Socialist CEOs or Capitalist CEOs: Which is worse?

Ok, I'm missing something here. Socialism in it's very definition is what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are. They are owned by government. I would also include ownership by proxy, such as the supposed privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yet we all know who held the most control and sway over both. It's clearly obvious when the company is a revolving door for democrats.

Further, a socialist is anyone who believes is the basic fundamentals of socialism, namely governmental control. Can you claim any of the people from Clinton to Barney Frank, to Franklin Raines didn't hold these views?

Don't bother Andy, they're a couple of Communists who feel the need to conceal that fact by calling themselves Socialists, and as such, cannot admit that our Socialists are in fact Socialists lest it be proven by their own words that they are in fact Communists.
 
Werbung:
None of the people you quoted are Socialist. They are just supporters of the Democratic Party which is to the right of Socialist or Labor Parties.

I suppose that it is possible for democrats to be to the right of socialism, while still being far left of what America was built on, and is supposed to stand for. But I highly doubt you can actually support that view.

There are many socialists in our government, and many socialist policies in our country. The fact you do not know this, puts your knowledge of the subject in question, not mine.

Socialism promotes equality. We do not allow bankers to make millions. We allow Government banks to compete and any private banks are well regulated. Australia under Labor has one of the strongest economies in the Word. It is Socialist China that is lending and investing in the USA.

China is a capitalist economy. I've covered this before, but the Chinese have, since the reforms of 1978, far removed themselves from a socialist economy. The attempts at such failed consistently in the prior 50 some odd years of Socialistic dominance that left almost half the population below the poverty line. Socially speaking, they still try and dictate all aspects of life. But economically, China is moving every day toward a more capitalistic system.

As for Australia, the Labor party when it came to power, deregulated the financial markets. Further Australia is widely considered one of the most laissez-faire capitalist economies in the world. In fact, on the economic freedom list, Aussie land is actually higher on that list than the US. So it's not surprising that it's doing well.

Just for giggles, note who is number one on the list? Hong Kong, dominated by capitalism left by the UK, and now a model for China, to which it now belongs.

For those who may not know (likely the person I'm responding to) a "Laissez-faire Capitalist Economy", is one with the least government control, regulation, dictation, and the most freedom... virtually the maximum anti-socialistic system.

Americans labelling as socilaists anyone who disagrees with extreme right wing politics demonstrate three things

I label people who support socialist ideals, to be socialists. The people I have listed, have supported policies that are socialist by nature. You also seem to imply that anyone who supports the views that led America to go from the newest, least experienced nation in the world, to be the leaders of the entire world. In which case, we need more extremists.

1) They have been brainwashed
2) They know nothing about socialism
3) They know nothing about the US political landscape.

US political parties are either right wing (Dems) or VERY right wing (republicans).

When politicians support policies that are Stalinist in nature, how do you claim this is right wing? Basically what you are really pointing out is that you are so far beyond the left, that nearly everyone on the planet is to the right of you. That's an insane point of view, but you are more than welcome to it. Rather fitting I'd say.

The only socialists in the US are national socialists, like the ones currently in the whitehouse.

All socialists are national socialists. The fact you don't know that suggest you know little of what you speak. The very father of nationalism, was the mastermind of modern socialism, that being Stalin himself. If you don't believe me, go look up the phrase "Mother Russia". Go to the Gulags for the good of Mother Russia.

Just curious, on what topic are you educated enough to respond from an informed view point? I have yet to find one, so I am wondering if it exists.
 
Socialism is more than governtment control It has several forms but aims for more equality. Fanie May were not socialist organizations, the government did not own them . They made no attempt at equality.

An extreme socialist advocates the ownership of all the means of production . There are few of these today. Even China and Russia has private ownership of many businesses. However they are mixed economies with some government ownership.

Most socialist countries have some essential services like postal services, hospitals and schools in government hands. Some have transport like railways, electricity ,gas, telephones, Water supplies in government hands.
The USA does not fit any of these models.
 
Socialism is more than governtment control It has several forms but aims for more equality. Fanie May were not socialist organizations, the government did not own them . They made no attempt at equality.

From every definition of Socialism that I can find, none state 'equality' being a defining factor. All state the idea of government control or ownership.

I would suggest to you that Fannie Mae was and is a socialist organization. It was created by government to begin with, and it is currently owned by government now. During the time it was 'privatized', it was filled with members of government, its board of directors was filled with government appointees, and was dictated to by government policies. It's what I call "socialism by proxy". Meaning, it may technically be private, but in practice, it is run by the government.

For example, Fannie Mae did not have to follow the rules that govern any other mortgage lender in the private sector. Fannie Mae had a monopoly on FHA and VA loans, unlike the private market. Fannie Mae did not keep (I believe) 5% capital on outstanding loans, like a private lender would be required to.

As far as equality is concerned, I might remind you that the reason all this happened was because of a 90s era policy of increasing home loans to those with bad or low credit, aka subprime loans. The stated purpose of this policy was to increase minority home ownership... aka improving 'equality'.

An extreme socialist advocates the ownership of all the means of production . There are few of these today. Even China and Russia has private ownership of many businesses. However they are mixed economies with some government ownership.

Yes I'm well aware of the amazing success of Capitalism in China. Further, there are those in government who believe in such a view.

