What a Fascist sounds like when he opens his mouth

[Zzarchov]

Ok, 1.) Saying "Fascist" market policies is a little daft. Fascism used these policies, but they also used the concept of corporations and currency.

So thats like saying "You have companies and don't use the barter system, thats a fascist economy". Many non-fascist governments, long before fascism had existed, have used protectionism.

And if you really wanna get technical, when you evoke "Fascism" you are blatantly trying to evoke Nazi imagery, who came to power with socialist policies, up until the Night of Long Knifes when he whiped out all the brownshirts so he could gain the support of corporate interests (back when the National Socialists were Socialist and an enemy of the Fascist powers in Europe, such as Italy and Austria).

Protectionism is about as "Fascist" as having a military or a domestic intelligence agency. Yes Fascist governments have them, but most governments of any type have them.

 

[BitWhys]

Ok, 1.) Saying "Fascist" market policies is a little daft. Fascism used these policies, but they also used the concept of corporations and currency.

So thats like saying "You have companies and don't use the barter system, thats a fascist economy". Many non-fascist governments, long before fascism had existed, have used protectionism.

And if you really wanna get technical, when you evoke "Fascism" you are blatantly trying to evoke Nazi imagery...

Nonsense. What Strahl is setting up is a shining example of economic Fascism. There's no other word for it so cry me a river and can the sensationalism unless you can suggest a better term to denote right-wing collectivism. We need to learn from history, not hide in it.

 

[Zzarchov]

Nonsense?

Your applying the term second hand. As I said, Protectionism predates Fascism.

You may as well say using currency instead of barter is fascist.

What you are trying to do is blatant sensationalism, equating protectionism with military rule and secret police in Jackboots.

Call it what it is, Protectionism. Learn from history by your own words and can the 1984 double speak.

 

[BitWhys]

Nonsense?

Your applying the term second hand. As I said, Protectionism predates Fascism...

Strawman. I never said a word about protectionism, a topic which is totally extraneous to the demand-side fiddling Strahl is implementing. stop wasting space.

 

[MikeyDB]

When you munch down on that steak at the Keg or your favourite steakhouse do you honestly believe that it wasn't a fascist who inflated the price of that meat? Do you imagine for a moment that the producer...the farmer actually recieves the lions share of the price of that piece of meat?

A fascist seeks control of everything from the price of raw commodities and produce to setting the wage scale for labor. Fascists are interested in creating disparity not developing a level playing field. It's fascists like George Bush who once having achieved control over a nations spending...foments fear and outrage...sacrifices his nations youth in some ersatz altruistic endeavor...based on lies and misinformation...then funnels billions to his friends in the defence industry....

Just like the Canadian systems of Wheat Boards and Milk Boards and Egg Boards and anything and everything else that can be stolen from the producers and given to the wealthy.

 

[BitWhys]

:lol::lol::lol:

so now I'm supposed to debate with one of you who says its NOT Fascism and one of you who says its ALL Fascism.

I don't suppose I can talk you two into hashing it out and I play the winner, can I?

 

[Zzarchov]

Strawman. I never said a word about protectionism, a topic which is totally extraneous to the demand-side fiddling Strahl is implementing. stop wasting space.

Strawman back at you, you are describing protectionism and trying to shoehorn it into calling someone a fascist to sensationalise something. stop wasting space.

 

[BitWhys]

Strawman back at you, you are describing protectionism and trying to shoehorn it into calling someone a fascist to sensationalise something. stop wasting space.

This is a domestic market issue and trade has nothing to do with it.

yet

oddly enough this is one of the few times I'm glad we're pinned to Chapter 11

 

[MikeyDB]

What possible value can an agreement between two parties have in the face of the historical record illustrating the preparedness of one of those states claiming to be bound to and by some agreement choosing to ignore the agreement in question...when that's more convenient than negotiating a restatement?

There is no honor among theives. That's the substance of movies and self-fullfilling prophecies.

Agreements are semantical sculpture, symbols of intent, but they've never been a guarantee that the world will remain the same over the lifetime of some symbols scrawled on paper, nor for that matter, symbols carved into stone tablets.

