortunately, they are liars and hypocrites and I refuse to associate myself with them anymore. I think the circumstances presented to Bush 2 gave him the opportunity to be regarded as one of our greatest presidents. He absolutely squandered that opportunity in a myriad of ways, and is a much stronger contender for worst than best. John McCain wanted to stick us with baseball style arbitration for crying out loud! Where the hell is the free market in that? And it's pretty hard to deny that over the years bit by bit financial safety nets have been removed, and Republicans have held congress, the White House, or both during much of that time.

Ironically, it was a Democrat acting like a Republican who brought us one of our (personal) greatest failures - Airline Deregulation! Anyone care to weigh in on how that's worked out for the working man! On the other hand, we have our good friend Bush 1 who aided and abetted his buddy Francisco Lorenzo in using some of that freedom to destroy companies, ruin peoples lives, and line his pockets. What real value did any of Lorenzo's actions create?

So I really am quite willing to dispense criticism to both parties. If a couple of my favorite punching bags are your idols (or heaven forbid, your representatives) - well, I don't apologize for that. They are leftist ideologue hacks, and as such contribute nothing useful to the solution. Neither do the dang Republicans who blindly vote against anything just because it came from the other side. They all need to be thrown out, and I really don't want to wait two years to do it.

So which one of us is really bound to our preconceived notions?

 

[olympus593]

Bush 1 who aided and abetted his buddy Francisco Lorenzo in using some of that freedom to destroy companies, ruin peoples lives, and line his pockets. What real value did any of Lorenzo's actions create?

Well said, let see how joe merchand spin this.

 

[Skank]

Ran the country into the ground for 8 years and still spouting off. Classy.

No matter how look at things, it's hard to argue with the above statement.

 

[Cobra]

A system that doesn't discriminate against people provides the best opportunities for everyone, including the losers, to improve their lives. Would you rather be a loser because you just didn't try hard enough, or because the system was stacked against you?

I think most of us would join together and would advocate having the brightest, hardest working people succeed, and having the most efficient companies offering the most value succeed.

Your last statement is completely unfounded. The United States economy, while not entirely based on a completely free market, has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Even our neediest have food, shelter, and amenities that are the envy of the world.

Most educated and objective types would argue that Norway, the evil socialist nation that it is-has the highest standard of living in the world for each and every citizen. And here's the kicker: Their economy isn't going down the $hitter.

 

[Cobra]

While certainly no socialist, I do agree with Rez that at present things here are completely out of whack (and have been for a while now). While I have been a longtime supporter of the party with the elephant, the complete lopsidedness of their practices has left me rather disenfranchised. I'm all for risk takers being rewarded, for true capitalists to make a buck (and in doing so employ others). I am not in favor of Wall St. hucksters manipulating companies simply to wring the last short term dollar out of them, then sell off or shut down the pieces. To at least some degree I do understand globalization, but at the same time I am gravely concerned over how deeply we've scuttled our manufacturing sector. I simply don't believe we can remain a world leader with only service and tech as our primary industries.

Empirical evidence points to the fact that our recent economy has been built on a manipulated house of cards, which has come about through the malfeasance of BOTH parties. I will however, apportion the share of the blame for not only allowing but encouraging many of the financial shenannagins which have resulted in the demise of many of our industries to the Red party.

In turn, I will eagerly thowing the Blue party under the bus for numerous other equally stupid ideas - let's give a mortgage to any moron, whether or not they can pay it back. I simply cannot fathom stupidity of this level, and yet the Democratic party seems rife with it (will someone please tell Barney Frank that he's an imbecile? I really don't think the man realizes, and the Pelosi pack only encourage the likes of him - which certainly doesn't say much for them).

I swear, by comparison to the other two options, that nut job Perot looks better all the time (and like I said, he's damn near certifiable). No wonder we're in this mess.

To set the record straight: Most of those subprime loans, interest only loans, and option ARM loans occurred during those 12 years BEFORE this past November.

 

[pilotyip]

Most would argue that Norway, the evil socialist nation that it is-has the highest standard of living in the world for each and every citizen. And here's the kicker: There are not going down the $hitter.

Norway is a net exporting country, they sell natural resources, just like Canada they have positive balance of trade. They can spend more money on un-productive people because they are subsidized from outside the country by more revenue coming in than going out.

 

[Cobra]

Norway is a net exporting country, they sell natural resources, just like Canada they have positive balance of trade. They can spend more money on un-productive people because they are subsidized from outside the country by more revenue coming in than going out.

Still doesn't change the fact that their standard of living trumps our middle class standard of living by almost every way imaginable.

 

[Cobra]

Additionally, I have a strong suspicion that the "unproductive" types in Norway are not anything like the unproductive types we have here.