Trump Announces Bold New Socialist Program! Part 2

PJ said, I dont understand why its a partisan issue.   Does Al Gore really piss off the right so much they cant stand to address a future with cleaner energy and more jobs?

You know it is interesting because there is a subset of conservatives that love solar and wind power. Pick up any of those magazines like American Frontiersman and there are a ton of articles on setting up solar and wind power so you can be self-reliant and off the grid.  There are a lot of YouTube videos to on how to set this stuff up made by conservative folks. Mostly it is rural folks, survivalists, and preppers that are into it and that is a very conservative group. Urban and suburban Republican elites are the ones opposed. 

Earlier today Brokeahontas claimed that with wind power you can't watch TV when the wind isn't blowing. This is the second time our dumber than a bag of hammers President has made such a claim.

DonDiego notes in passing, . . . again, . . . the inability of some posters to recognize the difference between "Socialism" and what DonDiego will designate as welfare - but might better be called redistribution of wealth, whether to farmers or to poor inner-city residents.

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Socialism - an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Either of these economic systems can co-exist with Government decisions to redistrbute income, . . .but socialist governments are more likely to institute income redistribution, because they own most income producing assets.

DonDiego generally opines Government redistribution of income is a bad idea, . . . but in the real world sometimes bad ideas are necessary.

Given the current situation with regard to, f'rinstance, soybean farmers, . . . worldwide prices are too low to permit continuation of much of the family-farming in the USA.  So the options are:

__ let the markets work and let the farmers go out of business, and maybe some bigtime corporate farms too.  __ impose real socialism by having the Government take over the farms and more likely than not reduce productivity sufficiently to raise prices for all consumers.

__ retain capitalism and subsidize the farmers with "market facilitation payments" - government-talk for subsidy payments to keep farmers in business, . . . a form of welfare.

The reader is encouraged to decide which he would prefer.

* * * * * For those interested, if any, Vox (of all sources ! ) published a pertinent article last year addressing the socialism/capitalism issue subtitled: "We need go-go capitalism to afford a generous welfare state, and people won’t support go-go capitalism without a safety net. “Socialists” and Republicans forget different parts of this lesson."

Ref: Vox

PJ, but the cost of the back up plant, and many other costs are borne by the traditional power operations.  Any cost accountant worth a penny would place this cost where it should be..........with the wind a power side.  Why is that?

You are ignoring the centralized planning aspect of this policy. As I mentioned in part one of this thread, this policy is more akin to the centralized planning of communism rather than socialism.  The tariffs in conjunction with policies that encourage farmers to continue to plant soybeans even though the demand isn't there reeks of centralized planning. If you want to classify paying people for busy work so they don't go broke as merely a welfare program that's ok, but keep in mind that a robust safety net is a hallmark of those Socialized Western European countries that makes conservatives wet their pants and shout "Venezuela." Indeed, we are going one step further as we aren't just subsidizing individual citizen farmers. We are also paying these welfare payments to big corporate industrialized agriculture a lot of which has foreign ownership. 

For years on this forum conservatives have said, any redistribution of income is socialism.  My intent with this thread was to call attention to how ridiculous that definition is as are cries of "Venezuela" whenever there is a policy conservatives disagree with.   And a point I made in the first part of this thread is if you want to tout a textbook definition of socialism then things like Medicare for all wouldn't be socialism because the government wouldn't own the means of production such as the hospitals, the doctors' offices, the pharmaceutical manufacturing plants and so on. Neither would the Green New Deal because it provides subsidies to private enterprise for converting to green energy and so on. 

I'd suggest we pick a definition of socialism for purposes of the forum and hold even those we agree with to that definition going forward.  It is either any redistribution of Income or it can't be socialism because there is no government ownership of the means of production.  It can't be both.

Backup power plants have been around much longer than solar and wind power.  And solar power alleviates  the need for the expensive backup power plants because the sun shines at the same time peak power is used  - during the day.  So you hve it completely backwards.

Mark writes: "It is either any redistribution of Income or it can't be socialism because there is no government ownership of the means of production. "

DonDiego recommends one employ the word-or-words, the definition or definitions of which apply to what one is addressing.

Income Redistribution is an economic practice which is aimed at leveling the distribution of wealth or income in a society through a direct or indirect transfer of income from rich to poor.

Socialism is an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 

As poor old DonDiego explained earlier the practice of income redistribution is inherent in a Socialist Economy (e.g. "distribution of goods") but, as in the case of farm subsidies, it can also be found in a Capitalist Economy as. 

DonDiego recommends if one is in doubt of what one is saying, one should refer to one's Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language, . . . or some similar source. 

PJ, here is a report written by Dr. Giberson.  He concludes that 50% of wind power costs are not being accounted for by the wind power manufactures.  This costs are inaccurately being borne by traditional electricity sources.  Liberals hide this cost, they are more likely to promote their agenda.

Giberson addresses the higher cost to transport wind power across the grid, due to remote locations.  Currently wind is allocated a cost assuming that wind electricy travels an "average distance" across the grid.  The truth is, wind generated power makes much longer trips across the grid.  Gibson also addresses the cost of back-up plant costs which are not allocated properly to wind.  Liberals continue to fight hard to not consider these facts.  ANYONE who wants to know the truth can find out, and I suggest that you do more reading.  There are many informative studies available if one really wishes to learn.  This is just one.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Giberson-study-Final.pdf

You can also find healthcare subsidies in a capitalist economy....but I believe "Socialism" was the favored word on this board (and the entire Republican universe )  when Obamcare passed.     And I'm quite sure DonDiego was no exception.

Universal vocabulary is a difficult concept for Republicans.

It was the first step towards taking over the health care industry.

From 2013

"What we've done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we're far from having something that's going to work forever," Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: "Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.

No....sorry.    This board never said Obamacare was a step towards socialism.   

You/They said it WAS socialism.

You/They said it was a government takeover of the healthcare system.   

So I suggest you get in a huddle with DonDiego, Boilerman, Jphelan, David Miller and the rest of the boards Obamacare critics and figure out what definition of socialism you want to stick with.   Because either Trump's subsidies and tariffs are Socialist.....or Obama's subisides and tariffs are not.

Let us know what you decide.    I'm on pins and needles.