The meaning of honesty, integrity, honor and morality are relativistic and necessarily so. As a climate, whether that's the envelope of gasses we breath or the atmosphere enveloping the generation of wealth, these concepts have become re-definable and fluid to accomodate perturbations in the moral fabric. One mans garbage is another mans treasure. One mans insurgency is another mans freedom fighter. No evolution of a psychological nature has occurred over the entire length of human history that could compel optomism based on "agreements" ever created between beings who deny their nature.

Like nudity, a taboo requires that sufficient numbers of believers embrace the delusion to establish the climate of choice. The only difference today is that decisions can be made in the blink of an eye that can precipitate devastation on countless numbers of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the principle issue. Only pay the price for their willingness before they're prepared to entertain alternatives.

From burgers to gasoline, we're prepared to pay any price.

 

[Zzarchov]

This is a domestic market issue and trade has nothing to do with it.

yet

oddly enough this is one of the few times I'm glad we're pinned to Chapter 11

If you don't think this has anything to do with trade, you don't understand the issue.

The most likely cause of the price of wheat plummeting (and thus the wheat board mattering) is external, not internal.

 

[BitWhys]

If you don't think this has anything to do with trade, you don't understand the issue...

First you claim I'm describing protectionism now you're entertaining the possibility I don't understand the impacts of the situation on trade at all.

pick a horse and stop trying to confuse the issue.

 

[Zzarchov]

Im quite clear on my position. You are describing protectionism, you are claiming you are not, therefore you must not understand what you are describing.

Seems pretty clear cut to me, but if you are unable to understand this without being confused (your words) then I am sorry. Perhaps this then is not the sort of topic you should post on as an expert?

 

[BitWhys]

Is that how you argue with your wife?

...Saying "Fascist" market policies is a little daft. Fascism used these policies, but they also used the concept of corporations and currency.

So thats like saying "You have companies and don't use the barter system, thats a fascist economy". Many non-fascist governments, long before fascism had existed, have used protectionism...

Fascism feeds corporations. Corporations likes Fascism.

Thought I'd mention it.

 

[BitWhys]

Im quite clear on my position...

You haven't even established what my opposing publically funded Treasury Board guarantees in a psuedo-open market has to do with protectionism.

 

[Zzarchov]

Because that is by the very nature protectionism? It protects the local market from having to compete with foreign competitors who can produce the substance for cheaper. This is done with public money.

That is the very nature of protectionism. Seriously, you don't need to keep arguing when you yourself can see the flaw in your point.

 

[BitWhys]

Protectionism is the favouring of domestic markets and its sectors by way of tariff and subsidy. Presently the Wheat Board is involved in neither.

 

[Zzarchov]

And a subsidy is what? Public money being used to prevent the collapse of a domestic industry.

And you have been decrying what since page one? Public money being used to safeguard a domestic industry. It really shouldn't require such a detailed explanation of the obvious here.

 

[BitWhys]

I just finished saying the Wheat Board is presently NOT involved in subsidizing the industry.

You WANT it to go that route?

Just because the activity can be construed as some sort of subsidy program even though doing so entirely misses the point doesn't mean its not Fascism. Since page one I've been arguing that using "our tax dollars ... used to interfere directly with and compete directly in an otherwise self-regulating market" is Fascism.

Farmers who support Strahl want the choice all to themselves, everyone else to assume the risk and nothing in return for our troubles. This ain't your daddy's Conservatism you're defending and it sure as hell ain't Socialism, either.

Since you insist it CAN be construed as a subsidy program as you say, what makes you think for a second it will stand up to a NAFTA challenge?

 

[Zzarchov]

Because its not designed to protect VS the USA. The WTO may have a problem with it, except with western farm subsidies so much larger than this, its not the top of the list.

Whether or not you call it a subsidy, its there to act as one in an emergency. If semantics were all that mattered, you could just say "this isn't a subsidy, its a tax rebate completely unrelated to their industry that just happens to only go to people in their industry". That isn't fooling anyone.

 

[BitWhys]

...The WTO may have a problem with it, except with western farm subsidies so much larger than this, its not the top of the list...

Really? I'd love to see the numbers on both existing subsidies and the projected costing of maintaining the guarantees going forward since you've referenced them, SVP.