Most socialist countries have some essential services like postal services, hospitals and schools in government hands. Some have transport like railways, electricity ,gas, telephones, Water supplies in government hands.
The USA does not fit any of these models.

I never said it did. That doesn't deny the truth of my statement. I never said, or indicated that the USA was a model socialist country, just that there are socialists in government, and there are socialist companies, and there are socialist policies.

One of the quotes made by government officials during their hearings on oil policy was, to do a complete government takeover of the oil industry. When the mortgage lending bubble burst, the first call was for a take over off failing companies by the government. That... is socialism. I say the people supporting those views... are socialists. Do you not agree?
 
Andy, stop advertising your stupidity.

This coming from someone that half the people on this forum have ignored, or don't bother responding to, due explicitly to your lack of intelligent posts. I consider this a compliment.
 
No CEO in the USA is a Socialist. If the banks had been nationalises not just releace of their debts that what be socialism
 
No CEO in the USA is a Socialist. If the banks had been nationalises not just releace of their debts that what be socialism

Why do I have to repeat myself. Fannie Mae is owned.... by the government. That.... is nationalized. The CEO of Fannie Mae.... is a politician. That's a socialist.

Now... Not to be condescending... But pretend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not exist... the US Postal Service is a corporation... and it's nationalized. And for the record, similar insane abuses have been found there.

No matter how you cut it Aus22, there are CEOs in the US, that are socialist, and there are socialized corporations. This can not be denied. You will have to prove that USPS, or Fannie and Freddie are not socialized in order to even have an argument.

You can start by explaining: why would the government oversight department of FHEO, a regulator group whose purpose is to watch government entities, be watching over Fannie Mae, if indeed Fannie Mae was not a government (socialized) enterprise?

Of course... the answer is, it is socialized. And we know that because of the revolving door of democrats running the company. Private companies do not have government politicians appointed to them. You would never see a private company like Wal-Mart, have some idiot lawyer like Bill Clinton, appoint a complete ***** like Franklin Raines to be CEO, and run the company into the ground. That only happens in a Government controlled (socialized) company.

Once again, I'm using facts and logic, while being rebutted with unsupportable statements.
 
Why do I have to repeat myself. Fannie Mae is owned.... by the government. That.... is nationalized. The CEO of Fannie Mae.... is a politician. That's a socialist.

Now... Not to be condescending... But pretend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not exist... the US Postal Service is a corporation... and it's nationalized. And for the record, similar insane abuses have been found there.

No matter how you cut it Aus22, there are CEOs in the US, that are socialist, and there are socialized corporations. This can not be denied. You will have to prove that USPS, or Fannie and Freddie are not socialized in order to even have an argument.

You can start by explaining: why would the government oversight department of FHEO, a regulator group whose purpose is to watch government entities, be watching over Fannie Mae, if indeed Fannie Mae was not a government (socialized) enterprise?

Of course... the answer is, it is socialized. And we know that because of the revolving door of democrats running the company. Private companies do not have government politicians appointed to them. You would never see a private company like Wal-Mart, have some idiot lawyer like Bill Clinton, appoint a complete ***** like Franklin Raines to be CEO, and run the company into the ground. That only happens in a Government controlled (socialized) company.

Once again, I'm using facts and logic, while being rebutted with unsupportable statements.

As I've said before, this place needs some intelligent libs - one can never find any of them worthy of debate, instead you have to tutor. :rolleyes: Right about now I'd probably settle for one with an IQ over 80.
 
You guys think there are socialist CEOs and politicians in the US.

You think the wars are going well.

You think that more republican government is a good thing.

Can anyone be that stupid?
 
You guys think there are socialist CEOs and politicians in the US.

You think the wars are going well.

You think that more republican government is a good thing.

Can anyone be that stupid?

There are socialist CEOs and Politicians. Only idiots don't know this.

The war is going well. Only fools think it isn't.

More republicans in government may or may not be a good thing. Fewer socialists in government would be the best thing.

Can anyone be this stupid? Obviously from your lack of an intelligent post...
 
Werbung:
In college I brushed up against some econ and business stuff. Not much, but enough to let me get a basic grasp on how a good business is made.

Good business is made by producing a reliable product that people like. Seems simple enough. But to keep that product reliable and likeable, you need good employees who are satisfied and giving you their 100%. With me so far? So following the logic-breadcrumbs, in order to be a successful business, you need good, satisfied employees who give you 100%.

People are funny. They innately know and balk at being treated like slaves, and many have resorted to passive-aggression to take out their anger on their employer. Ie: sabotage. (Enjoy the cult movie "Office Space" in your spare time to see an illustration of this basic human edict..)

So, a company that is treating its employees as expendible and replacible slaves is in danger of being sabotaged. Sabotage leads to poor product performance and whammo, overnight a business can be put under (follow the breadcrumbs backwards now...you can do it! ;) ) by its own mistreatment of its employees.

Now, a socialist CEO would be the most successful over time. And of course the best and most profitable businesses are those that hang in to reap profits over long periods of time. We have some notable exceptions but this seems to be the rule.

Capitalistic CEOs who operate soley on greed and short-sided profiteering at the expense of their foundation, their employees, may get lucky now and then, but by and large they would be like betting on a dark horse with a fractured leg in a race. That weak bone may not break, or it may. The gamble lies with the stockholders.
 
Back
Top